fayez a. sayegh research center

PALESTINE MONOGRAPHS

ZIONIST COLONIALISM

IN

PALESTINE

FAYEZ A. SAYEGH

RESEARCH CENTER

PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANIZATION

ZIONIST COLONIALISM

IN PALESTINE

by

Fayez A. Sayegh, Ph.D.

Research Center * Palestine Liberation OrganizationBeirut, Lebanon

September 1965

CONTENTS

FOREWORD. Page V

II.

III.

IV.

THE HISTORICAL SETTING OFZIONIST COLONIALISM

THE ALLIANCE OF BRITISHIMPERIALISM AND ZIONISTCOLONIALISM

THE CHARACTER OF THE ZIO-NIST SETTLER-STATE

A. RacismB. Violence and Terrorism..C. Territorial Expansion . . .

THE PALESTINIANS' RES-PONSE : FROM RESISTANCE TOLIBERATION

EPILOGUE : THE LIBERATIONOF PALESTINE

APPENDIX : Texts of Resolutionson Palestine adopted at Confe-rences of African, Asian-Afri-can, and Non-Aligned States..

CHART : Participation in the Con-ferences of African, Asian-African, and Non - AlignedStates

11

21

213032

39

49

55

71

FOREWORD

The past two decades, which have witnessed theollapse of European Imperialism and the progressivelimination of Western Colonialism from Asia and Africa,

have witnessed also the introduction of a new form ofColonialism into the point-of-intersection of those twocontinents. Thus, the fading-out of a cruel and shamefulperiod of world history has coincided with the emergence,at the land-bridge between Asia and Africa, of a newoffshoot of European Imperialism and a new variety ofracist Colonialism.

The fate of Palestine thus represents an anomaly, aradical departure from the trend of contemporary worldhistory. Scores of nations and peoples have come to enjoytheir right to self-determination, at the very time whenthe Arab people of Palestine was finding itself helpless toprevent the culmination of a process of systematic coloni-zation to which Palestine had been subjected for decades.This climactic development took the combined form offorcible dispossession of the indigenous population, theirexpulsion from their own country, the inplantation of analien sovereignty on their soil, and the speedy importationof hordes of aliens to occupy the land thus emptied of itsrightful inhabitants.

The people of Palestine has lost not only politicalcontrol over its country, but pyhsical occupation of itscountry as well: it has been deprived not only of its in-alienable right to self-determination, but also of its ele-mental right to exist on its own land !

V

This dual tragedy, which befell the Arab people ofPalestine in the middle of the twentieh century, symbolizehe dual nature of the Zionist program which had begun

to unfold itself in Palestine in the late nineteenth century

I.

THE HISTORICAL SETTING

OF ZIONIST COLONIALISM

The frenzied "Scramble for Africa" of the 1880'sstimulated the beginnings of Zionist colonization inPalestine. As European fortune-hunters, prospective set-tlers, and empire-builders raced for Africa. Zionist settlersand would-be state-builders rushed for Palestine.

Under the influence of the credo of Nationalism thensweeping across Europe, some Jews had come to believethat the religious and alleged racial bonds among Jewsconstituted a Jewish "nationality" and endowed theso-called "Jewish nation" with normal national rights-including the right to separate existence in a territory ofits own, and the right to create a Jewish state. If otherEuropean nations had successfully extended themselvesinto Asia and Africa, and had annexed to their imperialdomains vast portions of those two continents, the "Jewishnation" — it was argued — was entitled and able to do thesame thing for itself. By imitating the colonial venturesof the "Gentile nations" among whom Jews lived, the"Jewish nation" could send its own colonists into a pieceof Afro-Asian territory, establish a settLer-conununity,and, in due course, set up its own state — not, indeed, asan imperial outpost of a metropolitan home-base, but asa home-base in its own right, upon which the entireJewish nation" would sooner or later converge from all

over the world. "Jewish nationalism" would thus fulfilitself through the process of colonization, which otherEuropean nations had utilized for empire-building. For

VI

2 ZIONIST COLONIALISM IN PALESTINE

Zionism, then, colonization would be the instrumentof nation-building, not the by-product of analready-fulfilled nationalism.

The improvised process of Jewish colonization inPalestine which ensued was hardly a spectacular successin spite of lavish financial subsidies from European Jewishfinanciers. By and large, Jews were more attracted by thenew opportunities for migration to the United States orArgentina, than by the call for racial self-segragation asa prelude to state-building in Palestine. The objective ofescape from anti-Jewish practices prevailing in some Euro-pean societies could be attained just as well by emigrationto America; the objective of nation-building — whichalone could make the alternative solution of large-scalecolonization in Palestine more attractive — was still farfrom widespread among European Jews in the late nine-teenth century.

The failure of the first sporadic effort to implant aZionist settler-community in Palestine during the firstfifteen years of Zionist colonization (1882-1897) promptedserious reappraisal and radical revision of strategy. Thiswas accomplished by the First Zionist Congress, held atBasle in August 1897 under the leadership of TheodorHerzl.

Haphazard colonization of Palestine, supported bywealthy Jewish financiers as a mixed philanthropic-colo-nial venture, was from then on to be eschewed. It was to

ZIONIST COLONIALISM IN PALESTINE

supplanted by a purely nationalistic program of or-'zed colonization, with clear political goals and massport. Hence the over-all objective of Zionism formul-. ky (.foe Basle Congress: " The aim of Zionism is to

reals for the Jewish people a home in Palestine securedby public lau>"W.

It is worth noting that, from the Basle Program of1897 until the Biltmore Program of 1942, Zionists prefer-red the euphmism "home" to the clear term "state" whichwould have been certain to arouse opposition in manyquarters. But in spite of public assurances to the con-trary, Zionists were aiming from the outset at the creationof a settler-stofe in Palestine. At the conclusion of theBasle Congress, Herzl wrote in his diary: "If I were tosum up the Basle Congress in one word — which I shallnot do openly — it would be this: at Basle I founded theJewish State. If I were to say this to-day, I would be metby universal laughter. In five years, perhaps, and certain-ly in fifty, every one vill see it"(2l

# * • • « •

In addition to defining the ultimate objective ofZionism, the Basle Congress made a diagnosis of the

1. Cohen, Israel, A Short History of Zionism, London, FrederickMuller Co., 1951, p. 47.

2. Herzl, TKieodor, Tage Backer, Vol. II, p. 24; quoted in Co-hen, Israel, A short History of Zionism, op. cit., pp. 11and 47-48.


special character and circumstances of Zionist colonizationin Palestine, and formulated a practical program suited tothose special conditions. Three essential features in

particular differentiated Zionist colonization in Palestinefrom European colonization elsewhere in Asia and Africa,and called for Zionist innovations:

(1) Other European settlers who had gone (or werethen going) to other parts of Africa and Asia had beenanimated either by economic or by politico-imperialistmotives: they had gone either in order to accumulatefortunes by means of privileged and protected exploitationof immense natural resources, or in order to prepare theground for (or else aid and abet) the annexation ofthose coveted territories by imperial European govern-ments. The Zionist colonists, on the other hand, wereanimated by neither impulse. They were driven to thecolonization of Palestine by the desire to attain nation-hood for themselves, and to establish a Jewish state whichwould be independent of any existing government andsubordinate to none, and which would in due courseattract to its territories the Jews of the world.

(2) Other European settlers could coexist with theindigenous populations — whom they would exploit anddominate, but whose services they would neverthelessrequire, and whose continued existence in the covetedterritory they would therefore tolerate. But the Zionistsettlers could not countenance indefinite coexistence withthe inhabitants of Palestine. For Palestine was fullypopulated by Arabs, whose national consciousness hadalready been awakened, and who had already begun tonurse aspirations of independence and national fulfillment.

ZIONIST COLONIALISM IN PALESTINE 5

7'onist colonization could not possibily assume theliysicul proportions envisaged by Zionism while the Arab

pie Of Palestine continued to inhabit its homeland; norould the Zionist political aspirations of racial self-seg-

regation and statehood be accomplished while thenationally-conscious Arab people of Palestine continued toexist in that country. Unlike European colonizationelsewhere, therefore, Zionist colonization of Pa-lestine was essentially incompatible with the con-tinued existence of the "native population" in thecoveted country.

(3) Other European settlers could, without muchdifficulty, overcome the obstacles obstructing their settle-ment in their chosen target-territories: they could counton receiving adequate protection from their imperialsponsors. But the prospective Zionist colonizers ofPalestine could count on no such facilities. For, in ad-dition to the Arab people of Palestine, certain to resistany large-scale influx of settlers loudly proclaiming theirobjective of dispossessing the "natives", the Zionists werelikely to encounter also the resistance of the Ottomanauthorities, who could not view with favor the establish-ment, on an important segment of their Empire, of analien community harboring political designs of indepen-dent statehood.

^ It was in order to counteract these peculiar factors1 s situation that the Zionist Movement, while defining

mate objective at the First Zionist Congress, pro-

ZIONIST COLONIALISM IN PALESTINEZIONIST COLONIALISM IN PALESTINE

ceeded to formulate an appropriate practical program as

well. This program called for action along three lines:organization, colonization, and negotiation.

(1) The organizational efforts were given supremepriority; for, lacking a state-structure in a home-base ofits own to master-mind and supervise the process of over-seas colonization, the Zionist Movement required a quasi,state apparatus to perform those functions. The WorldZionist Organization — with its Federations of localsocieties, its Congress, its General Council, and its Cen-tral Executive — was established at Basle in order to play

that role.

(2) The instruments of systematic colonizationwere also promptly readied. The "Jewish Colonial Trust"(1898), the "Colonization Commission" (1898), the "JewishNational Fund" (1901), the "Palestine Office" (1908) andthe "Palestine Land Development Company" (1908), wereamong the first institutions established by the ZionistOrganization. Their joint purpose was to plan, finance,and supervise the process of colonization, and to ensurethat it would not meet the same fate which the earlierexperiment of haphazard colonization had met.

(3) While the instruments of colonization werebeing laboriously created, diplomatic efforts were alsobeing exerted to produce political conditions that wouldpermit, facilitate, and protect large-scale colonization.

At the beginning, these efforts were focused mainlyon the Ottoman Empire, then in control of the politicalfortunes of Palestine. Direct approaches to the Ottoman

thorities were made ; lucrative promises of financialnts and loans were dangled before the eyes of the

c Iran' and European Powers were urged to intercede at, porte on behalf of the Zionist Organization, in order

rsuade fae Sultan to grant the Organization a Charterf r an autonomous Zionist settlement in Palestine. Other(forts were exerted to induce the German Emperor tondorse the creation of a Chartered Land Development

Company, which would be operated by Zionists in Pales-tine under German protection. Still other attempts weremade to obtain permission from the British Governmentto establish an autonomous Zionist settlement in the SinaiPeninsula, as a stepping-stone towards colonization inPalestine. But none of these efforts bore fruit.

By the end of the first decade following the inaugu-ration of the new Zionist Movement in 1897, Zionism hadmade little progress towards putting its elaborate coloni-zation apparatus to work, and had scored even less successin its political efforts to obtain governmental permissionand facilities for colonization in Palestine.

Its hopes for de jure colonization shattered, Zionismshifted its strategy once more, and turned to de factocolonization — hoping to gain thereby some politicalleverage which would serve it in good stead when thetime came for renewal of its attempts to secure politicalrecognition. In 1907/1908, therefore, a new phase of

'onist colonization was inaugurated, without prior "lega-'zation" or sponsorship by a European Power. It was

ZIONIST COLONIALISM IN PALESTINE ZIONIST COLONIALISM IN PALESTINE

more consciously nationalistic in impulse, more militantlysegregationist in its attitude towards the Palestinian Arabs,and more concerned with strategic and political consider-ations in its selection of locations for its new settlements.But, for all its enhanced dynamism and sharpened ideolo-gical consciousness, the second wave of Zionist coloniza-tion was not appreciably more successful than the first,as far as its magnitude was concerned.

By the outbreak of the first World War, therefore,the Zionist colonization of Palestine had met with onlymodest success in over thirty years of action. In the firstplace, Zionists were still an infinitesimal minority of about1% of the Jews of the world. Their activities had arousedthe fear and opposition of other Jews, who sought thesolution of the "Jewish Problem" in "assimilation" inWestern Europe and the United States, not in "self-segre-gation" in Palestine. In the second place, Zionist coloni-zation had proceeded very slowly. After thirty years ofimmigration to Palestine, Jews were still under 8% of thetotal population of the country, in possession of no morethan 2 1/2% of the land. And, in the third place,Zionism had failed to obtain political endorsement fromthe Ottoman authorities controlling Palestine, or from anyEuropean Power.

The War, however, created new circumstances whichwere destined to improve considerably the fortunes ofZionist colonization in Palestine. For the War set thestage for an alliance — concluded in 1917 — betweenBritish Imperialism and Zionist Colonialism, which, duringthe following thirty years, opened the gates of Palestineto Zionist colonizers, facilitated the establishment of a

Zionist settler-community, and paved the way for thedispossession and expulsion of the Arab people of Pales-tine and the creation of the Zionist settler-state in 1948.

Whereas unilateral Zionist colonization failed, in thethirty years preceding the First World War, to make muchheadway, the alliance of Zionist Colonialism and BritishImperialism succeeded, during the thirty years followingthe First World War, in accomplishing the objectives ofboth parties.

IITHE ALLIANCE OF BRITISH IMPERIALISM

AND ZIONIST COLONIALISM

Until the First World War, Britain's policy in theMiddle East had revolved around the maintenance of the'ntegrity of the Ottoman Empire in Asia. The Europeandomains of the Empire had been emancipated from Ot-toman domination, and the North African domains hadbeen annexed by various European Powers, long beforethe War; but the Asian domains had been insulated inthe meantime from the imperial rivalries of the EuropeanPowers. Britain's imperial interests in the area — namely,control over the Suez Canal, and immunization of theregion from rival European domination over the "overlandroute" to India — were better served by a tractable Ot-toman Empire than they would have been by a European"Scramble for the Middle East", which might havebrought one or another of Britain's European rivals to thevicinity of the Canal or athwart the "overland route".

When Turkey joined the Central Powers in the War,however, the premises of Britain's imperial policy for theMiddle East were shattered overnight. Alternative policiesfor the post-War period had to be made.

At first, Britain envisaged a new order for theMiddle East, in which Arab autonomy would supplantOttoman imperial. ule in South-West Asia. Anglo-Arabagreements to that effect, concluded in the fall of 1915,led to the Arab Revolt against Turkey in 1916.

But the pressures of other European Powers — then

11

12 ZIONIST COLONIALISM IN PALESTINE ZIONIST COLONIALISM IN PALESTINE 13

wartime allies of Britain — precluded sole British overlordship. Secret agreements were therefore reached i*the spring of 1916 between Britain, France, and TsaristRussia, for division of the Ottoman spoils.

These agreements, however, soon proved irksome tothe more empire-minded among Britain's policy-makers.For they threatened to bring France perilously close to theeastern approaches to the Suez Canal. And as Britishfeelings of security (predicated on the belief in the im-penetrability of the Sinai Peninsula) had been destroyedby recent wartime experiences, it came to be felt that notonly Sinai, but also Palestine, must be made safe in orderthat the Canal might be rendered secure. The 1916 Anglo-French agreement, providing for the internationalizationof most of Palestine, came therefore to be viewed withalarm by empire-minded British statesmen; and the stakingof French claims to the entirety of Palestine could hardlyhave served to allay the aroused apprehensions of Britishimperialists.

By early 1917, a new British cabinet was activelysearching for ways and means for extricating itself fromthe agreements which its predecessor had reached withFrance for the post-War division of the spoils of war inthe Arab domains of the Ottoman Empire. It was ai thatpoint that formerly abortive Zionist attempts to secureBritish support for a Zionist-dominated Palestine werere-activated, at Britain's instigation.

Reciprocal interests had thus come to bind BritishImperialism and Zionist Colonialism. On the one hand,Britain, by utilizing Zionist influence in the United States

anon

d inFrance, would avert international rule in Palestine,

'the pretext that a British-sponsored program of ZionistU"l nization required British rule in Palestine. On the

, hand, by playing a catalytic role in bringing about, Designation of Britain as the ruling Power in Palestine,

/• nism would at last be able to embark upon the long-vaited program of large-scale colonization in the coveted

territory under the auspices and protection of a Greatpower. Britain would have the assurance that an embat-tled Zionist settler-community would remain indefinitelydependent upon Britain's protection, and would continueto require (and j u s t i f y ) British presence in Palestine;while, for its part, Zionism would also have the assurancethat Britain, bound in terna t ional ly by its war t ime com-mitment to f ac i l i t a t e Zionist colonization, would providethe Zionist sett ler-community with the protection itneeded, during the formative stages of its establishment,against expected Arab opposition. The alliance of con-venience and mutual need, binding British Imperialismand Zionist Colonialism, was complete.

Preliminary Zionist efforts in Washington to secureAmerica's approval were not unsuccessful —notwithstand-mg President Wilson's emphasis on the principle of self-determination, with which the Zionist colonization ofPalestine despite Arab opposition would clash headlong.Nor were simultaneous Zionist efforts in Paris, to secure

rench approval of the revision of earlier Anglo-Frencha8reernents on the future of Palestine, entirely discourag-


ing. With such preparatory work out of the way, Brit9'announced its policy-statement of 2 November ig^commonly known as the Balfour Declaration, proclaim^its support for the establishment of a Jewish "Nation |Home" in Palestine. According to plan, the Zionists therequested the Peace Conference to confer the Palestir,Mandate on Britain. Britain, in turn, incorporated itundertaking, first enunciated in the Balfour Declarationin the text of the Palestine Mandate. The path was no\clear, for both British Imperialism and Zionist Colonialis^to pursue jointly their respective objectives.

Britain lost no time in creating the appropriateconditions for Zionist colonization. It appointed a ZionistJew as its first High Commissioner in Palestine. Itrecognized the World Zionist Organization as a repre-sentative "Jewish Agency". It opened the gates of Pales-tine to massive Zionist immigration, despite Arab protests.It transferred state lands to the Zionists for colonization,It protected the institutions of the fledgling "NationalHome". It permitted the Zionist community to run itsown schools and to maintain its military establishment(the Haganah). It trained mobile Zionist striking forces(the Palmach), and condoned the existence of "under-ground" terrorist organizations (the Stern group and theIrgun). No wonder that, by the mid-thirties, a BritishRoyal Commission had come to describe the Zionistsettler-community in Palestine as a "state within a state •In the meantime, the Arab majority — while constant')assured that Britain would see to it that its rights wouMnot be "prejudiced" by the rapid growth of the ZionlS

settler-community — was denied analogous facilities andeprived of the means for self-protection.

After thirty years of British rule, the Zionist settler-munity grew to twelve times its size in 1917, and

to represent a little under one-third of the totalulation of Palestine. In the meantime, it had develop-

, uncjer the auspices of the Mandatory Power, its own' ^governmental institutions and a sizable military

establishment.

* • « • • « •

But Britain had not entered into the partnership withZionism in Palestine solely in order to serve the purposesof Zionist Colonialism; it had expected the partnershipto serve, equally, the purposes of British Imperialism aswell. Whenever Zionism sought to accelerate the pro-cesses of state-building (which would eventually renderBritain's continued presence in Palestine neither necessarynor desirable in Zionist eyes), Britain pulled in the oppo-site direction to slow them down.k The Second WorldWar precipitated the showdown, which in the end broughtabout the dissolution of the Anglo-Zionist Alliance.

By the end of the Second World War, Britain'swartime enfeeblement, and the imminent independenceof India, had led to a relative diminution of Britain'sinterest in the Alliance, while the growing opposition ofnewly-emerging Arab States to Britain's role in Palestinehad forced Britain to exercise some restraint in its former-ly whole-hearted support for the Zionist cause. On theother hand, the advent of the United States as an activeWorld Power, with economic and strategic interests in"e Middle East, and the growing responsiveness of

16 ZIONIST COLONIALISM IN PALESTINEZIONIST COLONIALISM IN PALESTINE 17

American politicians to the Zionist cause, offered Zionismthe prospects of an alternative Western sponsor for the

new fateful phase of its capture of Palestine.

In the mid-forties, therefore, Zionist colonization ofPalestine, sheltered and nursed for thirty years by BritishImperialism, was ready to look for a more powerful andmore militant supporter to see it through the forthcomingstruggle for outright statehood; and the United Stateswas available as a willing candidate that admirably fittedthe requirements of Zionism.

If the League of Nations was the instrumentselected for bestowing upon the Anglo-Zionistpartnership a semblance of international respect-ability, the United Nations was selected for asimilar purpose by the American-Zionist entente.Britain had prevailed upon a predominantly Eu-ropean League to endorse a program of EuropeanZionist colonization in Palestine: the United Statesled a European-American majority to overrule theopposition of an Afro-Asian minority in the GeneralAssembly, and to endorse the establishment of acolonial Zionist state in the Afro-Asian bridge, theArab land of Palestine. For, apart from the Union ofSouth Africa, itself ruled by an alien settler-minority, noAsian or African country spoke in favor of the "partitionplan" proposed to the General Assembly by its SpecialCommittee on Palestine; and, although in the final voteon 29 November 1947, one Asian and one African country(other than the Union of South Africa) did vote for theadoption of the recommendation, enthusiastic support forthe proposal came exclusively from Europe, Australasia/

and the Western Hemisphere. An alien state was to beplanted in the land link between Asia and Africawithout the free consent of any neighboring African

or Asian country.

It was at that stage in the tragic history of Palestinetha t Palestinian Arabs — debilitated by thirty years ofBrit ish suppression — proved incapable of withstandingthe assault of the Zionist community, organized andtrained and armed as it was, and supported by theEuropean-American internat ional community of the day.

The Arab people of Palestine lost not only the battlefor the political control of its own country — it lost itscountry as well. Palestinians were forcibly expelled fromtheir homeland ; and their land, thus ruthlessly emptiedof its r ightful inhabitants, was opened for a well-organizedand liberally-financed new wave of colonization, speedilyexecuted in order to create a seeming f a i t accompli, thereversal of which world public opinion would be reluctantto urge.

The alliance of Zionist Colonialism with one WesternImperial Power was momentarily dissolved, af ter it hadserved its purpose ; but it was simultaneously reincarnatedm a new form, to suit the new world circumstances andthe new stage of Zionist Colonialism. As one Westernsponsor retreated to the background, other WesternsPonsors rushed to the foreground. Zionist Colonialismmade a tactical change of allies — but did not abandon


the strategy of imperialist alliances as such. For, withthe umbilical cord linking the Zionist settler-comrnunwith its extra-regional sources of supply and powerhas and can have little ability of its own to survive.

outity

Even the alliance with British Imperialism was djs

solved only momentarily. For, when the time came f0

a revised British imperial strategy, under altered worldcircumstances, to seek fulfillment through a new alignmentwith Zionist Colonialism — which was then aiming, in its

new status as a state, at new objectives of territorialexpansion — collusion between the old allies, along withthe Fourth French Republic, was readily arranged. The

1956 invasion of Egypt promptly ensued.

And, when the collapse of the Fourth Republic inFrance and the chastening experience of Britain in Suezmade it inexpedient for the Zionist settler-state to continueto depend upon those two countries for the tools of furtheraggressiveness, Zionism appears to have found little diffi-culty in recruiting another European Power to serve as asupplier of aggressive weapons. At the bidding of theUnited States, the Federal Republic of Germany rushed tofill the vacuum — supplementing massive economic aid(which a tormented German conscience, cleverly manipu-lated by World Zionism, had prevailed upon the FederalRepublic to extend to the Zionist settler-state under thealias of "reparations") with massive military gifts, secretlyagreed upon and stealthily given.

* - « • - » •

But, for all the means of survival it manages to

now from one Western Power and now fromther, the Zionist settler-state remains an alien bodythe region. Not only its vital and continuing

sociation with European Imperialism, and its• troduction into Palestine of the practices of West-

rn Colonialism, but also its chosen pattern ofracial exclusiveness and self-segregation rendersit an alien society in the Middle East. No wordscould better describe the essentially alien character of theZionist settler-state than the following passage, writtenby its veteran Prime Minister :

"The State of Israel is a part of the Middle Eastonly in geography, which is, in the main, a staticelement. From the decisive aspects of dynamism,creation and growth, Israel is a part of world Jewry.From that Jewry it will draw all the strength and themeans for the forging of the nation in Israel and thedevelopment of the Land; through the might of worldJewry it will be built and built again."(3)

3) Ben-Gurion, David, Rebirth and Destiny of Israel, NewPhilosophical Library, 1954, p. 489.

Ill

THE CHARACTER OF THE ZIONIST

SETTLER-STATE

Apart from its vital link with Imperialism and its. escapable status as a total stranger to the Middle East,. ^e heart of which it has chosen to plant itself, thepolitical embodiment of Zionist Colonialism (namely, theZionist settler-state of Israel) is characterized chiefly bythree features : (1) its racial complexion and racist con-duct pattern ; (2) its addiction to violence; and (3) itsexpansionist stance,

A. Racism

Racism is not an acquired trait of the Zionist settler-state. Nor is it an accidental, passing feature of the Israeliscene. It is congenital, essential, and permanent. Forit is inherent in the very ideology of Zionism and in thebasic motivation for Zionist colonization and statehood.

Zionism is the belief in the national oneness of allJews — who are identified as such in terms of their sup-posedly common ancestry. Neither religion nor languagecomprises the alleged "national bond" of Jews, accordingto the Zionist creed: for relatively few Zionists are in factbelieving or practicing Jews; and the Hebrew languagewas resuscitated only after the birth of Zionism. Recentegislation and precedent-making court decisions in the

2l°nist state, as well as the political literature of the'onist Movement since its inception, would appear to

cate that it is ancestry — the sheer biological fact of


descent from other Jews — that makes a person "Jewish"in Zionist eyes.

Zionist racial identification produces three corol-laries : racial self-segregation, racial exclusiveness, andracial supremacy. These principles constitute the coreof the Zionist ideology.

The primordial impulse for Zionist Colonialism is thepursuit of "national self-realization" by the "Jewishnation", by means of territorial regrouping and indepen-dent statehood. Racial self-segregation is therefore thequintessence of Zionism.

By its very nature, racial self-segregation precludesintegration or assimilation. From Herzl to Weizmann,from Ben Gurion to Goldmann, the leaders of Zionismhave all believed and preached that the chief enemy ofZionism is not Gentile "anti-Semitism" but Jewish "as-similation". "Anti-Semitism" and Zionism thws agree onthe basic premise : that all Jews are one nation, withcommon national characteristics and a common nationaldestiny. The difference between them is that, whereas"anti-Semitism" disdains the alleged "national character-istics" of Jews and delights in Jewish suffering, Zionismidealizes those fancied characteristics and strives to bringall Jews together into a single Jewish state, to which evenmoderate Zionists attribute a "special mission".

According to the Zionist creed, "assimilation" is theloss of "Jewish identity"; it is the prelude to the "dissolu-tion" and "elimination" of the "Jewish nation". "Self'segregation" is the Zionist retort to the call for "Jewish

irnilation" ; for "self-segregation" is envisioned as ther pathway to national "redemption", "salvation", and

"fulfillment".

By the same logic, by virtue of which it uncompro-lisingly repudiates the assimilation of Jews into non-

Jewish societies, the fundamental Zionist principle ofial self-segregation also demands racial purity and

racial exclusiveness in the land in which Jewish self-seg-regation is to be attained. As such, the Zionist credo ofracial self-segregation necessarily rejects the coexistenceOf Jews and non-Jews in the land of Jewish regrouping.Coexistence with non-Jewish communities — includingthe indigenous inhabitants — in the territory in whichJews are to be assembled is as much of a blemish on theimage of pure Zionist racism as is continued Jewishresidence in the lands of the Gentiles, i.e., the lands ofso-called "Jewish exile".

The Zionist ideal of racial self-segregation demands,with equal imperativeness, the departure of all Jews fromthe lands of their "exile" and the eviction of all non-Jewsfrom the land of "Jewish destination", namely, Palestine.Both are essential conditions of "Zionist fulfillment" andJewish "national redemption".

It is only in such a condition of thoroughgoing self-segregation that "Jewish superiority" can at last manifestitself, according to the teachings of Zionism: the "ChosenPeople" can attain its "special destiny" only when it isall together and all by itself.


Herein lies an important difference between Zionistracism and other forms of European racism familiar, since

the advent of Colonialism, to the peoples of Asia andAfrica. Race-supremacist European settlers elsetuhere in

Asia and Africa have, by and large, found it possible 'to express their "supremacy" over the other strands Of"lesser peoples" and "inferior races" within the frameworkof "hierarchical racial coexistence". Separate and unequalthe European colonists and the "natives" have on thewhole coexisted in the same colony or protectorateThough they have openly disdained the "natives", ruth-lessly suppressed them, and methodically discriminatedagainst them, European colonists have as a rule deemedthe continued presence of the indigenous populations"useful" for the colonists themselves; and, as such, theyhave reserved for the "natives" all the menial functionsand assigned to them inferior roles in the settler-domi-nated societies. Not so the Zionists ! Race-supremacistZionist settlers in Palestine have found it necessary tofollow a different course, more in harmony with theirideological system. They have expressed their fancied"supremacy" over the Arab "natives", first, by isolatingthemselves from the Arabs in Palestine and, later on, byevicting the Arabs from their homeland.

Nowhere in Asia or Africa — not even in SouthAfrica or Rhodesia — has European race-suprema-cism expressed itself in so passionate a zeal forthoroughgoing racial exclusiveness and for physicalexpulsion of "native" populations across the fron-tiers of the settler-state, as it has in Palestine, underthe compulsion of Zionist doctrines. (Perhaps thisdivergence of Zionism from the norm of European colo-

• tion rnay be explained in terms of the fact that con-• ug dedication to the racist doctrines inherent in the

, |ogy of Zionism has preceded, stimulated, inspired,j a(. every stage guided the process of Zionist coloniza-

• n in Palestine — at least since the inauguration of thenew Zionist Movement in 1897.)

So long as they were powerless to dislodge the indig-enous Arabs of Palestine (the vast majority of thecountry's population), Zionist colonists were content with(whiting themselves from the Arab community and insti-tuting a systematic boycott of Arab produce and labor.Accordingly, from the earliest days of Zionist colonization,the principle was established that only Jewish labor wouldbe employed in Zionist colonies. The "Jewish Agency",the "Jewish National Fund", the "Palestine FoundationFund", and the "Jewish Federation of Labor" vigilantlyensured the observance of that fundamental principle ofZionist colonization.

Contentment with boycotting the Arabs of Palestineinstead of evicting them from their country was, however,only a tactical and temporary suspension of the Zionistdogma of racial exclusiveness. It was forced uponZionism by the circumstances surrounding the early stagesof Zionist colonization. And it was viewed as a necessaryevil, to be endured only so long as a more rigorous appli-cation of the racist doctrines of Zionism was preventedby extraneous factors beyond the control of the ZionistMovement. The ultimate aim of ousting the Arab inhab-tfartts of Palestine in order to make possible the incarna-10n of the principle of racial exclusiveness, though

ornentarily suspended, was never abandoned, however.


As early as 1895, Herzl was busy devising a plan t

"spirit the penniless population across the frontier bvdenying it employment"(4); and, in 1919, Weizmann vvas

forecasting the creation of a Palestine that would be "a

Jewish as England is English"(5), and defining the Zionistprogram in terms of building "a nationality which wouldbe as Jewish as the French nation was French and theBritish nation British"(6). Thus, although it was not until1948 that the Zionist aim was at last fulfilled, through theforcible expulsion of the majority of the Palestinian Arabsfrom their homeland, the objective of de-Arabizing Pales-tine (as a requirement of Zionizing that country) had beenentertained by the Zionist Movement since its inception.

The Zionist concept of the "final solution" tothe "Arab problem" in Palestine, and the Nazi con-cept of the "final solution" to the "Jewish problem"in Germany, consisted essentially of the same basicingredient: the elimination of the unwanted humanelement in question. The creation of a "Jew-freeGermany" was indeed sought by Nazism throughmore ruthless and more inhuman methods than

4) Herzl, Theodor, Complete Diaries, Vol. I, 1960, p. 88. (Entryof 12 June 1895 ; quoted in Childers, Erskine B., "Palestine'The Broken Triangle", in Journal of International Affairs,

Vol. XIX, No. 1, 1965, p. 93).

5) Weizmann, Chaim, Trial and Error, New York, Harper and

Brothers, 1949, p. 244.

6) Quoted in The Political History of Palestine Under BrittA

Administration, Jerusalem, Government Printer, 1947, ?•(paragraph 12).

the creation of an "Arab-free Palestine" ac-*"" plished by the Zionists : but behind the dif-. rence in techniques lay an identity of goals.

* * *

If racial discrimination against the "inferior natives"was the motto of race-supremacist European settler-re-cirrtes in Asia and Africa, the motto of the race-supremacistZionist settler-regime in Palestine was racial elimination.Discriminatory treatment has been reserved by the Zi-onists for those remnants of the Palestinian Arab peoplewho have stubbornly stayed behind in their homeland inspite of all efforts to dispossess and evict them, and indefiance of the Zionist dictum of racial exclusiveness. Itis against these remnants of the rightful inhabitants ofPalestine that Zionist settlers have revealed the behavioralpatterns of racial supremacy, and practiced the preceptsof racial discrimination, already made famous by otherracist European colonists elsewhere in Asia and Africa.

In fact, in its practice of racial discrimination againstthe vestiges of Palestinian Arabs, the Zionist settler-statehas learned all the lessons which the various discrimina-tory regimes of white settler-states in Asia and Africa canteach it. And it has proved itself in this endeavor anardent and apt pupil, not incapable of surpassing its teach-es. For, whereas the Afrikaner apostles of apartheid'n South Africa, for example, brazenly proclaim their sin,the Zionist practitioners of apartheid in Palestine beguil-In8'y protest their innocence !

* • » • - » •


The remnants of Palestine's Arabs who have continued to live in the Zionist settler-state since 1948 havtheir own "Bantustans", their "native reserves", the]"Ghettoes" — although the institution which they en

counter in their daily lives is given by the Zionist authorities the euphemistic name, "security zone".

About 90 % of the Arabs living under Israel's juris-diction live in such "security zones".

Alone in the Zionist settler-state, these Arabs liveunder martial law. Whereas, in other parts of the coun-try, civil administration prevails, in the Arab-inhabited"security zones" the administrative functionaries aremilitary officers, serving under the Ministry of Defence.Arabs charged with offenses under the martial law inforce in the "security zones" (the "Emergency [Defence]Regulations") are prosecuted before military tribunals,the decisions of which are not appealable. Deportationand forced residence, by fiat of the Military Governor, arecommonplace.

Alone in the Zionist settler-state, Arab inhabitantsof the "security zones" are subject to the pass system,which harshly restricts their movement and travel.

Alone in the Zionist settler-state, Arabs are deniedthe basic rights of expression, assembly, and association.They are not permitted to publish newspapers or to formpolitical organizations.

Educational opportunities for Arabs are severelyrestricted ; the higher the level of education, the more

•jiTiinatory the restriction of opportunities. Nor isjjgcri**—ruality of the educational system to which Arabs have

j ,proportionately-limited access faintly comparable toV'e ecjucational system open to Jews.

Economically, Arabs in the Zionist settler-state sufferi- rn a threefold handicap : their limited access to employ-

er^ opportunities creates large-scale unemployment;,uch employment as they are permitted to obtain is con-fined largely to menial services ; and they are denied theright to "equal pay for equal work".

The agricultural lands and homes of the Arabs of theZionist settler-state are subject to confiscation by admin-istrative decree, under a succession of drastic laws,introduced by the state between 1948 and 1953, whichdeny aggrieved owners the ability to seek redress throughthe courts. Whole Arab villages have been expropriatedand given to Jews for the establishment of Zionist settle-ments.

Arab participation in the administration of the Zionistsettler-state, on any level of meaningful responsibility, isvirtually unknown ; in most government departments,Arab participation on any level is completely non-existent.Even in the government office charged with Arab affairs,no Arab is employed !

Finally, the enjoyment by Arabs of the elementaryn8nt to citizenship in their own country is curtailed by^tutory discrimination. - Whereas a Jew, under the

"onality Law, is eligible for citizenship immediatelyn arrival, indigenous Arabs of the Zionist settler-state


are subject to a system of qualified eligibility which hasleft a majority of Israel's Arabs languishing in the Iimb0

of non-citizenship.

B. Violence and Terrorism

Habitual resort to force, by the military or para-mill,tary arms of the Zionist settler-state, has been directedprincipally against the Arabs — whose very existence ;n

the land coveted by the Zionists rendered them automat-ically the primary and the ultimate target of Zionisthostility. But this addiction to violence has not beentotally confined, in its manifestations, to Zionist relationswith the Arabs. Towards the end of the British Mandate— when the alliance of British Imperialism and ZionistColonialism, having served its purpose, was beginning toundergo the strains which finally led to its dissolution —the para-military and terrorist Zionist organizations(which Britain had respectively aided and condoned fordecades) turned against the British garrison and Britishcivil authorities in Palestine. And, after the outbreak ofZionist-Arab hostilities in Palestine, and the advent ofUnited Nations mediators and truce observers, Zionistviolence turned against the international personnel also.The assassination of the first United Nations Mediator andhis military aide, end the occasional detention of UnitedNations observers, have served notice that no one whostands athwart the path of Zionism is immune from Zi-onist vengeance.

But, obviously, it is against the Arabs that Zionistviolence has been most long-lasting, most methodic*1*and most ruthless.

Prenatally and at birth, the Zionist settler-stateregorted to violence as its chosen means of intimidatingthe Arabs of Palestine and evicting them. Such massacresas those which were perpetrated at Dair Yaseen, Ain ez-Zaitoun, and Salah ed-Deen (in April, 1948) were calcu-lated measures in a formal program of eviction-by-ter-rorization.

Since its establishment, the Zionist settler-state hasturned its violence both inwardly and outwardly : againstthe Arabs remaining under its jurisdiction, and againstthe neighboring Arab states.

In the Zionist-occupied territories of Palestine, massa-cres and other outrages visited upon such Arab townsand villages as Iqrith (December, 1951), Al-Tirah (July,1953), Abu Ghosh (September, 1953), Kafr Qasim (Octo-ber, 1956), and Acre (June, 1965) have been the mostinfamous — but by no means the only — instances of aprogram of racial hate elevated to the level of state policyand efficiently executed by the official apparatus of thestate.

To these instances must be added the large-scalepogroms unleashed on the Arab population of Gaza andKhan Younis during the brief but eventful period ofZionist occupation of the area, in the wake of the Tripar-tite Invasion of Egypt in 1956.

Systematic military attacks on the territories ofneighboring Arab states are perhaps the most widelyKnown manifestations of Israel's ready resort to violence' for many of these attacks were fully discussed by the


United Nations Security Council. In addition to fkfull-scale mar, launched jointly by Zionist Colonialjand British and French Imperialism against Egypt in igs

and deplored by the General Assembly in six resolutioadopted between 2 November 1956 and 2 February 1957smaller-scale attacks on Hamma (April, 1951), Qibjv'(October, 1953), Gaza (February, 1955), and across I_akTiberias (December, 1955, and March, 1962) were dulycondemned by the Security Council, on 18 May 195124 November 1953, 29 March 1955, 19 January 1956, and9 April 1962, respectively. Other attacks, too numerousto cite individually, have elicited similar condemnationsfrom the competent Mixed Armistice Commissions.

C. Territorial Expansion

No student of the behavioral pattern of the ZionistMovement and the modus operandi of the Zionist settler-state can fail to realize that Zionist attainments at anygiven moment, if they fall short of the standing objectiveconstantly aimed at by the Zionist Movement, are onlytemporary stations along the road to ultimate self-fulfill-ment and not terminal points of the Zionist journey —notwithstanding the assurances to the contrary which aresolemnly given by Zionist and Israeli leaders.

For example, although from 1897 until 1942 the officialleaders of Zionism constantly denied in public any inten-tion of seeking "statehood", emphasizing that it was mere-ly a "home" that they were after, the internal documents ofthe Movement and the diaries of its leaders clearly indicatethat, notwithstanding public disavowals, it was indeedstatehood that was the objective of Zionism all along.

oal of establishing a Zionist state, first admitted, jn 1942, was attained six years later.)

Similarly/ unt i l 1948, the leaders of Zionism weretant ly assuring the world that they harbored no inten-of dispossessing or evicting the Arabs of Palestine

n their homeland —although evidence abounds that, in• t they were aiming at nothing less than the thorough7 onization and de-Arabization of Palestine from the verybeginning; and, when the opportunity arose in 1948,Zionists wasted no time in pushing the Arabs across thefrontiers.

In these two vital matters, the true aims of Zionismhad been well known to all students and close observersof the Movement; the Zionist stratagem of public dis-avowal was merely a smoke-screen designed to concealthe true and unchanging objectives, in order to gain timefor preparing the ground for the right move at the rightmoment.

Territorial extent is a third element of the Zionistplan, regarding which the same stratagem of deceptivepublic disavowal has been utilized. It differs from theother two elements (viz., statehood and eviction of Arabs)only in that, whereas these two aims have been realizedand the camouflage has finally been removed, the third aim(viz., territorial expansion) remains only partly realized,and the veil remains only partially lifted.

The perennial aim of Zionism was and still is state-h°od in all of Palestine (called by Zionists "Eretz Israel",°r the Land of Israel), completely emptied of its Arabs.


The minimum defini t ion of the terr i tor ia l scope of pa]e

tine, as Zionism envisions it, was officially formula ted j1919 ; and it covers about double the area current]occupied by the Zionist set t ler-state. I t includes __ jpresent geographical terminology — the Kingdom of Jorda ,(on both sides of the River) , the "Gaza strip", Soutl ic r n

Lebanon, and Southern and Southwestern Syria, as wel l l l s

the portions of Palestine now occupied by the ZionistsThis area s t i l l fa l ls short of the t e r r i t o ry bounded, jn

accordance with the famous Biblical phrase, by the Nileand the Euphra tes — which is the t e r r i to ry claimed as t h e i rnat ional her i tage by Zionist "extremists". But , even ifonly the m i n i m u m Zionist concept of Palestine is takento be the real basis of Zionist p lanning, that wi l l leave theroad towards Zionist t e r r i to r i a l expansion in the f u t u r ewide and open. For no more than one-half of this covetedarea is now under the control of the Zionist set t ler-state.(.See maps on pages 36 and 37).

Twice since its establishment has the Zionist settler-state demonstrated the fact that, as far as territorial scopewas concerned, it was following the same modus operand!which the Zionist Movement had followed so successfullyin the preceding f i f ty years with respect to statehood andthe eiiction of Arabs: (l) In 1948 and early 1949, it occu-pied areas not earmarked for the "Jewish state" in tne

General Assembly recommendation for the partition oiPalestine — only a few months after the Zionist Organi-zation had assured the Assembly that it was content

•th the territories "given" to the proposed "Jewish state".j (2) in late October and early November, 1956 —

king advantage of the preoccupation of the Egyptianed forces with the defense of Egypt against the invad-

• a forces of Britain and France — the Zionist partner. j^e aggressive tripartite conspiracy found it possible to

ccupy the "Gaza Strip" and parts of the Sinai Peninsula.por four months thereafter, the Zionist state rejectedrepeated United Nations demands for immediate withdraw-a] __ pleading that the annexed Palestinian and Egyptianterritories were part of the Zionist "historical homeland"and "national heritage".

Not only by ominous deeds, but also by ominouswords, has the Zionist settler-state given indication of itsintention, when the time was propitious, to grab newterritories lying within the boundaries of what it claims asits national patrimony. The veteran Premier of the Zion-ist state, David Ben Gurion, on at least two occasionshas solemnly announced, in two official state documents,that the state was created "in a part of our small coun-try"(7), and "in only a portion of the Land of Israel"'81,- andthe state itself has proclaimed that "the creation of thenew State by no means derogates from the scope of his-toric Eretz Israel." (9)

7) State of Israel, Government Yearbook, 5712 (1951/1952),Introduction p. x.

8) State of Israel, Government Yearbook, 5713 (1952), Introduc-tion p. 15.

9) State of Israel, Government Yearbook. 5716 (1955), p. 320.

The m

ap on this page shows the

Palestinian, Lebanese, Syrian and Jordanian territories openly coveted

by Zionism

.T

he shaded area was officially

delineated in the M

emorandum

of 3 February 1919 subm

itted by the World Z

ionistO

rganization to

the Peace Conference, and w

as described therein as "essential for the econom

ic foundation of thecountry."

To this area m

ust be added an undefined portion of Egyptian

territory as well.

The

official Zionist M

emorandum

left the southern border of the coveted land "to be agreed upon" later on.

•a|E3s amps aq} uo uM

Eip 'a§B

d a;isoddo aq} uo deui aq; q;iM

}siuo!7 aqj Aq juasajd IE paidnj.TO

A][enpe auiisaiej jo suoi].iod aq} SM

oqs aged siq} uo deui aqx

'S3

U}U

nO

8uuoqqgiau aq) ui puE aupsajEj ui uisiuoi7 ^o sugisap ^siuoisuE

dxa aq) Moqs so^Ed O

M) asaq) uo sdeuj aq

j


In view of the consistent behavioral patternthe Zionist Movement; in view also of the trgj.tional Zionist concept of the territorial extent j"Eretz Israel", of which even the "moderate" v«sion comprises an area twice as large as the On

usurped thus far by the Zionist state ; and in view

of the clear warnings, voiced by the most candidand authoritative leaders of Zionism, to the effectthat the Zionist state has not abandoned its de.termination to seize new Arab territories—in vi«w

of all this, it would be absurd to believe, ostrich.wise, that Zionism might indefinitely rest contentwith possessing only a fraction of the territorywhich, it maintains, is its "national heritage", andwhich in any case it has planned all along to occupy,

Of the three essential elements of the Zionist pro-gram — racial self-segregation in a Zionist state, racialexclusiveness and eviction of Arabs, and occupation of allof so-called "Eretz Israel" — only the third remainsunrealized. It is the "unfinished business" of Zionism.It cannot fail to be the main preoccupation of the ZionistMovement, and of the Zionist state, in the future.

For the Zionist settler-state, to be is to prepare andstrive for territorial expansion.

IV

THE PALESTINIANS' RESPONSE:FROM RESISTANCE TO LIBERATION

The response of the people of Palestine to the menacef Zionism has passed through five stages.

(l) At the outset — when Zionists were coming inlatively small numbers and emphasizing the religious or

i umanitarian motives of their enterprise, while concealingthe political, ideological, and colonial-racist character oftheir Movement — the Arabs of Palestine believed theimmigrants to be "pilgrims" animated by religious longingfor the Holy Land, or else "refugees" fleeing persecutionin Eastern Europe and seeking safety in Palestine. Pales-tinian Arabs therefore accorded the immigrants ahospitable welcome. Even Herzl noted the "friendlyattitude of the population"'10' to the first wave of Zionistcolonists.

(2) When, after the inauguration of the new ZionistMovement in 1897, the second wave of Zionist coloniza-tion began to roll onto the shores of Palestine (from1907/1908 onwards), Arab friendliness began to give wayto suspicion and resentment. The methodical ouster of

10) "Der Baseler Kongress" in Gesammelte Schriften, Berlin,1920, p. 164. Quoted in Rabinowicz, Oskar, Fifty Years ofZionism. London, Robert Anscombe & Co., 1950, p. 31.

39


Arab farmers, laborers, and watchmen from the ne

Zionist colonies, and the systematic boycott of j\,iproduce, aroused Arab anger. But the larger politicainationalist dimensions of the Zionist program rernainejconcealed from Arab sight : it was the immediate irnpact

of the Zionists' presence upon the Arabs directly affectedby the Zionists' race-exclusivist and race-supremacistpractices, that was causing Arab wrath. Inasmuch as

Zionist colonization was still of modest proportionshowever, the hostility it provoked remained more or less

local.

(3) The alliance of British Imperialism and ZionistColonialism, concretely expressed in the Balfour Declara-tion of 2 November 1917, and the British capture of Jeru-salem on 9 December 1917, at last opened Arab eyes tothe true significance of what was happening, and broughthome the realization that nothing less than dislodgmentwas in store for the Arabs, if Zionism was to be permittedto have its way. Palestinian masses instinctively recog-nized the events of the day as an occurrence of dire portyit;and, for thirty years thereafter, Palestine was to be thescene of persistent and tireless Arab resistance to theAnglo-Zionist partnership. The period from 1917 to1948 was the period of Arab resistance par excellence.

The disquiet which followed the publication orBalfour Declaration was momentarily calmed, hovve

British assurances made during 1918. An officialDeclaration by the British Government (issued on 16 Juneigl8) assured the Arabs that, as far as the territories

cupied by the Allied armies were concerned, "the futureovernment of those territories should be based on therinciple of the consent of the governed. This policy will

always be that of His Majesty's Government." (11) And,only four days before the Armistice, a widely-publicizedjoint Anglo-French Declaration (issued on 7 November^918) notified the Arabs of Syria, Iraq, and Palestine thatit was the intention of the two Allies "to further andassist in the setting up of indigenous governments"and "to recognise them as soon as they are actuallyset up."(12) These declarations — though they soon provedto be insincere and dishonest — served in the meantimeto allay the fears of the people of Palestine.

As 1919 opened, all eyes were on Paris : the PeaceConference was hopefully expected to resolve the contra-dictions of Allied wartime promises and to inaugurate thelong-awaited new era of world history, founded on theprinciple of national-self determination, of which PresidentWilson had made emphatic enunciation. But, as thosehopes dwindled and the influx of Zionist colonists — inter-rupted during the War — was resumed, Arab fears wererevived. And so was Arab resistance to the twin dangers°f protracted British occupation and expanded Zionistcolonization.

'---, Text in Antonius, George, The Arab Awakening, Beirut,Khayats, 1955, pp. 433-434.

12) Ibid., pp. 435-436.


# • » • -it-

Palestinian Arab opposition to the Anglo-Zi0 •partnership was first expressed, in 1919, in diplortl ^representations and in collective declarations of the genwill of the people.

The American King-Crane Commission was left 'no doubt about the true feelings of the people of PalestinOn 29 August 1919, the Commission reported that:

".. .the non-Jewish population of Palestine— nearly nine-tenths of the whole — are empha-tically against the entire Zionist program.. .There was no one thing upon which the popu-lation of Palestine was more agreed than upon '


The findings of the Commission corroborated thedecisions of the General Syrian Congress, consisting ofelected representatives of the populations of Palestine,Lebanon, and Syria. A resolution, passed unanimouslyby the Congress on 2 July 1919, announced:

"We oppose the pretentions of the Zio-nists to create a Jewish Commonwealth in thesouthern part of Syria, known as Palestine, andoppose Zionist migration to any part of ourcountry; for we do not acknowledge their titlebut consider them a grave peril to our peoplefrom the national, economical, and politicalpoints of view. Our Jewish compatriots shallenjoy our common rights and assume the com-

(14)mon responsibilities."

utterances of unqualified rejection of Zionismt'nued to be made by every Palestinian Arab gatheringtighout the decades of British occupation of Palestine.

i t once did a Palestinian Arab group or conferenceress acceptance — even partial or qualified — of Zionist

tonization. And the feelings, so unequivocally expressedthe King-Crane Commission in 1919, continued there-

fter to be expressed, with equal forcefulness, to theVlandatory Government and its countless Commissions,as well as to the League of Nations and the United\Iations, by every Palestinian delegation that had a chanceto appear before any of those bodies.

But declarations of opposition, however important asan expression of national will, were not the only meansof resistance to which the people of Palestine had recourse.

In March 1920, armed hostilities broke out betweenArab villagers and Zionist colonists in northern Palestine ;and in April 1920, Arab-Zionist fighting took place inJerusalem. These were followed by uprisings in 1921,

929, and 1933, and by a country-wide rebellion in 1936n'hich was renewed in 1937 and lasted until the outbreakof the Second World War in 1939. And, from December

47 until the withdrawal of Britain and the simultaneous

14> Ibid., p. 441.


proclamation of the Zionist settler-state in MayPalestinian Arabs were engaged in a life-and-deathwith the British garrison as well as with the Zionist

colonists.

By their untiring reiteration of their rejection OfZionist Colonialism and by their unstinting sacrifice of ljfe

and limb in defense of the sanctity of the homeland overthirty years, Palestinians of all walks of life eloquentlytestified — by word as well as deed, in ink as well as blood— to their devotion to their national rights and theirunqualified opposition to the Zionization of their country.

The range of means by which Palestinians chose toexpress their opposition to the partnership of ZionistColonialism and British Imperialism, from 1917 to 1948,was not confined to declaration and rebellion. In moreprosaic — and perhaps more difficult and more costly —methods, the unqualified "No !" of the Arabs of Palestinewas addressed to empire-builders and to racist colonistsalike.

At the height of the famous rebellion of 1936, thepeople of Palestine launched a devastating civil disobe-dience movement, coupled with a country-wide strikewhich lasted for 174 days (perhaps the longest nationalstrike in history) and affected all businesses, communica-tions, and government services run by Arabs. In spite ofits high cost to themselves, the men and women of Pale5"tine persisted in their strike, resisting all efforts of "ie

i ndatory Power to break it, and did not call it off until, rulers of the neighboring Arab States intervened and

ortiised to initiate collective Arab negotiations with then jtish Government with a view to remedying the causes

f Palestinian Arab grievances.

More importantly, the Palestinian Arabs brought intoi^eir struggle against the Zionization of Palestine the onlyrernaining weapon at their command: if they had nocontrol over the immigration of Zionist colonists intoPalestine, they did have some control over the sale of landto those colonists. This weapon they used unsparingly,throughout the period of the Mandate.

The record shows that, during thirty years of Britishoccupation and active encouragement of Zionist coloniza-tion — while the Zionists were allowed by the MandatoryPower to multiply to twelve times their number in 1917,and while the ratio of the Zionists to the total populationwas allowed to rise to one-third — Zionist acquisition ofland grew at a snail's pace, as a result of the Arabs' refusalto sell their land to the colonists. Statistics published bythe British Government reveal that the total area acquiredby Zionists from 1920, when land registries were opened,until the dislodgment of the Arabs, was under 4% of thetotal area of Palestine.(15) Of this Zionist-acquired land,a part was sold by non-Palestinian absentee land-owners,and another part was transferred to the Zionist coloniza-tion funds by the British Government itself (publicDomain, over which the Mandatory Government was

ls) Survey of Palestine, Jerusalem, Government Printer, 1946,p. 243 (paragraph 520).


trustee for the Palestinian people). In fact, an offir'spokesman for the Jewish Agency disclosed to a Brit; kCommission that, "of the land purchased by the Jewsrelatively small areas not exceeding in all 10 per cent vveacquired from peasants."(16)

* - » • - » •

(4) In 1948, the Palestinian Arab people was forciblydispossessed. Most Palestinians were evicted from theircountry. Their unyielding resistance and their costlysacrifices over three decades had failed to avert thenational catastrophe.

But those sacrifices were not in vain. For theysafeguarded the Palestinian national rights andunderscored the legitimacy of the Arabs' claim totheir national heritage. Rights undefended arerights surrendered. Unopposed and acquiescedin, usurpation is legitimized by default. For forfeit-ure of its patrimony, the Palestinian generation ofthe inter-War era will never be indicted by thePalestinian generations to come. It lost indeed -but not without fighting. It was dislodged indeed -but not for want of the will to defend its heritage.

Nor has the people of Palestine retroactively bestowedundeserved legitimacy upon the Zionist colonization ofPalestine by recognizing the fait accompli after the fact.

16) British Blue Book (commonly known as the "Shawport"), Cmd. 3530, p. 114.

ny have been the self-appointed counselors of "realism",ing upon Palestinians acknowledgement of the newins qu° m Palestine and acceptance of their exile "in

od grace"' an<^ many have been the lucrative offers ofonornic aid for "resettlement" and "rehabilitation"tside Palestine. But the people which had remained

, thirty years undaunted by the combined power ofgrjtish Imperialism and Zionist Colonialism, and which

ut>sequently refused to allow the seizure of its land andthe dispersal of its body to conquer its soul also, knewvery well how to resist those siren-calls.

The Zionist settler-state, therefore, has re-mained a usurper, lacking even the semblance oflegitimacy — because the people of Palestine hasremained loyal to its heritage and faithful to itsrights.

•«• * #

(5) The people of Palestine, notwithstanding all itstravails and misfortunes, still has undiminished faith inits future.

And the people of Palestine knows that the pathwayh that future is the liberation of its homeland.

It was in this belief that the Palestinian people — aftersixteen years of dispersion and exile, during which it hadreposed its faith in its return to its country in world°nscience and international public opinion, in the United

48 ZIONIST COLONIALISM IN PALESTINE ^Nations, and/or in the Arab states — chose at last to sej>the initiative. In 1964, it reasserted its corporate pe

sonality by creating the Palestine Liberation Organization

Only in the liberation of Palestine, spearheaded ]3v

Palestinians prepared to pay the price, can the supret^sacrifices of past generations of Palestinians be vindicatedand the visions and hopes of living Palestinians be transformed into reality.

EPILOGUE

THE LIBERATION OF PALESTINE

The right to national liberation is an extension of,e rjght to national self-defense, which the Charter of the

rjnited Nations not only upholds but also declares to be"inherent" and beyond "impairment" by the provisionsOf the Charter itself.<17) If continued acquisition of thefruits of an attack is tantamount to continuation of theattack itself, the liberation of territories seized by aggres-sion is an extension of the inherent right to resist theoriginal aggression. Liberation and self-defense are twofacets of the same inalienable right.

The right to national liberation has come to be allbut universally recognized. Only die-hard imperial aridcolonial regimes still invoke the mythical principle of theinviolability of dominion acquired by past and continuingaggression, in the hope that they might arrest the processof decolonization before the rising tide of national libera-tion engulfs their anachronistic regimes.

Exercise of the right to national liberation is notconfined to situations in which alien domination subjectsa people to the control of another, or in which the re-s°urces of one people are selfishly exploited by another.txercise of the right to national liberation extends also —

17) United Nations Charter, Article 51.

49


and in greater justice — to those situations in which th»land of one people was subjected to the control of anotherwhile it was forcibly emptied of its rightful inhabitants

The tragic fate of Palestine subsumes all these ele.ments of foreign domination, exploitation, and dispossess-ion — and others besides. The territory of Palestine js

under alien rule. Its resources are exploited by othersIts people are exiles from their homeland. The remnantsof its Arab inhabitants languish under a regime of racistdiscrimination and oppression as harsh as any race-supre-macist regime in Asia or Africa. All this has beenaccomplished by connivance with Imperialism, and byterror and violence. And no aspect of this multi-facetedfait accompli has been legitimized, whether by commissionor by omission, by the people of Palestine or any fractionthereof.

In its determination to pursue the difficult path oinational liberation, the people of Palestine is encouragedby the faith in the justice of its cause repeatedly expressedby newly-liberated peoples in successive internationalconferences. From Bandung to Accra, from Casablancato Belgrade, that faith in the justice of the cause of thePalestinian Arabs has been clearly expressed.(1Bl And,at the Second Conference of the Heads of State orGovernment of Non-Aligned Countries, "full support to

18) See "Appendix", below.


jie Arab people of Palestine in their struggle for libera-tion from colonialism and racism" was solemnly declar-ecj (i'J The supreme leaders of peoples who still retainvivjd memories of their recent experiences under imper-;alism, colonialism, and/or racism have thus evincedjesponsiveness to the pains and hopes of the Palestinianpeople, still suffering from all these evils and from dis-possession and dispersion as well. Such responsivenesscannot fail to augment the profound faith of Palestinians;n the ultimate triumph of justice, liberty, and humandignity in their land.

The problem of Palestine, although it directly afflictsonly the Palestinians, is not the concern of Palestiniansalone.

The Zionist settler-state, bent on expansion, is athreat to the security and territorial integrity of the Arabstates as well. It has already invaded their lands. Itstill covets their territories.

As a colonial venture, which anomalously came toBloom precisely when Colonialism was beginning to fadeaway, it is in fact a challenge to all anti-colonial peoples

• Asia and Africa. For, in the final analysis, the•ause ol anti-colonialism and liberation is one and'"divisible.

19> ibid.


And — as a racist system animated by doctrines Ofracial self-segregation, racial exclusiveness, and racialsupremacy, and methodically translating these doctrinesinto ruthless practices of racial discrimination and op.pression — the political systems erected by Zionist colo-nists in Palestine cannot fail to be recognized as a menaceby all civilized men dedicated to the safeguarding andenhancement of the dignity of man. For wheneverand wherever the dignity of but one single humanbeing is violated, in pursuance of the creed ofracism, a heinous sin is committed against thedignity of all men, everywhere.

A P P E N D I X

TEXTS OF RESOLUTIONS ON PALESTINE

adopted at Conferences of

African, Asian-African, and Non-Aligned States

&

CHART OF PARTICIPATION

IN THOSE CONFERENCES


• f . Bandung:

THE FIRST ASIAN-AFRICAN CONFERENCE

held at Bandung, Indonesia,

from April 18 to April 24, 1955,

by reprsentatives of 29 Asian and African countries.(See CHART).

Paragraph 1 of Section E of the Final Communique of theConference reads as follows :

"In view of the existing tension in the MiddleEast caused by the situation in Palestine and of thedanger of that tension to world peace, the Asian-African Conference declared its support of the rightsof the Arab people of Palestine, and called for theimplementation of the United Nations resolutions onPalestine and the achievment of the peaceful settle-ment of the Palestine question."


2. Accra:

THE FIRST CONFERENCE OF INDEPENDENT AFRI-CAN STATES

held at Accra, Ghana,


by representatives of 8 African countries. (See CHART).

Paragraph 9 of Resolution 10 of the Conference reads asfollows :

"Expresses its deep concern over the questionof Palestine, which is a disturbing factor of WorldPeace and Security, and urges a just solution of thePalestine question."


3. Casablanca:

61

THE CASABLANCA CONFERENCE OF THE HEADSOF AFRICAN STATES

held at Casablanca, Morocco,

from January 3 to January 7, 1961,

by representatives of 8 African and Asian countries. (SeeCHART).

The first of the Resolutions announced by the Conferencereads as follows:

"The Conference at Casablanca,

"Having examined the important problem ofPalestine, and deeply concerned about the situationcreated in Palestine by depriving the Arabs of Pales-tine of their legitimate rights:

"I. Warns against the menace which this situa-tion presents to the peace and security of the MiddleEast and the international tension which resultstherefrom.

"2. Insists on the necessity to have a just solu-tion to this problem in conformity with the UnitedNations resolutions and the Asian-African resolutionof Bandung to restore to the Arabs of Palestine alltheir legitimate rights.

"3. Notes with indignation that Israel has


always taken the side of the imperialists each time animportant position had to be taken concerning vitalproblems about Africa, notably Algeria, the Congoand the nuclear tests in Africa, and the Conferencetherefore, denounces Israel as an instrument in theservice of Imperialism and neo-colonialism not onlyin the Middle East but also in Africa and Asia.

"4. Calls upon all the States of Africa and Asiato oppose this new policy which imperialism is carry-ing out to create bases for itself".


Cairo:

CONFERENCE OF THE MINISTERS OF FOREIGNAFFAIRS OF THE STATES OF THE AFRICAN CHAR-TER OF CASABLANCA,

held in Cairo, the United Arab Republic,

from April 13 to May 5, 1961,

by representatives of 6 African countries. (See CHART).

The Statement issued at the end of the Conference con-tained the following paragraphs:

"The Ministers of Foreign Affairs examinedAfrican and international problems which have pre-occupied Africa and the world. There was completeidentity of views on all these problems...

"They reiterated their support for the legitimaterights of the Arab people of Palestine and their desi-re to implement the resolutions on Palestine adoptedat Casablanca."


Belgrade:

THE (FIRST) CONFERENCE OF THE HEADS OF STATEOR GOVERNMENT OF NON-ALIGNED COUNTRIES,

jield at Belgrade, Yugoslavia,

from September 1 to September 6, 1961,

by representatives of 28 African, Asian, European, andLatin American countries. (See CHART).

Paragraph 10 of Section III of the Declaration of theHeads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countriesreads as follows:

"The participants in the Conference condemnthe imperialist policies pursued in the Middle East,and declare their support for the full restoration ofall the rights of the Arab people of Palestine in con-formity with the Charter and resolutions of theUnited Nations."


6. Djakarta:

MEETING OF MINISTERS TO PREPARE FOR A SE-COND AFRICAN-ASIAN CONFERENCE,

held at Djakarta, Indonesia,


by representatives of 22 African and Asian countries.(See CHART).

Paragraph B of Section V of the Final Communique readsas follows:

"Representatives of all Nationalist Movementsfrom non-self-governing territories recognised by theOrganisation of African Unity in Africa and fromAsia, which have not yet attained independence, maycome to the Conference with the right to be heardand the host country is requested to provide facilitiesfor their attendance. This provision should alsoapply to South Africa, Southern Rhodesia, Oman,Aden and Palestine."


7. Cairo:

THE SECOND CONFERENCE OF THE HEADS OFSTATE OR GOVERNMENT OF NON-ALIGNEDCOUNTRIES,

held at Cairo, the United Arab Republic,

from October 5 to October 10, 1964,

by representatives of 57 African, Asian, European, andLatin American countries. (See CHART).

Sub-Section 5 of Section I of the Final Communique readsas follows :

"The Conference condemns the imperialisticpolicy, pursued in the Middle East and, in conformitywith the Charter of the United Nations, decides to :

"1. Endorse the full restoration of all therights of the Arab people of Palestine to their home-land, and their inalienable right to self-determination;

"2. Declare its full support to the Arab peopleof Palastine in their struggle for liberation fromColonialism and racism."

CH

AR

T

PA

RT

ICIP

AT

ION

IN T

HE

CO

NFE

RE

NC

ES

OP

AFR

ICA

N, A

SIAN

-AFR

ICA

N, A

ND

NO

N-

AL

IGN

ED

STA

TE

S

NO

TE. -

The sym

bol "x" stands for participation;"*" indicates representation by observers;"—

" signifies non-participation ;

Footnotes relating

to individual countries appear at the end of the CH

AR

T.

Co

un

tr

y

1. A

fghanistan

2. A

lgeria"

3. A

rgentina

4. A

ngola

5. B

olivia

6. B

razil

Ban-

dung1955

X————- —

2A

ccra

1958

——————

3C

asa-blanca1961

—X————

4C

airo

1961

—X————

5Bel-

grade1961

XX——**

6D

ja-karta1964

XX————

7C

airo

1964

XX»X**

I3noim

72

oU

EU


£ •*.« VQ• rt oU rt

* 1

,— ' ™

uOs

a

C3OU

CO

O.QJ&

"T3O.0

nj

a

c i >,v <uU U

in^01HO

£

rt"

XU

NrtM

CO,

o60cou


1b1fLF

-ovoU

H&<KU

i io ^ • ! i

Cv •£ £ i X X X i XU r-t !

j 1 [ i i

*A|» ! | ; | | | i | ! xP !̂ rt ; ;

1 ] ' i, <u _, ': | !1 T3 " ^ 1 !

m"a ! r t£ x : x i 1 * : xm n ̂ if" 60rt |

O H , | !y \ 1 1 1 1 1

** r t O i l 1 I IU <-i i !

, rrt ' 11 *• !^ u rt ;

« s s s . i : i ! i i 'u^1 i ; ;

• ;

N b III Ml 1 >< H

! I 1 1

i 60ir> 1 i i !

-• § § S : 1 ! 1 1 1 1 : >pa-c rt ; ;

; ' i i; i 1 1 i• i •

5^ i ! ! i

M ' ^; !*• ; (U i t, i t

g - §:il-i io •§ fti-Sigi;.(j |U I U : P i W J M

i 06 j O^ ' O rt ! r1 rt | rt | (S N i r

' ' ! !* I X i X X X 1

1 i

! | I x x x x x

1 : X . X 1 X X ; 1i i • ;

'. ; ! ! i ;1 v : v 1 < 1 1

| 1 j X X ] | ; | ! |

! : :

I ' l l

; 1 1 x : x ; x n ii i

1 < !

< 1 i X ; I I I I

1 '' :

< i 1 X | X i X | X:

1 ! :f 1 ' ii i ! ;: ' ! ij ! j . i

! ! i i ii ; i 1 !! i ! nj i

H : s~. ' i «F^ 1« ; •• ^j \ U5 :

MlJiliiilli3 !Z U !u 1^ \£ i jy! i !1 i . 1 .

-4 ro ^ ; in j \ is i oo<1 ( S J r q l t s i 1 ^ ! ^ : ^

3. Syria participated in the C

onferences held at Accra (1958), C

asablanca, Cairo and B

elgrade (1961) as partof the U

nited Arab R

epublic.

4. T

he Djakarta C

onference was held prior to the unification

of Tanganyika and Z

anzibar and the forma-

tion of Tanzania; and it w

as Tanganyika, not the F

ederal Republic of T

anzania, that participated in it.

5. T

he United A

rab R

epublic participated in the Bandung C

onference as Egypt.

OS

NII•8i

RESEARCH CENTER

PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANIZATION

606 Sadat Street (Apt. 22 )

BEIRUT- LEBANON

Established in February 1965

Publications

I. Palestine Chronology Series

II. Facts and Figures Series

III. Palestine Essays Series

IV. Palestine Monographs Series

V. Palestine Books Series

IV. Palestine Maps Series

VII. Special Publications

PRICE1.00L.1,.

fayez a. sayegh research center

Documents