3/8/2011

Topic covered

- Early Jewish Zionism

- Jewish Settlements

- Changing Demographics

- 20th Century Jerusalem

- Secular Zionism

- anti-Semitism and Immigration

- British Mandate Period

- Sykes-Picot Agreement

- Balfour Declaration

- British Mandate

- White Paper 1922

- Peel Commission

- War of Independence

- Centrality of Jerusalem

- Jordanian Jerusalem

Husayn-McMahon Correspondance:

When the WWI was nearing a close, Arab nationalism in Palestine had reached its peak. The British were looking for a way to defeat the weak Ottomans, and the Palestinians felt that they had the means to help. In the Husayn – McMahon correspondence from 1914-1915, Sarif Husayn of Palestine offered Sir Henry McMahon of Britain help to defeat the Ottomans. He would create a revolt to distract the Ottomans from their other fronts, and as a result, the British would be able to defeat the otherwise occupied Ottomans. In return, Husayn wanted an Arab state in the land of Palestine. There was an exchange of many letters, but nothing official. Husayn kept pushing for what his section of the land would be, and McMahon responded saying that it would be decided later. In the end, the Husayn – McMahon agreements were never realized, dealing a blow to the growing Arab nationalism.

Issues with the Balfour Declaration:

While it does say that "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,” it never says in ALL of Palestine. The geographical limits of the country were not specified, meaning that the Jewish homeland created could very well have been a small area within Palestine that didn’t even include Jerusalem – the holiest city for the Jewish religion. This vague phrasing legitimizes a two state solution and could have caused the Arabs to believe that the Husayn – McMahon Correspondence promises could still be realized. In addition, the clause which states, “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” never mentions the political rights of the already existing communities. Does this mean that according to the British, the Arabs had no political rights, or is it simply a word that was accidentally looked over in the writing of the document? Lastly, it is interesting to note the use of the words “a national home for the Jewish people” rather than “a Jewish state.” This wording was to pacify the anti-Zionist Jews of Europe who didn’t believe in the formation of a Jewish state for reasons ranging from the ultra-orthodox belief that a Jewish state will only be established with the coming of the Messiah, to the desire of the European Jewry to retain their high class status that they had spent years of suffering to achieve. However, regardless of its intent, “a national home for the Jewish people” does not mean a Jewish state, as the Zionists wanted, and left room for the British, if they so desired, to create another state – such as an Arab state – in the land of Palestine, but designate it as a Jewish homeland.