HISTORY can tell us a lot. It gives us an idea of who we are by showing where we have been. Its trajectory provides a rough idea of where we are going.
But most importantly, history answers our questions. Modern conflicts frequently are caused not by an uncertainty of present circumstances, but an uncertainty of past circumstances. As an eyewitness, history is the answer to modern conflicts. In considering the ongoing struggle for Palestinian statehood, history tells us that Palestine is deserving of a state. It also tells us that Israel is deserving of a state. A two-state solution is and always has been the answer, and this is why the United Nations must approve Palestine's membership bid as a step in this direction.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is neither a thousand-year conflict nor inevitable, as many argue. In fact, Jews and Arabs lived together in peace for most of history in the territory of Palestine, what is now largely Israel. Palestine had been ruled by the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years, but fell into British hands in 1917 after the Ottoman defeat in World War I. British control of Palestine is the root of the modern conflict.
In 1917, the British government issued the Balfour Declaration, which promised a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. Of course, the Balfour Declaration completely disregarded the rights of the Arabs who, at the time, outnumbered the Jews nine-to-one.
So why was the Balfour Declaration issued and why were the Palestinian Arabs completely ignored as a people? The movement for a national home for the Jewish people, Zionism, has its origins in 19th century Europe, when many European countries were experiencing nationalist movements themselves. The Jewish people wanted a national home because of centuries of pogroms and discrimination in Europe, and they wanted it in the biblical land of Israel.
The Jewish people deserve a national home, just as any other people. The problem, however, was that Palestine already was populated with a nationality - Palestinian Arabs. But ideas of Euro-supremacy led to Arabs being viewed as a primitive people with a primitive, weak civilization. The Jews, however, were from Europe - they were educated and cultured according to European standards.
The Palestinian Arabs did not have a weak civilization or culture. Reality proved quite the contrary. In comparison with other Arab nationalities during the mandate period, Palestinian Arabs were highly educated and cultured with a growing economy. Yet they were treated much differently than the other Arab nationalities ruled by the British colonial empire. Unlike Syrians, for example, Palestinian Arabs were prevented from establishing political institutions for a transition to independence sometime in the future. The British, in effect, favored the Jews while stifling and blocking the development of a Palestinian nationality, a nationality that was on the road to emergence prior to British colonialism.
Jewish immigration to Palestine increased immensely during the 1930s. In fact, the Jewish population in Palestine doubled from 1933 to 1935 as Jews fled the coming terrors of Nazi Germany. In response to increasing Jewish immigration and a desire to do away with the Balfour Declaration, outbursts of violence occurred - notably the Arab Revolt of 1936 to 1939. As World War II approached, the British needed a quick end to the violence in Palestine and issued the White Paper of 1939, promising limits to Jewish immigration and an independent Palestinian state of Jews and Arabs in ten years.
The immense horror inflicted on Jews and other groups during the Holocaust provided further and rightful legitimacy to the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine. The legitimacy was, of course, at the expense of the Palestinian Arabs who did not perpetrate the Holocaust. Because of the increasing difficulty of the situation in Palestine and a complete improbability of a British-imposed solution, Britain handed the crisis to the United Nations in 1947 and withdrew from Palestine. The United Nations issued a partition of Palestine in the same year, delighting the Jews and disheartening the Arabs. War between the two nationalities followed and the Jews were victorious.
So what does this history mean? The fault of the modern conflict is neither that of the Jews nor the Arabs. Both are deserving of a national home in the territory of Palestine, and both have legitimate roots there. The Jews deserve the national home of Israel and were promised this home. The Arabs have a long history of civilization in Palestine and deserve a home there as well. The terrible system of colonialism caused this modern conflict between two groups that once lived in peace. In recognizing that their real enemy is not one another but their shared history of exploitation and colonization, Israelis and Palestinians should embrace each other's existence. Israel and other nations should accept the Palestinian bid for statehood and implement the just and humane two-state solution.
As education is vital to understanding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I would recommend that all University students take History Prof. Alon Confino's "1948 Palestine" course. The course gives a great, comprehensive overview of the historical roots of the conflict.
Jamie Dailey's column appears biweekly Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at j.dailey@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | 3 days agoThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 5 days agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | April 25, 2024Instead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
