BY MAXIME RODINSON  
Thus the Palestine War was not seen by anyone in the Arab lands as a war of liberation led by anti-British, and hence anti-colonialist, Jewish revolutionaries against pleasure-seeking feudal lords who pushed stupefied and mule-like peasants in front of them to safeguard their own class interests—as the version widely accepted by the European left would have it…. The war could not even be seen as a struggle between two formerly colonial states, as could, for example, the struggle between Pakistan and India over Kashmir. In the latter case, each of the two parties is more or less supported, with greater or fewer ulterior motives, by one or another group of powers whose support fluctuates in keeping with changes in the international and local situation…. Seen with Arab eyes—and I believe I have shown this is not without objective justification—the Palestine War was a struggle against a new imperialist encroachment on the territory of a colonial people.

That is, at least, how it appeared in the eyes of the Arab masses. No one can honestly deny the real indignation felt by the Arab people, especially in Arab Asia, which was most directly concerned. The fact that the Egyptian peasants who were mobilized displayed little interest or understanding of the struggle did not mean that they had any sympathy for the Jews. For every element of the population however slightly politicized, whether through circumstances or education, felt that they were face to face with an invader. It is true that Arab armies enjoyed some British support on various levels. But this support, which was clandestine and non-official, was also limited. During the tragic period between the UN partition decision and the British withdrawal, it amounted principally to the presence of English soldiers who were left without clear instructions, or received contradictory ones, and who had become accustomed during the preceding long phase of Jewish terrorism to regard the Jews as enemies.

Great Britain’s policy was inspired by considerations that went far beyond aid to the Arabs, in particular by the cold war situation at the time and British relations with the United States, as well as by the serious economic crisis that was shaking Britain. During the same period, the English withdrew from Greece, Burma, and India. As usual, the various British ministries held divergent points of view on the matter, but they went along with the political orientation of the cabinet—to get out of the Palestinian quagmire. It seems that it was only later, with the unforeseen evolution of events on a local level, that certain British circles got the idea that things would end up with Great Britain being asked to play the role of arbiter in conditions it would find much easier than those prevailing near the end of the mandate.

The official Zionist leaders did, in fact, hesitate to abandon completely all recourse to international backing, from the United States and even at times from Great Britain, hoping that in one way or another the UN would insure a painless transition to a Jewish state—or, if absolutely necessary, a binational state with a large Jewish majority; they were also prepared again, if necessary, to settle for the territory allotted by the UN partition plan, at least for a while. In the beginning, they wanted above all to demonstrate that they were capable of defending the Jewish zones and consequently that a Jewish state was viable.

The advancement and then success of the Zionist movement thus definitely occurred within the framework of European expansion into the countries belonging to what later came to be called the Third World. Given the initial aims of the movement, it could not have been otherwise. Once the premises were laid down, the inexorable logic of history determined the consequences. Wanting to create a purely Jewish, or predominately Jewish state in an Arab Palestine in the twentieth century could not help but lead to a colonial-type situation and to the development (completely normal, sociologically speaking) of a racist state of mind, and in the final analysis to a military confrontation between the two ethnic groups. One can understand why the Zionist leaders repeatedly spurned peaceful compromises with the Arabs, fearing that these compromises would not guarantee that they would be the rulers of the future Palestine.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home