Column | The unhelpful nature of ahistorical assumptions regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict

 

By Pa Louis Sambou

 

For most people, the Israel - Palestine question is probably the one conflict whose ugly scenes of horror has regularly appeared before their screens for a period of time spanning their entire lifetime. Although not the only unresolved historic territorial question, it is certainly the only none-frozen one, which fact probably explains why it evokes strenuous opinion from even folks afar, with Gambians not an exception. Whether pro Israel or pro Palestine, far too many well-meaning people the world over, find themselves holding very strong views on this subject matter, but which position is in most cases predominantly driven and sustained by subjective factors and considerations. A particular news article which I recently came across on a Gambian newspaper, exhibited a spectacular example and presentation of this phenomenon. 

 

Without offering a line by line review of the news article in question, which is definitely not the objective of this article, I will draw out a key substance from it which is of relevance to the question at hand: Comments attributed to the individual named and quoted in the news article states: 

 

“the UK, above all else, must be held responsible for this conflict since they were the colonial power in Palestine and also because they were the ones who granted Palestine as a home for Jews in 1917.”

 

This claim incorrectly implies that: the respective territories were part of the British empire, and that Jews did not form part of the indigenous population prior to the stated period, and that Palestine was granted to Israel by the UK. However, as is elucidated in the subsequent detail below, there is no credible factual or historical basis to these broad-brush claims. 

 

The United Nations publication, Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem: 1917-1947 has it that, following World War 1 (WW1) and the subsequent fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1922, the Middle East territories which the Ottomans controlled, came under British and French control. Effectively, the territories which today constitute Israel and Palestine, were under British control as part of this arrangement which rather than being colonialism in the name of the British Crown, was a mandate which had the support and formal approval of the League of Nations (subsequently the United Nations). In view of these historical facts, in addition to the claim that Palestine was a British colony being historically inaccurate, it considerably misconstrues the nature of British colonialism, and inadvertently downplays the adversities suffered by, and does injustice to parts of the world which were arbitrarily occupied in the name of the British Crown and subject to the control of its imperial authority without the benefit of an international instrument, and a third party arbiter such as the League of Nations as was the case with the Palestine British mandate. Furthermore, without taking too much of a pivot away from the subject, it is of historical relevance to elaborate on the backdrop against which this arrangement emerged: WW1 broke, and the Allied European powers, Britain, France and Russia sought to defeat the Central powers (Germany, the Ottoman Empire, the Austro Hungarian Empire and Bulgaria) with whom they were at war, and on the other hand, the Arabs who were under the colonial subjugation of the Ottoman Turks, wanted Arab independence. This was especially so, following the coup in 1908 by the Young Turks (also the perpetrators of the Armenian genocide) who subsequently embarked on a Turkification policy throughout the Ottoman Empire which policy most Arabs felt threatened their distinctive cultures. It was against this backdrop that the Arabs in the Ottoman Empire and the European Allied powers conspired to pursue their mutual interests of bringing the Ottoman Empire to its knees, subsequently giving rise to everything else which followed including the emergence of new Arab countries and monarchies as exists today. So, contrary to what the news article in question implies, rather than a coloniser, Britain was a strategic collaborator (with the respective Arab figureheads) against the Ottoman Turks’s colonial interests and ambitions.

 

In addition to the above, according to the Institute for Palestine Studies, in the first century after the Ottoman conquest of the territories, the Jewish population in Jerusalem “dropped from 1,330 in 1525 to 980 in 1587”. The same source also details that, when the Ottomans designated the three districts of Palestine, although the majority of its 600,000 inhabitants were Muslims, and 10% Christians, “25,000 of its inhabitants were Jews”, which historical fact is also consistent with the fact that the territories host historical and spiritual sites which are of significance to Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. As these historical facts abundantly evidence that, the territories have at all material times in historical memory, always been inhabited by Muslims, Christians and Jews, it is therefore entirely inaccurate to suggest that the presence of Jewish people in Palestine (or modern day Israel), is a feature or relic of the historically nonexistent British ‘colonialism’ in Palestine. 

 

For the avoidance of historical doubt, contrary to popular warped belief, the historical facts on World Atlas indicate that no contemporary western power had any colonies in the Middle East (not to be confused with South East Asia), as that part of the world has been under Ottoman rule since around the year 1517, and right through to 1922 when the Ottoman Empire was officially ended, having been defeated alongside its WW1 allies Germany, the Austro-Hungarian empire and Bulgaria.

 

On the third claim regarding the granting of Palestine to the Jews by the British as the “colonial power”, although a widely held view, this is merely an assumption if not a myth. Britain’s administration of the territories (which constituted modern day Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and modern day Jordan which was carved out as an independent country in May 1946, towards the tail end of the British mandate) was mandated and governed by the League of Nations’ approved mandate for Palestine 1922, Article 2 of which 13 - page international instrument, mandated for the “establishment of a Jewish national home” as follows: 

 

“The mandate shall be responsible for placing the country under such political; administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.”

 

Further to the above, the British administration of this mandate ended in 1947, and the successor to the League of Nations (the UN general assembly), passed  resolution 181(II) to partition the Palestinian territories and create the State of Israel, which subsequently became a recognised country in 1948. It is therefore entirely inaccurate to characterise the events so as to suggest that “the UK” was responsible for handing over Palestinian land to the Jews for them to establish modern day Israel. No prejudice intended, but quite clearly, the claim in contention could not be further from reality.

 

The news article went on to quote the author of the inaccurate historical claims, also making reference to the Balfour Declaration as being the authority upon whose basis the State of Israel was created. The declaration is a historical fact, however, it carried no such weight. If it did, then unless it is the author’s claim that the international community was completely unaware of the existence of such declaration, the League of Nations would have had no course to institute the mandate for Palestine in 1922 as set out earlier in this article, nor would the UN have any course to pass resolution 181(II) to create the State of Israel, which it subsequently recognised.

 

For additional contextual information, I would draw your attention to the armed Zionist groups which emerged and operated within the territories during the time period of the British mandate. These armed Zionist groups did not spare the British, the wrath of their violence and carnage; a significant historic example of such is the 1946 bombing of the King David hotel in Jerusalem by these, which killed and injured British personnel among other innocent victims. So, if the British government indeed acted in cahoots with these, with the objective of “granting Palestine” to them as the news article inaccurately suggests, then the Zionist armed groups (which the British authorities rightly designated as terrorists and pursued accordingly) would certainly not have actively sought to target British interests in Palestine during that period, would they? Surely, the fatal encounters which routinely transpired between the British authorities and these armed Zionist groups could not have been a pretence as part of the supposed British / Jewish conspiracy. 

 

Besides the litany of historical and factual inaccuracies which the claims under review rest, considering the human rights credentials of the author quoted in the news article, his omission of any reference to the terrorist entity, Hamas’s torture, rape, brutal massacre and kidnap of innocent and unarmed civilians in Israel, on 7 October 2023 implies that he does not deem such barbarity to be something which is worthy of condemnation. In all honesty, this is terribly concerning. 

 

The author quoted in the news article also made reference to Israel’s noncompliance with UN resolutions regarding territories she currently occupies, but which do not form part of that designated by the UN resolution which granted her statehood, and the complicity by “UK and its Western allies, the US and EU countries” in aiding her in such belligerence. However, the quoted author failed to address a very critical part of this jigsaw: the circumstances in which these occupied territories were acquired by Israel. As the historical facts show, immediately upon acquiring statehood in 1948, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq declared war against the new state in an attempt to destroy it, subsequent wars followed in 1967 and 1973 etc. Having defeated these aggressors, Israel acquired further territory (the West bank which was conquered from Jordan, the Gaza strip, the Sinai peninsula from Egypt, the Golan Heights from Syria and parts of southern Lebanon) which now form part of what are commonly referred to as the occupied territories. The absence of this contextual explanation by the news article, incorrectly suggests that Israel acquired the territories solely for expansionist reasons, which is factually a distortion of history. Of course Israel should comply with UN resolutions. However, to expect any country to comply with international instructions of whatsoever description which compliance could open them to further risk of aggression by hostile neighbours, committed to their destruction, is completely absurd. As a matter of fact, any other country in Israel’s position would almost certainly treat the respective UN resolutions likewise, and for as long as the threats of annihilation and destruction by its hostile neighbours persist. It is worthy of note that although Egypt and Jordan have since made peace with Israel, the other neighbours remain committed to Israel’s destruction, which state policies constitute a genocidal intent but which vital and relevant fact, the quoted author conveniently omits. 

 

I have no doubt that as a responsible and mainstream news and media organisation, it is unlikely the case that the objectionable substance of the news article in question made it through to publication without any editor’s note due to want of due deligence.. However, the significance of the historical inaccuracies were such that, in the spirit of constructive but robust objective public debate, it is difficult to argue against measured engagement of the nature presented in this literature. I hope it is received in the same spirit.

 

I would certainly not do justice to what is the most widely reported geopolitical subject matter of current times if I conclude without expressing an informed view, and without paying tribute to the unprecedented and commendable stance taken by South Africa, in seeking substantive Judicial examination of the lawfulness of the Israeli government’s prosecution of their objectives to destroy Hamas, and secure the release of its kidnapped citizens. 

 

As the respective quoted publications in the news article under review reveals, whether pro Israel or pro Palestine, far too many well-meaning people the world over, find themselves holding strenuous views on the subject matter, predominantly driven by subjective considerations. This is in my humble opinion unhelpful, in that it draws unwarranted heat onto what is already a very highly contentious and charged issue. It has to be borne in mind that, the roots of the Israel - Palestine conflict, just like that in the Balkans (between Serbs, Bosniaks etc.), and that between Greece and Turkey (over Cyprus and its frozen conflict), began with the abrupt emergence of nation-states on the territories of the former Ottoman Empire following its collapse which commenced with the war of independence by Greece between 1821 and 1829. The subsequent involvements of the WW1 allied powers, the League of Nations and subsequently the UN, are imperfect attempts to resolve very complex issues, rather than being their root cause, as most people often incorrectly assume. So, unless one gives due regard to the entire historical context of the subject matter, no matter how well-meaning, it is very easy to fall into the trap of viewing, construing, and forming an emotive conclusion on the issue through the unhelpful black and white binary prism of good versus evil, colonisers versus freedom fighters, Jews versus Muslims or Arabs and so forth.

 

In reality, history shows that long before the creation of modern day Israel, Jews faced pogroms, discrimination and expulsions from no less than 10 Arab and Muslim majority countries, and in almost every part of Europe with very few exceptions. On the other hand, it is also a historical fact that Palestine has been under several imperial authorities the last of which was the Ottoman Empire. With these historical facts in mind, all things considered, it stands to reason that both Israel and Palestine are equally entitled to internationally recognised statehood, sovereignty, and the same civil and political rights such comes with. No rational examination made in good conscience, would conclude otherwise. Of course the upshot of this means that Hamas, whose raison d’être is to destroy the State of Israel, and the current hard Right Israeli government whose stated policy is to continue to oppose the establishment of a Palestinian State, are clearly mutually exclusive with any just resolution. In the face of these menacing obstacles, Hamas must be considerably degraded if not completely destroyed, whether on the battlefield or through some other legitimate means, and the international community must be firmly resolute in bringing significant pressure to bear, to ensure that the establishment of a Palestinian State is not subject to Israeli veto, whether de-facto or otherwise. 

 

In the interim, whilst the objectives to pursue and militarily destroy Hamas and other associated terrorist factions, and secure the release of Israeli hostages are perfectly legitimate endeavours, the same cannot be said of the manner in which the Israeli government prosecutes the same. The prosecution of these objectives is at best grotesquely reckless, with little regard given to the obligation to prevent and avoid hitting civilians and non combatants etc. As such, the case brought against the Israeli State by South Africa, to determine the critical legal question of genocide etc., could not have come sooner. I hope that case sets a precedent for similar cases (whether by South Africa or others), for similar conduct taking place in war torn Sudan (apparent ethnic cleansing of the black African tribes, by Arab Sudanese militia etc.), China (apparent genocidal acts against the Muslim Uighur population by the Chinese state), and Iran and most other Muslim majority countries particularly those in the Middle East and other parts of Asia, which either outlaw the practice of any other religion other than Islam, or institute genocidal conditions and restrictions on religious minorities especially Christians, just like The Gambia’s failed 2020 draft constitution unsuccessfully attempted. So, notwithstanding the South African government’s domestic political motivations for bringing the international criminal justice (ICJ) case, and the previous Jacob Zouma administration’s shameful dereliction of duty in refusing to apprehend ICC indicted former President Al Bashir in 2015, credit has to be given for their bringing the historic ICJ case against Israel, whose litigation will surely enrich jurisprudence in the respective legal area, and whose judgment(s) and ruling(s) will hopefully set legal precedent to deter, if not hold accountable other culprits in future.

About the Author

The author is regular columnist contributor to this medium. 

Twitter handle: @That_Pragmatist 

Publisher’s Note

Views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the publisher. Want to be a contributing author? Please email opmail220@gmail.com