Palestine: A Modern History (ص 60)

غرض

عنوان

Palestine: A Modern History (ص 60)

المحتوى

122 Deadlock: 1920-1923
»» ends through cooperation with the Government instead of by
gpposition.!4# .
feb se ‘ ° o fue
The jhand of the new Party was strengthened following the refusal of
the Executive Committee to accept the recommendations of a.Cabinet
‘Committee formed during the summer of 1923 to review British policy
in Palestine. Although some of the Committee’s members thought-that
the Balfour Declaration,, was both unnecessary and unwise, the
Committee found it impossible for, any Government to extricate itself
from the, Declaration without a substantial’ sacrifice of consistency and
self-respect. a B 7
By .the time the Palestine Mandate was brought into, full,operation
by, the League’s Council Resolution of 29 September 1923, the attitude
of the three parties of the Palestinian Triangle had already crystallised.
The British Government stood firmly by the, Balfour Declaration and
the .JNH policy, guided by the theory of ‘dual obligation’, and the
principle of the ‘economic absorptive capacity’ on immigration policy.
The final settlerient of the Mandate removed all shades of ungertainty
and precluded any possibility of drastic change of British, policy in
Palestine for the foreseeable future.
The Zionists were satisfied that the articles of the Palestine Mandate
and British policies in Palestine were conducive to the achievement of
their immediate basic aim, namely, the attainment of a Jewish majority,
and thus political supremacy, through immigration and land settlement.
They were opposed to representative institution and the application of
the principle of self-determination in-Palestine on the grounds that-the
Arab majority would use such.institutigns to fight, Zionism and revoke
the Mandate. The Anglo-Zionist convergence was demonstrated by the
Zionist acceptange of Churchill's White Paper and embodied in the
person of Herbert,Samuel himself. ‘
The, Arab position was accurately assessed by Samuel in a perceptive
report submitted during January 1924. He said:
The-large majority of the population of Palestine are Moslem Arabs,
and among them, a majority possibly equally large, favour the
general views.of what may be termed the local opposition to the
Palestine policy of His Majesty’s Government as applied by this
Administration.“
af
oe TF
st 4
Samuel, described the motjves of the cyrstallising pro-Government
minority party in the following terms:
Deadlock: 1920-1923 » 123
They are anxious for a quiet life, and do not want to engage, in
political struggles. They wish to grow richer, and think that British
‘control and guidance for the time being at, all, events, are best
calculated, to make the country more prosperous and themselves
with it. Some as 1 have mentioned, are more largely animated by
antagonisms in the Opposition camp. Some think that they may
obtain advantages, direct or indirect, by standing well with, the
Government.'*5 1 dh ob
The Christian Arabs were prominent in the ranks ofthe anti-Zionist
movement in Palestine as well as in the ranks of the Moderate Party. In
general: they were inclined to take a less rigid anti-Government attitude
after the Kemalist victories and the revival of Pan+Islami¢ ideas. The
fact that they occupied a high prdéportion of Government posts in
Palestine also contributed to their moderation vis-a-vis Britain.
Nevertheless, a number of Christian-Arab intellectuals were among the
most active and eloquent anti-Zionists in Palestine.
Three Currents of Thought
Samuel attributed. Palestinian opposition to Britain to three currents of
thought: Arab Nationalism, anti-Zionism and Pan-Islamism. These
currents attracted men of varying standards of sincerity and zeal.
There is a nucleus of genuine patriots, who would be willing to make
considerable sacrifices for their cause. There are a number, of young
men who take pleasure in the excitement and interest of a;political
movement. There is a large fringe, who sympathises in general-with
Arab and Oriental views. . .they, are ready to close their‘ shops, if
they are shop-keepers, when asked to do so by the Central Commit-
tee on some occasion of political protest, and they are willing to’join
a crowd in the street to speed a parting delegation or fo we]¢ome its
return, 46
By the end of 1923 there was a growing belief among the, Palestinian
Arab majority that Britain and the Mandate were.the, real protectors of
Zionism, and that the JNH policy represented thetonvergence of
British imperial interests with Zionist colonialism in Palestine which
was bound to lead to a Jewish majority and supremacy and the eventual
eviction of the Palestinian Arabs from their country. The Husséinii and
the Muslim-Christian leadership, consistently and consciously ,, refused
to commit themselves to any platform which would imply- the
a
athe

هو جزء من

Palestine: A Modern History

تاريخ

1978

المنشئ

Abdul-Wahhab Kayyali

مجموعات العناصر

Generated Pages Set