The Unmaking of Palestine

By W.F. Abboushi. Amana Books, 1990. 259 pp. List: $12.50; AET: $9.50 for one, $12.50 for two.

Reviewed by David Wemple

When did the Middle East begin its long slide downhill? Year after year, the Arab-Israeli crisis plods onward, seemingly without resolution. When were the foundations laid for the events of 1991? Nearly 80 years ago.

By the time Israel was founded in 1948, the die had already been cast. The Unmaking of Palestine focuses on the preceding 30 years, which culminated in that act of statecraft.

The author's skill is evident in his ability to walk readers through a complex and confusing history by employing the very sources often viewed as dry, even intimidating: reports of official British commissions and inquiries.

But exactly what do most of us know about these reports? Just the conclusions, really. We're aware that the Balfour Declaration promised the establishment of a "Jewish National Home" without sacrificing the interests of the indigenous peoples. Little, however, is known about the Declaration's background. Even more so is this the case with the King-Crane Commission, Peel Commission, or the many White Papers on Middle East issues released by British governments.

It is precisely the details of such commissions upon which Dr. Abboushi focuses. Though scholars have long ignored the subject, he writes, " these unpublished details of the reports tell us so much about life in Palestine and the root of the conflict... "

The author sees two facts lying at the very core of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Perhaps most important is the simple observation that, in the Balfour Declaration, London offered both parties contradictory promises.

The British government could not establish a Jewish homeland and, at the same time, safeguard the rights of Arabs.Interestingly, Dr. Abboushi reports Colonial Secretary Malcolm McDonald's statement that London's wording of the phrase "Jewish National Home" in the Declaration was deliberately vague, so that London could avoid precise commitments to either party.

Another key element in the background of today's crisis was the extent to which Palestinian Arabs were lied to, ignored and dehumanized. When Arabs were promised independence as a reward for their assistance to the Allies during World War I, they had every reason to expect it. Instead, they found themselves "secretly" carved up between the British and the French in the Sykes-Picot agreement. Other broken promises would follow.

The common thread which would connect these broken promises was Zionism. Jews had long been accepted as a part of Arab culture, and the newly arrived Zionists were unwelcome militants even among the native Jewish population. It didn't take the Arabs long to figure out that many people were going to try to solve Europe's problems at their expense.

By the time Israel was founded in 1948, the die had already been cast.

The arrival of Zionism was a watershed event. Aggressive and well-organized, its adherents made no secret of their desire to supplant and completely dominate local Arabs. In this, they were met by British administrators who were unable or unwilling to safeguard the rights of native Arabs, which the Balfour Declaration had specifically promised.

The 1920s and 1930s witnessed the tragic meeting of a Western culture and a more traditional one. It was not only that Arabs stood outside the British political fold, but that Zionists were so firmly within it. When London appointed a High Commissioner of Palestine in 1931, Zionist officials were extensively consulted. And what of the Arabs? They were never given a second thought. The implications were not lost upon them.

Arab frustration and anger was finally vented in a series of riots that began in 1920 Enter the inevitable White Paper. In stark contrast to Zionist proclamations that the "good Arabs" were being stirred up by a few malcontents, however, British reports stated firmly that, if it hadn't been for the cooperation of the so-called malcontented Arab officials, riot damages would have been even worse. Arab frustrations, the reports said, were genuine, widespread, and not without foundation.

Were these (or any?) people expected to acquiesce cheerfully in the destruction of their own land and culture? Tragically, British officials only paid attention to Arab grievances when violence erupted. Again, the message was not lost. Armed resistance became a predictable reaction by many Arabs, first against Zionist forces and then against Zionism's apologists, the British.

Some of the most disturbing selections of Abboushi's book are those dealing with parliamentary debates. A pitiful handful of representatives were able to remain neutral, much less friendly, towards Arabs. The racism was palpable; it was the White Man's Burden to lift the poor ignorant wretches out of the gutter and bring Civilization to them. After all, weren't the Zionists making the desert bloom?

How many injustices against the Arabs were intentionally inflicted by Zionists and British officials is debatable. "The subconscious of the Western world, " writes the author, "was incapable of objectivity on the question of Palestine, and it applied double standards which it would not have applied to any other place, especially to its own national domains."

The territory so aptly covered by Dr. Abboushi leaves one sick with the realization of what political movements can do to a people, especially when such destruction is carried out as a divine mandate. This writer can't help but wonder how differently things might have turned out if, 70 years ago, the parties involved had appreciated the wisdom of mythologist Joseph Campbell when he lamented that "The 'Chosen People' has nothing to do with genetics, and 'The Promised Land' has nothing to do with real estate."

David Wemple is a writer from Albany, New York, who is concerned with Middle East affairs.