The Holy Land of Palestine and Israel – A New Nation

The current situation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, since the 1936 Peel commission,
has been premised on a two-state solution. This article seeks to investigate the background
to the Peel commission and to suggest an alternative way forward than that of the much
vaunted, and much failed, two states solution.

The concept of the modern-day nation state, for which both parties yearn and upon which
so much import is placed, evolved essentially as a European idea underpinned by the
values of the European Enlightenment period. In order for such states to be fully
functional, amongst other things, such states are required to have:
 Universal Suffrage
 Clearly defined and secure borders
 A workable polity
 A standing army
 Economic viability supported with a stable currency

Prior to 1918 the lands of the Middle East lay for centuries under the suzerainty of the
Ottoman Empire which came to an abrupt end with the 1st world war. In 1918 the concept
of the nation state was anathema to the peoples of the middle east who for centuries had co-
existed with a much greater degree of homogeneity, albeit under the Ottoman Empire, than
has been witnessed over the last forty years. Under the aegis of the Ottoman Empire, Jews,
Arabs, Christians and Muslims simply got along. This is not meant to disguise the fact that,
depending on which Sultan happened to be reigning, the treatment of the minorities did
vary.

Since before the 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement and down to the present day “Bush 2 Road
Map”, history has recorded well the catalogue of political machinations and diplomatic
duplicity that have led to the numerous wars that have beset the region and the dreadful
cost in human life. Given the global reach of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I do feel it is
pertinent to list the political decisions and various documents that were responsible, in part,
for creating the present-day tensions in the region:
1915-1916 MacMahon - Hussein Correspondence
Exchange of letters between the British High Commissioner for Egypt and Sherif Hussein
of Mecca whereby, in exchange for an armed Arab rebellion against the Turkish forces in
the Middle East region, Britain would promote the cause of national independence in the
Arab speaking world.

1916 Sykes – Picot Agreement

A secret agreement between the British and French governments concerning the
dismemberment and partitioning of the lands of the Ottoman Empire.

1917 The Balfour Declaration

Official statement, in the form of a letter, from the British Foreign Secretary to Lord
Rothschild expressing the British government support for “the establishment of a Jewish
National Home in Palestine”.

1920 San Remo Conference

Establishment of Palestine, by the League of Nations, as a British mandate territory under
civil administration. The mandate included recognition of the text of the Balfour
Declaration.

1921 Haycraft Commission of Inquiry

British governmental inquiry into the causes of the outbreaks of Arab riots in May 1921.

1922 Churchill White Paper

A British government policy statement confirming the right of Jewish immigration to
Palestine but also seen as re-defining and diluting the interpretation of the text of the
Balfour Declaration pertaining to a Jewish National Home.

1929-930 Shaw Commission

British governmental inquiry into the causes of the outbreaks of Arab riots in May 1929.

1930 Hope – Simpson Report

This report looked into Palestine’s economic absorptive capacity and potential for
agricultural development. The report concluded that Jewish land purchases in Palestine was
resulting in a growing of landless Arabs and called for restrictions on Jewish immigration.

1929 Passfield White Paper

British policy statement supporting the findings of the Hope – Simpson Report.

1936-1937 Peel Commission

Conclusions included the original proposal for partition of the lands of Palestine with
consideration to be given to the notion of population transfer.

As can be seen, history has also recorded that much of the above came about as a direct
result of outside foreign interference, well-meaning or otherwise.

The 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement resulted in, and imposed, artificially created borders in a
region that previously had no borders. That these new borders were drawn up by the
colonial powers of the day who were motivated more by western self-interest rather than
the interests of the local peoples inevitably led to questions of veracity and credibility. In
the minds of many people, these same questions still exist.

As a result of the Sykes-Picot agreement, the region of the former Ottoman Empire known
as Palestine came under international and then later, in 1922, British control. The war
weary British chose to withdraw from the region in 1947 leaving behind a power vacuum
that many of the newly arrived Jewish settlers were to take advantage of.

The majority of the Jewish population that co-existed peacefully with the other peoples of
the region, until the early part of the 20th century, were Sephardic and of Asiatic extraction.
The Jews that began to arrive in the region throughout the 1920’s and beyond were
Ashkenazim and essentially of European extraction. These people brought with them the
dream of establishing a Jewish state based upon democratic ideals, not totally dissimilar to
those of some of the European nations that they had chosen to leave, but also spiced with a
touch of socialism.
The Jewish holocaust of the Second World War provided many Jews with the ultimate
moral catalyst in their argument for a self-governing state.

The peoples of the Middle East region in no way bear any responsibility for the Jewish
holocaust and yet, since the creation of the State of Israel in their midst, the damage, pain
and suffering inflicted upon the region as a whole seems to have become interminable.

That the State of Israel was ultimately forged out of the furnaces of the Jewish holocaust is
enough for many people to sustain the moral argument for its existence. That the lands
upon which the State of Israel had chosen to establish its’ existence had been usurped,
sometimes at gunpoint during a time of local, regional and global turmoil from other
peoples who had lived there for millennia, creates the moral dilemma. Indeed, for many
Arab peoples, and a number of Jewish intellectuals, the concept of a Jewish state that
attempts to sell itself as being “fully democratic” is anathema. It is also worth stating that
in the initial “Judenstadt” tract by Theodore Herzl, the correct translation into English
means “Jewish home” and not “Jewish state” as it has more commonly become known.
Furthermore, the 1917 Balfour Declaration that is taught to every Palestinian child, talked
about a “Jewish national home in Palestine” (my italics) and not the creation of a new
country.

The peoples of the Middle East view the concept of time differently from people in the
economically developed countries of Western Europe and North America. For the people
of the Middle East, time is not measured in days, weeks, months and years, but rather by
events. They have long memories and can discuss the events of 1948 as if they happened
last week. For these people the six day war was yesterday and, ever since, they have been
trapped in a state of inertia, living a nightmare.

If the last 40 years have shown us anything at all, it is quite simply that the premise of a
two-state solution is unreachable.

The current state of Israel attempts to portray itself as the only fully functional democratic
country in the region. A glance at the 5 basic criteria required for effective statehood
mentioned at the beginning of this article is enough to show that the state of Israel is not an
effective state. i.e Currently:
  Israel’s elected government does not truly enfranchise all its occupants.
 Israel’s elected government does not pay serious consideration to the views of its
elected Israeli/Arab members who are routinely threatened with violence.
 Israel’s borders are not clearly defined.
 Israel has had to depend on its army for the last 40 years for a modicum of stability.
 Israel’s unit of currency is worthless outside its borders.

In the 21st century, the claim by the Israeli government to be a fully functional and effective
democracy lacks credibility.

A glance at any map of the Israel-Palestine region is enough to show any sane person that a
two-state solution is impracticable and, in all probability, unreachable. Indeed, the folly of
1936 was recognised by the British government and in 1939, based upon recommendations
from the 1938 Woodhead Commission, the MacDonald White Paper called for a unitary
state.

The modern-day state of Israel has borders that lack contiguity and that can only be secured
by a 3 metre high concrete barrier. There are dozens of check points and fundamental
economic blackmail of the Palestinians over water rights. Palestinians are denied access to
better quality housing and agricultural land etc. The litany is endless coupled with the fact
that, without massive financial aid from the United States, the Israeli economy would
collapse overnight. Such an economy can hardly inspire confidence in its citizens. It is also
worth noting that over recent years Jewish emigration from the State of Israel has been
higher than Jewish immigration.

Since the 1990’s, the state of Israel has for many families been used increasingly as
nothing more than a convenient half way house for those Jews who wished to leave the
former Soviet Union. Once furnished with an Israeli passport, many of the families
subsequently applied for US citizenship. Are these “Part time Israelis” the kind of citizens
that Israel really wishes to have?
The Holy Land. A Single “Dual” State Entity
It is worth remembering that in many things, Jews and Muslims have more commonalities
than differences. Above all, the one thing that both groups seem to agree upon is that the
land where they wish to live is Holy Land. This would be the basis for a new country that
would accommodate all peoples of the region with Jerusalem as its capital.

The country would in essence be a unified dual state entity. For the Jews it would be called
“The Holy Land of Israel and Palestine” and for the Muslims it would be called “The Holy
Land of Palestine and Israel”. Borders would incorporate all lands in the region currently
under dispute i.e current lands of the state of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Given
that over 50% of the Israeli population support a withdrawal from the Israeli held Golan
Heights, subject to Syrian approval, there may even be a case for including these lands as
part of the dual state entity. Administration would take place by elected representatives on
a transparently secular basis but people would respect one another’s religious rights
including Sabbaths.

Arab refugees would have the right of return and be offered generous compensation for
their losses in order that they might re-settle elsewhere in the same locality or another
region of their choice.

A Joint police force and security force would be established along civil lines as would
health and education services. Checkpoints would be dismantled and there would be
freedom of movement for all peoples within the borders. Preferred ID cards or Passports
would be issued i.e Holy Land of Palestine and Israel/Holy Land of Israel and Palestine in
both Hebrew and Arabic. National monetary currency would be along similar lines i.e
Shekel/Dinar.

With the above in mind, it is worth noting that the latter half of the 20th century has seen
the creation of economically vibrant trading blocs such as the EU, ASEAN and NAFTA
etc. With these trading blocs, the notion of the nation state, as a means of defining an
identity has become increasingly diluted along with reasons for conflict. Jews and Muslims
might both come to realise that co-existence in a dual state would be mutually
advantageous. By encapsulating the two states within a single dual state entity, the
possibilities for investment in the new country become manifold. With peace and stability
ensured, the new country could establish bi-lateral trade agreements with other countries in
the region from perhaps which a larger regional trading bloc might eventually emerge.
Such a trading bloc might even transcend the artificially created borders of Sykes-Picot.
Regional tourism and all the elements that support it would rapidly develop. Tourists
would be free to visit Jewish, Christian and Muslim sights, local agriculture would expand
as might transport and the development of infrastructure.

The proposals outlined above would require a radical shift from the current entrenched
political mindset. It is a paradigm shift that will only work if people and politicians from all
sides of the political spectrum accept the hard fact of each other’s right to existence in the
Holy Land. Enlightened thinking will be required along with courage, honesty and
integrity. It could begin with a regional referendum of the peoples who live in Israel and
the occupied territories.

If the majority of peoples in the region are in agreement for a dual state thereby putting the
last forty years behind them, then new political parties can be formed. It is to be hoped that
any new political parties would be run mainly along secular lines which would at the same
time recognise the importance of appealing to citizens across the religious divide and
acknowledging uniqueness. More secular parties could increase the number of female
candidates standing for election thereby opening the possibility of gender-based voting and
a potential increase in the number of female MPs in the political arena of the new state. By
renouncing violence Hammas, with its success in providing a degree of education and
social services in the Gaza Strip, could have a part to play perhaps even aligning itself
more with Fatah. By meeting, discussing and working out their own home-grown solution
and “end game” for the process, Palestinians and Jews would stand a greater chance of
marginalising external influences notably Syria, Iran and the United States.

By fully enfranchising the Palestinians as part of a dual state entity, problems related to the
above criteria stated at the beginning of this article might stand a greater chance of
resolution. In short, there would be no second-class citizens and a dual state would negate
accusations of any government becoming a ruling theocracy of any kind. As much as
possible, it would be a secular government for a holy land.
If the majority of people are against the idea of a dual state, then if the past is anything to
go by, we will be in for another forty years of bloodshed and misery.

Keith Brewer