|
Paper work
By Judy Labensohn
Talk to anyone about historically significant preludes to
the proclamation of the State of Israel, and in all probability
you'll get one or two answers: the Balfour Declaration and
the UN resolution on the partition of Palestine.
What about the 30-year hiatus between the two?
Was there nothing of record between November 1917 and November
1947?
Of course there was.
In 1919, the Treaty of Peace between the Allied powers was
concluded in Versailles. In 1920, Turkey renounced all its
rights and titles over Palestine. In 1922, the British Mandate
over Mesopotamia and Palestine was conferred by the League
of Nations. In 1922, Transjordan separated from the Palestine
Mandate, but remained under British rule. In that same year
the US Congress formulated a joint resolution confirming the
Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate. The Peel Commission
on the partition plan for Palestine was appointed in 1937,
while in 1939, the British White Paper restricted Jewish migration
to Palestine.
Reference to any or all of the above can be found in just
about any geo-political literature on the region.
What you're less likely to come across is the Rights in
Palestine Convention between the US and Great Britain signed
in London on December 3, 1924, by US secretary of state Frank
Kellog, and British foreign secretary Austen Chamberlain,
subsequently ratified several times and ultimately proclaimed
on December 5, 1925, by president Calvin Coolidge.
A copy of this convention is in the possession of Mordechai
Palzur, the former chief of protocol at the Foreign Ministry.
Palzur found it by chance 30 years ago, when planning to
do a doctorate at an American university on US strategic involvement
in the Middle East, the Mediterranean and North Africa.
It surfaced amid a barrage of documents which he amassed
for his research. He doesn't remember how or where he got
it, though it bears a stamp "from the office of Scott W. Lucas
United States Senator."
The studies in America never materialized. Palzur was appointed
counselor to the embassy in Cyprus and after that ambassador
to Bolivia.
"I never pursued the doctorate," he says ruefully.
An avid collector who finds it difficult to discard anything
which captures his fancy or appeals to his curiosity, Palzur
put away the material, thinking that one day it might prove
useful.
And indeed that day arrived.
When the recent furor arose over unwarranted excavations
on the Temple Mount, Palzur remembered that several articles
in the convention made specific reference to antiquities and
excavations.
A quick check of his papers proved that his memory had not
betrayed him.
For instance, Article 21 of the convention states:
"The Mandatory shall secure the enactment within twelve
months from this date and shall ensure the execution of a
Law of Antiquities based on the following rules. This law
shall ensure equality of treatment in the matter of excavations
and archaeological research to the nationals of all State
members of the League of Nations.
(1) "Antiquity" means any construction or any product of
human activity earlier than the year AD 1700.
(4) Any person who maliciously or negligently destroys or
damages an antiquity shall be liable to a penalty to be fixed.
(5) No clearing of ground or digging with the object of
finding antiquities shall be permitted under penalty of fine,
except by persons authorized by the competent department.
(7) Authorization to excavate shall only be granted to persons
who show sufficient guarantees of archaeological experience.
While it was the excavation that triggered Palzur's retrieval
of the document, once he actually had it in his hands, it
yielded more than a few other items of interesting information.
"There's lots of accessible documentation," says Palzur.
"There are so many factors which we forget."
By way of example, he played an old-fashioned record on
an old-fashioned gramophone of Abba Eban's speech to the UN
General Assembly on June 19, 1967.
Eban, who was then foreign minister, spoke of Israel's quest
for peace and regional development. "Our watchword is not
backward to belligerency but forward to peace," Eban said.
"History summons us forward to permanent peace. We dare not
be satisfied with interim arrangements - which are neither
war nor peace - which are prescriptions for future tragedy."
Eban, one of this year's Israel Prize laureates, may just
as easily have been speaking today. "Arabs have come face
to face with us in conflict," he said. "Let them come face
to face with us in peace."
He then proceeded to outline his vision for future prosperity
through the removal of existing impediments and through the
fostering of mutual cooperation and development. "Old prejudices
must be replaced by new comprehension and respect," he said,
emphasizing that "excessive sums devoted to security could
be redirected to development."
It all sounded very much like Shimon Peres's vision of the
New Middle East.
In the immediate aftermath of the Six Day War, Palzur noted,
Eban voiced the spirit of Israel's ambition, while at a later
stage, Peres gave it substance.
The Eban speech is yet another piece of history which has
been largely forgotten.
Coolidge's 1925 10-page proclamation, in its opening paragraphs,
endorses the Balfour Declaration. "Whereas the Principal Allied
Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible
for putting into effect the declaration originally made on
the 2nd November, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic
Majesty and adopted by the said powers in favor of the establishment
in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it
being clearly understood that nothing should be done which
might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing
non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political
status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
"Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical
connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the
grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country...."
The document then goes on to say that "the Principal Allied
Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory
for Palestine" and proceeds to detail the degree of authority,
control and administration by the Mandate.
The convention, says Palzur, testifies to American involvement
with and support for Jewish national aspirations long before
the Second World War and its catastrophic effect on Jewish
demography.
Article 2 in the list of the Mandate's powers and responsibilities
states: "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."
Article 4 recognizes the Zionist organization as an appropriate
Jewish agency and public body for the purpose of advising
and cooperating with the Administration of Palestine.
Article 6 is as ideological a Zionist concept as any leader
of the Zionist movement might wish. "The Administration of
Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of
other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall
facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and
shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish agency referred
to in article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including
State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes."
Freedom of access to holy sites and free exercise of worship
are guaranteed in Article 13.
It is not commonly known that without the nod from America,
the Balfour Declaration might not have seen the light of day.
Some of the background to this is chronicled by Steven Spiegel
in his book The Other Arab Israel Conflict - Making America's
Middle East Policy - From Truman to Reagan.
Spiegel writes in the preface: "When a generally worded
British request for American approval of a declaration in
favor of a national home in Palestine arrived in Washington
in September [1917], [colonel Edward] House [Woodrow Wilson's
most important aide] raised the issue with the president and
helped elicit a reply urging restraint.
"Several weeks later, the British again cabled the president,
but this time they provided a specific proposed document and
referred to intelligence reports that the German government
might be considering a similar declaration.
"Even before American Zionist leaders could reach House
to urge support, Wilson acquiesced with the proviso that American
backing not be made public.
"In these critical deliberations which lent secret US support
to the release of the Balfour Declaration, the State Department,
secretary [Robert] Lansing and Zionist leaders all played
indirect roles. Decision making centered on the White House
and the president himself at the center of the process."
While it was known that Wilson endorsed the Balfour Declaration
while it was being drafted, says Palzur, few people are aware
of his role in its publication.
And since the wording of the Rights in Palestine Convention
between the US and Great Britain cites the basic principle
of the Balfour Declaration, it is obvious that America under
the Coolidge administration was no less in favor of a national
home for the Jewish people.
Yet for some odd reason the convention has escaped the eyes
of researchers, archivists and historians. Palzur produces
several volumes on the history of the region, some of them
released by British and American government agencies. Yet
no index in any of these books and pamphlets makes mention
of the convention.
Palzur raised the issue with several lawyers, diplomats
and political scientists from Israel, Britain and the US,
but none of the people he spoke to had any knowledge of it.
The support of the major Allied powers for the aspirations
of the Zionist enterprise has enormous historical relevance
says Palzur, adding that many events since the creation of
the state have even greater significance and are not brought
to public attention often enough.
It bothers him that Palestinian spokespeople are distorting
many of the facts and that rebuttals by Israel are few and
far between.
"I hear almost every day how Palestinian spokespeople put
their case via the international media. They're constantly
talking about conquered territories and the return of Palestinian
lands occupied by Israel."
Regardless of the opinion of the Right, which views such
territories as reclaimed rather than conquered, the UN, Palzur
acknowledges, has decided that these territories are conquered
land. "But it's important to remember," Palzur points out,
"that we did not conquer territory from the Palestinians.
There was no Palestinian entity with sovereign rights over
these territories. We conquered the West Bank from Jordan."
Noting that the Palestinians more than 50 years ago had
a chance for statehood, Palzur reminds anyone who may have
forgotten that while the Arabs were vehement in their opposition
to Ben-Gurion's proclamation of the State of Israel, "no Arab
leader arose to proclaim the establishment of an Arab State.
There was an Arab leadership which could have proclaimed a
state."
But the Arab leaders, unlike Ben-Gurion, were not pragmatists.
They wanted all the territory, and when they couldn't have
it, the military forces of Egypt, Transjordan, Syria and Lebanon,
along with units from Iraq and Saudi Arabia, rose up against
the nascent State of Israel and started what became the War
of Independence.
Palzur refers to Myths Facts 1989 written by Leonard Davis
and published by Near East Report, the Washington weekly on
American policy in the Middle East.
The myth was that the West Bank was part of Jordan. The
fact according to Davis was that "the Jordan River was the
frontier between Palestine and Transjordan after Britain divided
Palestine in 1922. Mandatory Palestine as recognized by the
League of Nations consisted of the entire territory [that
in 1989 comprised] the State of Israel, the West Bank of the
Jordan River and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. In 1922,
the British arbitrarily suspended the applicability in the
province of Transjordan of the provisions of the Mandate which
called for the Jewish National Home. This step entirely removed
Transjordan from the possibilities of Jewish immigration and
development, restricting them to that portion of Palestine
west of the Jordan River.
Legally, however, Transjordan remained part of Mandatory
Palestine and British rule continued until 1946, when the
formal partition of Palestine occurred.
"In 1948, Abdullah's Arab Legion invaded western Palestine,
seizing the West Bank and the Old City of Jerusalem. Transjordan
formally annexed the West Bank in 1950 and changed its name
to Jordan.
"Under the [UN] partition resolution, the West Bank had
been allocated to the proposed Arab state; thus most West
Bank Arabs opposed Jordan's takeover. Only two governments,
Britain and Pakistan, recognized the annexation de jure.
"The United States never recognized Jordan's annexation
de jure. Similarly Washington never recognized Jordan's sovereignty
over the Old City of Jerusalem. On July 29, 1977, secretary
of state Cyrus Vance stated that 'It is an open question as
to who has legal rights to the West Bank.'"
Palzur makes a distinction between the rights of individual
Palestinians to assets within Israeli sovereign territory
and what he terms the bogus claims of spokespeople for the
Palestinian Authority.
But the latter speak so convincingly and so frequently from
so many international platforms, that Palzur is afraid that
the truth will soon disappear entirely from public consciousness.
A random test which he conducted among some 30 veteran and
recent immigrants from the former Soviet Union, as well as
a similar number of native Israelis under the age of 40, indicated
that his fears are far from groundless.
"The only ones who knew the real facts were people who lived
in Israel between 1948 and 1967, and even some of the people
in that category were vague in their replies. If Israelis
don't know their own history," contends Palzur, "how can we
expect people in other parts of the world to distinguish fact
from fiction? When they hear that Israel conquered territory
from the Palestinians, they believe it."
In recent interviews with the international media, Foreign
Minister Shimon Peres has attempted to set the story straight,
but it has to be told again and again before it sinks in,
argues Palzur.
Foreign Ministry pensioners keep their fingers on the pulse
of policy through lectures and symposia which they attend
on a fairly regular basis. At one such recent symposium devoted
to Israel's relations with the Palestinians, there were several
experts who had cut their diplomatic teeth on the political
science of the Middle East. According to Palzur they were
knowledgable in many spheres and steeped in wisdom and experience.
Prior to their retirement, they were excellent spokespeople
for Israel, and many would love to be recruited back into
the service of the state - even on a voluntary basis.
"It's a wasted resource," says Palzur. "Many of the newcomers
are not familiar with the facts because they weren't there
when those bits of history were being made. The Palestinians
continue fielding the same erudite spokespeople and we keep
coming up with people who can't compete."
In the early stages of the intifada, the Foreign Ministry
did use a lot of retirees, says Gideon Meir, deputy director-general
of the ministry's division of public affairs. "But now it's
sporadic. It depends on the situation and how long they've
been retirees. CNN and the BBC want titles, they don't want
retirees. And they'd rather have a minister than a director-general."
For all that, says Meir, there are some retirees who are being
used quite frequently such as Avi Pazner, Avi Primor, Hanan
Bar-On and Dave Kimche. From time to time use is also being
made of Itamar Rabinovitch and Meir Rosenne.
Considering how many other Foreign Ministry retirees speak
excellent English and have remained up to date with what is
going on, it's a very small number.
While discounting himself, "because the Middle East is not
my area of expertise," Palzur contends that "there are giants
whose talents and possible contributions are being ignored."
Not only are insufficient numbers of people being used,
he says, but also insufficient arguments and inadequate negotiators.
Palzur believes that business people who understand Arab
mentality may succeed where diplomats and other negotiators
have failed.
In speaking to the Arab nations, whether directly or indirectly,
Palzur stresses the importance of impressing upon them that
they have been the victims of Palestinian ambition. "Egyptian,
Jordanian, Syrian and Iraqi mothers don't love their sons
any less than Israeli mothers love their sons. Yet they have
lost their sons in battle against Israel for the Palestinian
cause - not their individual causes. Why did they have to
make these sacrifices? What was it for?"
Palzur also advocates making the Palestinians more aware
of what they have lost as a result of the present intifada.
"We already proved that we could coexist," he says. "I'm not
sure that Arafat really wants peace. If he did, he would not
have allowed the situation to deteriorate from the prosperity
which both Israel and the Palestinians enjoyed to one in which
Palestinian fathers are unable to feed their families."
Abba Eban coined the expression "the Palestinians have never
missed the opportunity to miss an opportunity."
Unfortunately, comments Palzur, "this still holds true today."
In fact, it seems that some things never change. Palzur
quotes a report published in Foreign Relations of the United
States 1947 by Robert Macatee, consul general of Jerusalem.
"It is tragic that many of the present casualties comprise
innocent and harmless people going about their daily business.
They are picked off while riding in buses, walking along the
streets and stray shots even find them while asleep in their
beds. A Jewish woman, mother of five children, was shot in
Jerusalem while hanging out clothes on the roof. The ambulance
rushing her to the hospital was machine gunned and finally
the mourners following her to the funeral were attacked and
one of them was stabbed to death."
Other Features
|
