Israel and Palestine in the 20th Century Part 1

Welcome to the McCormick on History Podcast. Hey everybody. In light of the recent Hamas attack on Israel, it's important for us to take a look at some of the 20th century history that's so heavily influenced what we're seeing today. This podcast is designed to give basic, clear and meaningful information to help understand the complex first half of 20th century history in Palestine. We'll conclude this podcast after Israeli independence in 1948. A second one will examine the post-independence period. Remember, this is not comprehensive and that's on purpose. The goals to cover the major elements and to make them relatable. So, here we go. First, let's get some terminology and some basic information clear before we even get into the history. I'll be using the term Palestine until we reach the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. It wasn't ancient Israel, of course, but Palestine was the terminology in the era we're examining. Much of our discussion centers on this concept called Zionism. Zionism was developed by, well, we would say, Theodore Herzl, Teodor in German, Erzl. In his 1896 book titled The Jewish State, Zionism's goal was to establish an independent Jewish state, not necessarily in Palestine in this very early period of the concept, although it becomes the overwhelming favorite rather rapidly. By the 1920s, it was exceedingly clear that some Jews wanted a fully established Jewish state, an independent state, not just a homeland where they could exercise a level of cultural identity, and they wanted it in Palestine. For much of its early existence, Zionism was a minority movement amongst Jews. Zionists saw their movement as critical though, to the preservation of Jews and the Judaism. Obviously Zionism, the way we've defined it here, was destined to conflict with Arab sentiments. Palestinians did not want to see a Jewish state planted in Palestine, and we'll see how Palestinians argued that they were victims of the Holocaust victims, as well as European and American guilt. Some like Edward Said would compare the establishment of the Jewish state to European colonialism. Basically, one side's gain was going to be another side's loss. Both sides held logical arguments that generated sympathy, but one was destined to win and another lose. The land co-Palestine in our discussion was under Ottoman control from 1517 to 1920. The Ottoman Empire was a Muslim empire that picked the wrong side in World War I. They joined the central powers led by Germany. That decision changed its history forever, and thus it was World War I that changed the future of Palestine and the broader Middle East in a profound manner. Many people forget that the Middle East was a military theater of operations in World War I, with the British trying to ouster the Ottoman Empire from the war. Remember the Ottomans were Germany's allies. The Middle East had a significant British presence, with battles waged in a region that had seen Roman legions waged war centuries earlier. In pursuit of British and allied victory in 1915, the British government, in a series of letters, Pramis Sharif Hussein, the Emir of Mecca, that Arab states would gain independence at the end of the war. This was a series of ten letters between the government and the Emir. Palestine was not specifically referred to in the letters, but it was deemed to be part of the Arab lands proposed by Hussein. The lack of specificity became an issue that was unintended. This was further complicated by the translations between Arabic and English, with both sides disputing what was meant in the correspondence. That really developed that a bit of a later date. Initially, the promise of Arab states influenced the Arab revolt, which was depicted so vividly in the Peter O'Toole film Lawrence of Arabia. With World War I raging in the Ottoman Empire, the state that controlled Palestine, allied with the Germans. There were many discussions about the future of the Ottoman Empire, and thus the future of Palestine by association. For the British, the security of the Suez Canal was absolutely paramount. The British were not keen to have the French or anyone else occupy a region that in any way could be used to endanger British control over the Suez. It was their lifeline to India and their other Asian colonies. Meanwhile, Zionism had started to gain more adherence. Led by Kaim Weitzman, Theodore Herzl, David Bingerian and others, the Zionist movement emerged as a political force during the war. A promise of a Jewish homeland was viewed as a method for attracting Jews to the Allied calls. But all Jews were Zionists though, like we mentioned earlier, only a minority supported Zionism. But it was growing due to the increasing hope of there being at some point in the future a Jewish homeland, ideally in Palestine. The Balfour Declaration, a letter from Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour to Lord Rothschild on November 2, 1917 was a very clear regard to Britain's position on Zionism and Palestine. This letter changed everything. It stated, quote, "His Majesty's government viewed with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object." Now, the Balfour Declaration is very short, but the last sentence promised to secure the rights of non-Jews living in the region. That's an important aspect of the letter. As foreign secretary, Balfour's words were policy. Balfour had known, Coyne Weitzmann said, "1906, an egradually embraced Zionism, seeing the Jews as an industrious people closely linked to Western civilization, who would make the region a political and economic success in a stable, Western-leaning state thankful for Britain's support." With World War I ending in 1918, and the League of Nations being established the following year. Now, remember the League of Nations is the forerunner of the UN we have today. The League issued a mandate over Palestine to the British in 1922. This mandate meant that the British would oversee Palestine as it developed into a self-governing entity. This was called the Mandate System or the British Mandate or several other ways of saying it. This was not going to be smooth sailing though. There were many in the British government who were opposed to the Balfour Declaration and actively worked to diminish its significance. These included the likes of Lord Kursan, the British foreign minister from 1919 to 1923. He did what he could to hinder the development of what was pronounced in the Balfour Declaration. Kursan's opposition did not prevent Britain from being granted a mandate over Palestine, however. The Mandate System was part of the war's outcome. Britain wasn't the only one with mandates in the Middle East. Rights had mandates as well, for example, a mandate over Lebanon. In the 1920s, the Jewish population began to grow in Palestine and Jewish communities organized themselves economically, socially and even politically. We must stop here and remember that Jews had lived in Palestine for a long time. Now they had been a minority, but they had flourished. in different periods of history. Jews did not simply show up after the mandate was in place, although immigration will increase there. But it felt like Jews had just shown up because the immigration of the 1920s was very significant in relation to the small population in Palestine. I remember that a small population of Jews and what was essentially a fairly small population of Arabs as well, although they were clearly the majority in Palestine. Violence erupted in 1929 between Jews and Palestinians, although tensions had simmered for really most of the 20s with moments of violence. The trigger for the 1929 violence was was access to holy sites. Hundreds were killed and this seemed to signal that a partition was the only real policy. Palestinians were politically divided, but that didn't stop attacks on Jews. A large number of even non-Zionist Jews were killed by Arabs in Hebron, for example. More broadly we must remember that this was also an age of national self-determination, a concept that was championed by Woodrow Wilson. Many figures believe that national self-determination would create peace and and and and representative government. The Paris peace conference had really dictated national self-determination in 1919 and a many people that seemed progressive and liberal and national self-determination would be used by both sides by by Arabs in Palestine as well as Zionist to both sides demanding an independent state. The high rate of Jewish immigration and the subsequent violence influenced British policy makers to develop a new plan for the future of Palestine. Jews were entering Palestine at a high pace with the potential ultimately for outnumbering the Palestinians. Palestinians were fully aware of the demographic danger to their majority. Between 1933 and 1936 about 130,000 Jews entered Palestine. This immigration was driven by Nazi persecution of German Jews. These Jews brought European traditions with them to Palestine. In 1936 a very significant and widespread Arab uprising erupted. At first focused on attacking the British mandate government which seemingly was allowing all of this immigration and it's perceived to be pro-Jewish policies. Part of the influence of this was that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem had become a leader of the Palestinian cause. The Grand Mufti was absolutely the wrong man to take a leadership role for the Palestinian cause because he favored the Nazis and hoped the Third Reich would help eliminate Jews in Palestine. His actions influenced Jewish resistance. By 1937 with this violence going on Jews were being organized into not simply a defensive force but an offensive force to take the violence to the Palestinians. These organizations came to be known as the Leahy sometimes referred to as the Stern and Ergun. These two paramilitary insurgent and often referred to as terrorist organizations. There were splits in place within these groups but organized Jewish resistance was real. In July 1937 the Peel Commission which has spent two years examining the Palestinian situation hoping to find an agreeable and proper solution. After exhaustive work they penned a 400-page report. Yeah a 400-page report recommending a partition in Palestine that included the establishment of a small Jewish state. The Jews were to be allotted a tiny homeland comprising about 17% of Palestine. Cheafly the north and the sort of the north coastline as well. The two states were to join the League of Nations which at this time was a very weak organization that many accommodations were to be made for holy sites, Jerusalem and even certain accommodations for the two states. The British would remain with a small mandate from the coast to Jerusalem. Transfers of population would take place but the League of Nations certainly believed this was possible because they approved the plan. Population transfers, you know they don't always go smoothly but they had taken place after World War One especially between Greeks and Turks and thus there was a president precedent for that but the likelihood of population transfers being peaceful was not very great. Arab leaders and most Palestinians were very unhappy with the Peel Commission even though it offered Palestinians a real chance to establish their own country. But they argued about the growing number of Jews that continued to flow into Palestine. They argued about Jewish ownership of property. Jewish ownership of the best farmland etc. Palestinians were not in a mood to compromise. They could not understand why they were being asked to give a percentage of their land to the Jews. Some Palestinians suspected that any recognition of a Jewish state no matter how small would be the impetus for a larger and larger Jewish state ultimately taking over Palestine. They may not have known it but you know David Bingerian and Khaim Weitzman believed that the Peel Commission's allotment was the first step to gaining more and more of Palestine under Jewish control. Violence in the late 30s with Palestinians suffering the worst of it only confirmed to many that a two-state settlement was the only option. Unfortunately such a settlement was impossible to reach in part due to these intransigent positions and the consistent violence. Look the Arab Revolt dominated Palestine from 36 to 39 while the Peel Commission was doing its work and to put down Arab rebellion the British and Jewish elements cooperated at times. Thousands of Arabs were killed in the violence of hundreds of Jews and British lost their lives. When it ended in 1939 the revolt signaled that the Peel Commission was right about a two-state solution. Everyone believed it was impossible for Jews and Arabs to live in one state here in Palestine. The revolt however also convinced British authorities to step back from the Peel Commission's recommendations because they were impossible to implement at that moment. The British believed that the expulsion of Arabs from the Jewish lands would be impossible and elicit even more violence just making a two-state solution just not realistic. The British did choose though decide at this moment to limit Jewish immigration the 75,000 over a five-year period and curtailed Jewish purchases of Palestinian land. World War II though significantly just changed everything. Once the war began in Europe opportunities for Jewish immigration really just simply disappeared. As the Nazis gained control over vast areas of Europe that housed significant Jewish populations they implemented the final solution. The Holocaust killed six million Jews obliterating Jewish villages, towns, synagogues while trying to eliminate Jewish cultural traditions. Without a doubt the Holocaust influenced British and Western views and policies towards Jews and Palestine. Prior to the war Jews who had worked with the British to suppress our Arab revolt gained valuable military experiences especially in the late 30s. For example as I mentioned earlier the Ergun of a paramilitary force which had been founded in 1931 and it's often termed a terrorist group this gets very politicized sometimes. Initially hope that Britain would support a Jewish state and increase in immigration and Jewish territorial expansion if they supported Britain's war after the Lahee often called sometimes The Stern movement, sometimes called the Stern Gang, another organization, often termed as a terrorist group as well, was completely opposed to cooperating with the British. The Stern had a strong authoritarian street and was exceedingly violent as an organization. The Argoon and the Stern attracted young Jews, focused on creating a Jewish state regardless of cause. This was more stern than Argoon early on that, but they remained very much the minority amongst Jews, although they played a way, way, oversized role in political and military affairs. The irony, of course, was that Britain was fighting the Nazis who were killing the Jews. In February 1944, the Argoon, led by Minachem Began, declared war on the British, really creating a strange situation. Some of the Argoon weren't too eager to move against the British, as we've mentioned earlier, but their more nationalist elements were happy with the declaration. Now, the Stern saw the British as an absolutely implacable enemy and had no qualms about attacking British outposts and officials in Palestine, believing that they were fighting for independence and immigration. There's a lot of violence here in wartime Palestine. The British tried to control the Stern forces, but they were on the streets, and young members did not shy away from conflict. The British tried to suppress these groups through arrests and military actions, but those tactics only seemed to drive more people into this more extreme camp. Most likely, the British, you know, who at this time got to remember fighting the Nazis, could have smashed the Argoon and Stern organizations, but they didn't strike at them as vigorously as they could. This was in part due to Britain's concern not to alienate the United States' support for British, and for their policies in Palestine. There was concern about Jewish-American influence over Palestine's ultimate fate. This is just a small, and I mean small taste of the dynamics in Palestine in World War II. The situation was extremely complex, but I hope the point is clear here. There was no simple policy that was satisfied all the elements that play. World War II ended with Palestine as conflicted as any time in the previous three decades, with Holocaust survivors trying to repair their lives, often living in DP, displaced persons camps. The urgency to immigrate, especially to Palestine, was significant. Many of the British government did not want to see, though, an increase in Jewish immigration, because they feared more violence and just no solution inside. To London, the greater numbers of Jews, if more immigration was allowed, simply through fuel onto the fire. The British Empire, we've got to always remember this, British Empire governed over large numbers of Muslims. The last thing London wanted to do was anger millions of Muslims in their empire by opening the floodgates to Jewish immigration into Palestine. Jews in America, some of whom were influential, were eager to increase the immigration. Therefore, the 1946 Anglo-American Committee, studying this issue, recommended 100,000 Jews who were victims of the Nazis in the Holocaust to be allowed immigration into Palestine. This was an unrealistic number, because Holocaust survivors wanted out of Europe, by and large. And many wanted the safety of their own state, a place where they would be a majority. Regardless of official policies, illegal immigration, as well, was really endemic. It just couldn't be stopped. I mean, ships would just show up and throw a ladder over, and Jews was way to shore. And it couldn't be stopped even though the British attempted to intern Jewish immigrants in places like Cyprus. But this was a very bad look, because it appeared that Jews were being placed once again in camps, behind barbed wire. And of course, this is the year after the Holocaust. Unrest simply continued. After British authorities raided Jewish communities in parts of Palestine to crack down on Jewish instigated violence during the end of June 1946, the Ergun sought revenge. The British had detained over 2,500 Jews, many of whom had been in league with the stern or the Ergun. In retaliation for these British policies and actions, Minachem Began, and the Ergun blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, killing 91, mostly innocent civilians. The King David was the headquarters of the British Mandate government. Controversy still rages about notifications prior to the bombing, and Jewish actions immediately after the bombing. That controversy is probably never going to end. This act was only one of many acts of violence perpetrated against the British, and just violence in general throughout the region, including the assassination of Lord Moin, the British minister of state for the Middle East, and even Count Bernadot. The stern were particularly violent, killing Jewish informers, attacking infrastructure, attacking British troops, robbing banks. See, their goal was a Jewish homeland, and nothing was off limits in the pursuit of achieving that goal. Well, the British had had enough, and certainly had had enough by 1947. Violence was seemingly just never ending, and the British just realized that they were caught in the middle. There was really nothing that they could do. London was exasperated by Palestine, but they did remain supportive of attempts to create a solution to the problem. The British were eager to turn the whole business over to the United Nations, declaring that they would end the Mandate on May 15, 1948. What that meant was that the British are going to be gone, May 15, 1948. In early post-war Europe, Britain was in no condition to continue the occupation costs of the Mandate. The UN was now going to be the arbiter. The United Nations, and this is important to understand, was brand new, having been established in 1945, and not really ready to handle the Herkulean task of finding a solution to the problems in Palestine. The UN proposed two states. Ultimately, and this was after a lot of a study. They really go back to the Peal Commission, and they proposed two states, one Jewish and one Arab, with an accommodation for Jerusalem, which would be under international direction. The Jews in Palestine fully supported this two-state solution, because it gave a mistake while the Arabs rejected it, and I mean rejected it really out of hand. And the vote in the UN was very close. Some Arabs argued that this whole concept of the two-state solution violated the UN Charter, which guaranteed the right to national self-determination, like we mentioned very early in the podcast. Nationally, the national self-determination had been a very, very big issue in the first half of the 20th century, and they said, "Look, national self-determination is even in the UN Charter." Causing more unrest was that the Jews were to get 56% of the territory, even though they were a minority, much of that territory was also considered by the Arabs the best agricultural land. Palestine and broader Arab leadership believed they were being cheated out of the best land, and they were being cheated to the right of national self-determination. In addition, they argued that Europeans and Americans were establishing a Jewish state because of European and American guilt caused by the Holocaust. They argued that it was wrong to try to correct past Jewish suffering by projecting suffering on Palestinians who were guiltless of Holocaust atrocities. They resented implications that Arabs would thrive under Jewish leadership and Jewish reforms. They recoiled from many implications that Palestinians were culturally inferior to Jews, or that they were even people without a state. And that was a sort of a constant drum beat there about people almost without a state. No matter what. Or what the Arab said that? The Holocaust really dominated UN and public attention and made the Jewish case very sympathetic and quite understandable considering the era who put herself back in this era. Zionists like David Bingerian, a good negotiator who was very close to Eleanor Roosevelt, for example, saw the new state of Israel as the proper reconstruction of the historical Jewish homeland. He and others emphasized how Jews had been subject to oppression for centuries because of their minority status and that in his daily state because it would include a majority Jewish population would end the centuries and centuries of oppression. They emphasized that without a homeland that possessed the Jewish majority, majority Jews would perhaps potentially simply disappear. There were arguments as well that focused on ancient Jewish rights to Palestine. But of course, once you start using ancient claims, these are often problematic and hard to make in a modern environment. But these were impassioned and important ideas to think about because the Zionist movement very clearly argued that if we don't have this kind of state, we have the potential to simply go extinct because of the history that had been so, so brutal to Jews. Well, nothing was going to move forward and with the UN partition plan in Tatters from the very day it was announced, the UN plan simply was a non-starter. The thing to remember though was London, regardless, was going to step away on May 15, 1948. Now it's important for us to ask the question, where was the United States position here in all of this? Well, President Harry Truman in opposition to some in the US State Department recognized the State of Israel on May 14, 1948, although he had voiced his support for a Jewish state at least one year earlier. He was influenced by domestic politics. That's true. But early Cold War concerns were a factor as well. A perceived expansion of communism, I mean it wasn't just perceived, it certainly felt that way, but there was good, you know, looking at Eastern Europe and what was happening there, it looked like communism was on the march. And so this expansion of communism was a genuine concern in Washington. The opportunity to win favor with what would probably be a republic as well as a capitalist republic in the Middle East who would counter any Soviet movement of the region, well that was fairly attractive as well. So we have to put international affairs called war politics and domestic politics together in terms of understanding American recognition of the state of Israel. Palestine though simply is going to descend into war. And before the announcement of an independent Israel, the Jews were becoming fully mobilized with all kinds of resources to wage a war. Nothing was going to be spared. There was already consistent low level fighting between Palestinian forces and, or should say, Arab forces at this stage and Jewish forces. But the Jews were becoming every day that passed, better organized, and were more successful in importing weapons from Europe and even fielding a small air force. And eventually of course the war is also going to bring in outside players, trans Jordan, Libya, Syria, Egypt, countries like that. The fighting though that develops here in 1948 was really, really terrible. As early as April of '48, the die was cast in regards to just terrible violence when the the air jassin massacre occurred. About a hundred to 120 civilian Arabs were killed by the high forces. This of course sometimes pejoratively said, called the stern. The event and its significance still heavily debated and controversial. But the air jassin encouraged many Palestinians to simply flee. Both sides though committed, you know, act terrible acts upon each other. Atrocities were not hard to find. The level of animosity was shocking. The Jews were fighting for an independent state and the Arabs were fighting to maintain Palestine in their hand. There simply were no grounds for a compromise here. As we know, the Jews won the war and established a new state of Israel. The new Israeli state now controlled when it was all said and done, about 77% of Palestine. The West Bank maintained by Trans Jordan, which is, of course, today Jordan. And Gaza, held by Egypt, remained outside of the hands of the new Israeli state. As a consequence of victory, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians became refugees. About 700,000 fled the new state of Israel, which had been, of course, declared a state on May 14, 1948. Some of these Palestinians were physically forced out and plans were made to keep them out of Israel. Some were forced to leave most of their possessions behind. Others of war were sometimes killed. There was an understanding that Palestinians were to be removed. And if forced was necessary, it would be used, but they would need to be removed from the new state of Israel. There is significant historical controversy about the motivations for Palestinians to flee during the fighting, as well as Jewish military and political behavior. That's separate podcasts on its own. The bottom line was that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled, and the vast, vast majority of these never returned. It was apparent that David Bengurian, who had, he had actually been in Palestine since 1906, as well as his political allies, were determined that the new state of Israel would have as few Palestinians in it as possible. He was going to be a Jewish state. Some have argued that he was dealing in ethnic cleansing. Others say that Bengurian's focus was on security and the need for a Jewish majority state, and that refugees were an outcome of combat. That debate is also probably never going to end. And regardless of the debate there, the Palestinian population, the Arab population is what I mean there, was so badly defeated, economically devastated and essentially stateless. That concerted and calculated opposition to Israel developed very slowly. It was a response really akin to trauma. By the late 1960s Palestinians had reestablished an intellectual class in the Middle East, and beyond that, spoke about reestablishing Palestinian initiative. Yasser, Erafat and the Palestinian Liberation Organization were a result, but all that took really about 20 years to get off the ground. When the dust had settled, Israel was an independent state. They had wanted on the battlefield. The Jews had won their nation through this war, and they now were a political entity. Long and united leadership, under people like David Bengurian and Khaim Weitzman had been essential to victory. The cause of independence was essential as well, and yes, the horrors of the Holocaust motivated many young Jews in particular, to fight for a Jewish state. One can't discount international support either. Here there was great sympathy for the Jews, something Jews had rarely if ever enjoyed. Palestinian leadership, on the other hand, was fractured, and when help came from outside the country, trans-Jordan and Egypt and other places, it wasn't unified either. They were not as well armed as the Jewish opponents, who had been really developing a fighting force for years. internationally they were viewed as almost and identity-less people. That really was a tag that stuck when the Arabs tried to negotiate at the UN and in other venues. There were many in the UN who viewed Palestine as a region sort of void of population and simply opened a Jewish immigration. Furthermore, a Jewish leadership was much better connected to the West and with the out with the World War II over the West being victorious, that paid dividends as well. From all of this, you know, that we've talked about, the outcome was the modern state of Israel. In the next podcast, we'll look at the second half of the story. How did Israel handle its independence? And what were the challenges in the Palestinian territory? That's a fascinating story to tell as well. I hope you've enjoyed this brief introduction to the major themes that brought us to the establishment of Israel. See you next time. (upbeat music)