by Adel Beshara
The history of Zionism coincides partly with the history of Palestine only after the Balfour Declaration - whereby the Jews were given access to Palestine, backed by the official pledge of the British Government of “using their best endeavours to facilitate the establishment in Palestine of a ‘national home for the Jewish people’ ”. In this Declaration, the Palestine Problem was created. By this Declaration, Palestine was laid open for the penetration of Jews for the establishment of their national home. Against this Declaration, and all subsequent measures inspired thereby, the Palestinians rose in protests, even at the costly price of bloodshed, martyrdom, and turmoil in the Holy Land. Through this Declaration, a supreme act of injustice, unparalleled in history, was enforced, sanctioned by the approval of the League of Nations, and realized by the mobilization of World-Jewry for the purpose, and the support of the British Government... And only by the formal abandonment of this Declaration as an official line of policy of the British Government, will the Palestine grievance be redressed and the Palestine Problem solved.
B. THE BALFOUR DECLARATION
The cornerstone of the Palestine Problem, thus, is the Balfour Declaration, the invalidity and illegitimacy of which are beyond dispute. We will not dwell here, at length, upon the various features of this Declaration which make it invalid as a political and legal document, but will content ourselves with the citation of such features:
The Balfour Declaration goes counter to the pledge which the British Government had previously given, through Sir Henry MacMahon, to King Hussein, in 1915.
The Balfour Declaration contains an inner inconsistency: for it is clear that “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people” is inconsistent with the condition, which the Declaration insists upon in the same breath that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”.
The Balfour Declaration was given at a time when the British Government was not empowered by the League of Nations to have any domination over Palestine.
The Declaration, when incorporated in the Preamble and the 2nd, 9th, 6th and 7th Articles of the Mandate, was in violation of the 2nd Article of the Covenant of the League of Nations, from the provisions of which the Mandate itself emanated.
Upon these and similar legal and political shortcomings, from which the Declaration suffers, we shall not here dwell; it being considered by us that the real invalidity of the Declaration derives from the following two considerations:
1. The Balfour Declaration goes counter to the principle of nationalism and national self-determination, and to the very elemental rights of national existence and sovereignty. Our rejection of the Balfour Declaration arises from this starting-point: the trespassing against the national rights of the Palestinian people. What we reject is precisely the arbitrary treatment of Palestine, and the determination of its destiny by powers not authorized to interfere in the fate of that country. The rights of the Palestinian people in their country are natural national rights, derived from their social interaction in the land, and their occupation thereof from time immemorial - and not contingent political rights, which can be acknowledged or denied by the arbitrary declarations given by irresponsible and incompetent authorities. The destiny of Palestine is not an internal British problem, which Britain is authorized to settle arbitrarily, and concerning which the British can give promises and issue declarations; and consequently, the Balfour Declaration is an illegitimate document, which may bind the British Government, but which certainly does not bind the Palestinians at all; and the Palestinians have rejected the Declaration, and will continue to reject it, backed by the support of the whole Arab World; and if they will succumb to it at all, it is a submission to the force of might, rather than to the authority of justice and right!
The Balfour Declaration is, thus, invalid, by virtue of the incompetence of its issuing authorities; it is consequently an unjust document, an eternal symbol of injustice and transgression, an eternal sin against humanitarian conscience, as well as against the principles of national existence and international behaviour and cooperation. The unanimous and persistent rejection of the Declaration by the Palestinians demonstrates its illegitimacy and invalidity.
Any attempts to justify the Declaration retrospectively, by emphasizing the alleged progress and economic prosperity in Palestine brought about by the advent of the Jews, are beside the point entirely: for, in the first place, it is highly debatable whether economic prosperity is preferable to national existence, and whether a prosperity necessarily attended by such far-reaching national dangers as the ‘Jewish nationalization of Palestine threatens the country with, is worthwhile at all; and, in the second place, it is an inalienable right of the people concerned to determine freely whether it would accept economic prosperity as a by-product of the ambitious scheme of the nationalization of the country by an alien people, seeking to establish in that country a national home of its own. The Palestine people has decided the last question, by giving its emphatic refusal to be made economically prosperous at the expense of being reduced to the status of a ruled minority in its own homeland!
2. The Balfour Declaration has facilitated the rise of a system of life in Palestine, which contradicts essentially the principles upon which true democracy and genuine international brotherhood rest – those principles for the safeguarding of which the last war has been fought and millions of lives have been sacrificed.
For, in the Holy Land, and under the auspices of the British Government, a community has developed and organized itself upon the principles of racialism - racial segregation and exclusiveness, racial superiority and domination. A regime of extreme racialism has been established, in this corner of the globe, under the auspices of that same British Government which led, only a short time ago, the most heroic war against racialism - and, so the paradox of history would have it, this regime has been established by the very first victims of Nazi racialism, those victims whose help, and the alleviation of whose sufferings, have been sought by all humanitarian peoples; those victims, in the name of whose rescue many a moving appeal to the conscience of the world is made! And, in this same Holy Land, and under the same Zionist regime, a ruthless terrorist movement has been organized, which declared war on the British forces and institutions and civilian citizens for the reluctance of the British to sustain the Jewish racial cause to the extreme ends that these terrorists want.
History will record this embarrassing paradox with reproach pointing out emphatically to the unreasonableness of that policy of encouragement and support which has been adopted towards the Jewish cause: a cause which builds itself upon the viscous principles of racialism, and threatens, in a spirit of arrogant and pugnacious racialism, the very existence of a people into whose land the Jews have been allowed to come as refugees from a ruthless campaign of racial persecution.
For these two reasons, it would clearly appear to any impartial observer that the Balfour Declaration, the cornerstone of the Palestine Problem, - apart from being void of any legal validity - is a violation of the sacred rights of national existence, and the equally sacred principles of international cooperation and brotherhood.
PROPOSALS FOR THE SOLUTION OF THE PALESTINE PROBLEM
The above analysis of the Palestine Problem, we believe, is a guide to its just solution.
The Palestine Problem is not intrinsically insoluble: its true understanding is the guarantee of the understanding of its just settlement. Its settlement requires courage to face facts, a sense of justice, and a sincere determination to enforce it - even though the enforcement of justice may involve difficulties, entail sacrifices, and lead to a period of insecurity and turmoil.
The Palestine Problem, we have shown, is a serious grievance; and only a sincere resolve to redress this grievance will restore justice; and, in the long run, peace and good will, to the Holy Land.
We are fully confident that your honourable Committee will not fail to recommend the measures im
posed by the sense of justice.
With this confidence, we offer, in conclusion, our proposals for the just settlement of the Palestine Problem:
1. The abandonment of the Balfour Declaration and all the obligations it involves. Such an abandonment will necessarily involve:
(a) - the cessation of Jewish immigration into Palestine, and the combating of illegal immigration relentlessly;
(b) - the facilitation, for all Jews desirous of leaving the country, to depart without any governmental difficulties or any impediments by Zionist organizations;
(c) - the prevention of all transfers or sales of land or property, directly or indirectly, to the Jews, all over Palestine.
2. The recognition of the independence of Palestine, and the facilitation of the establishment of a democratic system of self-rule.
3. Conclusion
Gentlemen
You are entrusted with an extremely serious and historic responsibility, which is nothing less than the restoration of justice to a country that has been unjustly treated.
It is the sincere hope of the National Party that the aspirations of all peace-loving people in the Arab World will not be frustrated by your honourable Committee.
And nothing short of a radical solution (which will courageously restore justice and redress the grievances of the Palestinians) will bring back security and peace and prosperity to the Holy Land, and good will towards the Western Democracies in the Arab World.
9
OUR NATIONAL REVIVAL
‘TO BE OR NOT TO BE’
Today, at the heart of every human society, two major tendencies are locked in a struggle for dominance. These two tendencies compete in the depths of each human civilization and imprint each civilization and cultural trend with the stamp of the dominating and vanquishing current. The character of each civilization and the orientation of each society are determined by the degree of dominance achieved by each of these two currents. Ultimately, the abode of this decisive conflict is humans, for the currents are active in human societies and civilizations only because they are active in the human soul.
The two tendencies are not mere philosophical notions or purely artistic or scientific outlooks. Rather, they are ontological attitudes that man holds up toward himself. Thus, he sees himself, appreciates his values and activity, and interprets society and civilization. Accordingly, he determines the type of society to live in, the form of its institutions, and its principle orientation. Hence, the two tendencies represent man’s attitude towards his entity as a human being. In light of them, he decides all the efforts and deeds that emanate from his human entity. The soul of each person is, thus, the place where these two tendencies contend and compete, and the identity of man is their subject matter.
* * *
The conflict between these two tendencies has accompanied humankind from primordial times. It is concomitant with the existence of man, his societies, and his civilizations. The modern era is characterized by the crystallization of these two tendencies in a most aggressive and comprehensive manner, which renders their conflict fundamental and prominent. Our age arrived in the aftermath of a major historical shift where one current was instigated into revolt against the dominance of tendencies in the other in a preceding epoch. Just as the other current had reflected itself, this instigation was reflected in all human activities: religion, philosophy, science, arts, and social, political, and economic systems. With the end of this period of uprising, a period of chaos prevailed in which each of the two tendencies lost its dominance and withdrew to regain momentum.
Our age, then, is a historical one and perhaps unique among the different historical epochs. Our age came in the aftermath of an era when each of the two tendencies materialized in a full, prominent, and conspicuous manner and engaged in a basic clear conflict. In other words, our age arrived after humankind had experienced both tendencies at their height. Hence, their conflict is not an invisible one shrouded with reservations and ambiguity, but rather, a conflict of two tendencies that have expressed themselves fully unmasked in all manifestations of life. This scenario is similar to a judge deciding a case in which the two litigants have completed their pleading and defense. The judge has all the evidence before him and is able to justify his judgment clearly to the court. Our age, then, is witnessing not an elusive and invisible conflict, but a conflict that is both clear and obvious.
Moreover, given this situation, our age is laboring to give a final conclusive decision. The destiny of man is now at stake. All preparations for this decision have been made. All tests have been conducted. Nothing remains but for man to decide.
This is the situation of man in this stage, after the conflict of the two tendencies that will determine his fate has emerged from silent obscurity into clear visibility and has abated. Man is now set to give his final word about himself.
It is a formidable historical period. Truly, the destiny of man hinges on his impending decision. Today and only today, man faces this problem: “To be or not to be”. It is a labor of life for the destiny of man, as a man will be determined by his decision: either to allow himself to be himself, to be human, or to eliminate the possibility of being himself to enslave his humanity to non-human elements.
* * *
In this crucial stage of human history, our nation awoke and realized the huge distance that separates it from the current level of humanity. It surged forward, scrambling and trying to catch up with the rest of the world. Naturally, this same conflict developed in it in a forceful way, perhaps more fundamentally than in other societies, because whatever way our nation tries to catch up with the modern world embodies its response to this problem. In other words, the manner by which our nation revives represents our nation’s attitude toward the problem, and it will determine which of the two tendencies will dominate our life. We cannot first revive and then later face this problem. Rather, in our striving for revival, we are bound in advance to confront this problem and take a certain attitude toward it.
Our national revival, represented in our institution, has indeed taken an active position towards the problem. In its basic philosophy, our revival has unconditionally embraced one current and categorically rejected the other. It is an embracing affirmed and clearly articulated in both its struggle and self-expression through the tendencies it has instigated. Finally, by instituting a Department for Culture and Fine Arts, at this point in its history, our revival has taken a decisive step toward acknowledging its unequivocal embracing of this current.
As the first dean of the newly created department, I will now analyze each of these two tendencies as they manifest themselves in all aspects of human activity.
II
In each of us, two dynamic human beings are challenging and buoyant, each trying to control us and leave its imprint! I have previously called these two human beings “two tendencies” and “two attitudes” that man takes toward himself and through which he interprets all his human activities. Now I will analyze these tendencies or attitudes in abstraction and highlight their implications and affirmations.
* * *
The first attitude sees man as a comprehensive totality. It sees man’s diverse activities - religion, philosophy, art, science, volition, social work, politics, economics, professions, and all other conditions of his existence - as expressions of his entity. In other words, different manifestations or aspects of human effort, categorized as “man’s self declaration” or “self expression” or “being oneself”. Also, this attitude sees man as an entity in a comprehensive world or cosmos that he communicates with in each moment of his existence. He expresses his communication in the manifestations of the activities mentioned above. Man, thus, is a comprehensive entity in a comprehensive world with which he communicates, interacts, and adapts.
The other attitude sees man as consisting of abstract and disjointed parts, tossed in a strange and complex world, like a partner one neither is related to nor is in harmony with. In this case, man entertains an
abstract and independent perspective of himself: a perspective that is not consistent with itself or with the cosmos. From this viewpoint develops a theoretical independent man who is concerned only with abstract thinking. For example, a philosopher engrossed in reflection, a logician devoted to analyzing his logical constructions, a scholar absorbed in explaining natural phenomena, an artist associated with an independent world of abstract beauty, a social being unappreciative of personal manifestations of art in society who confines himself to social behavior that is independent from such manifestations, or an economic being solely concerned with investing his efforts for lucrative ends. The cosmos (rich in space) and the human nature (rich in values) are thus dwarfed into independent abstractions, which confines human activities to their scope.
* * *
The first attitude regards the process of refining or upbringing as a process of building a human being completely developed in talents, fully open to and connected with values, and fully expressive in his different activities of all human aspects. It seeks this perfection (fulfillment) as a human objective and produces a person who sees a painful manifestation of his deficient humanity and limited nature in the urgency to focus on various aspects of his entity. This attitude aspires to build individuals who appreciate all these aspects in their human entity and yearn to express them fully in their life. It regards the building of people of this kind, who appreciate values and attune their lives to them, as the aim of refinement. It aims to develop their sense of responsibility and enable them to accommodate values and make crucial decisions inspired by their human dignity.
The other attitude aims to build beings disconnected from the totality of the human personality. It aims to develop an abstract thinker, artist, or politician consumed by political considerations or specialized in an occupation that secures him a living in his political life. It is an attitude where one element of human character inflates and dominates the human entity independently of other elements.