Lessons forgotten
In a highly symbolic vote in the British House of Commons, members overwhelmingly passed a non-binding resolution last week to provide diplomatic recognition to a Palestinian state. The vote, 274 in favour to 12 against, was a reflection of the growing global dissatisfaction with Israel and its policies. World public opinion seems to have shifted since the breakdown of US sponsored peace negotiations and the armed conflict in Gaza earlier this year. Voices, both from the left and the Conservative party in Britain, were echoing their disdain for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu for his government's stance towards the Palestinians.
A Labour party lawmaker said: “Britain had a historic opportunity to take this small but symbolically important step of recognition.” He added: “To make our recognition of Palestine dependent on Israel's agreement would be to grant Israel a veto over Palestinian self determination.” Israel had always insisted that any concession made to Palestine would come from the negotiation table, and it was very reluctant to see any country accord such concession unilaterally. The Conservative Chairman of Britain's Foreign Relations Committee lamented that he had “stood by Israel through thick and thin, but realised that Israel has been slowly drifting away from world public opinion.”
It must be noted that 134 of 193 UN member states, including Bangladesh, have given diplomatic recognition to the State of Palestine. In fact, the Palestinian ambassador to Bangladesh is the Dean of the Diplomatic Corp here. So the British recognition does not usher in a new diplomatic era in the world. But why is there so much international fuss about Britain's recognition of the State of Palestine? It is important that we revisit history and examine the role of Britain, which was responsible for creating much of the conflict in the Middle East. It is the legacy of British involvement in Palestine that is often ignored by the world. Britain's misjudgments since the League of Nations gave a mandate to it in 1918 continue to be constantly repeated. The tragedy that has befallen Palestine has much to do with Britain's foster role there.
To begin with, till November 1918, Palestine did not exist as a political entity. The League of Nations had carved out Palestine from four districts of the Ottoman Empire that had ruled over it since 1516, and handed it over to Britain to run the mandate. At that time approximately 10% of the population there were Jewish. Of this, a small minority were Zionists -- those who were fanatical about setting up a Jewish state in Palestine. During the writ of Britain from the end of the First World War till 1948 the political landscape of Palestine was completely changed. Imperial Britain had, instead of being responsible for keeping the peace between the two warring parties—the Jews and the Palestinians—called all the shots. By the end of 1948 a powerful Zionist movement had taken root in Palestine. The Arabs too had developed deep rooted Palestinian nationalism. But it must be remembered that compared to the Jews, the Arabs were a poor, illiterate and disillusioned people. Britain's drafting, interpretation and implementation of the League's mandate over Palestine ultimately led to Zionist victory and defeat of the Palestinians.
The Balfour declaration associated Britain with the Zionists and everyone knew that it would 'favour' and 'facilitate' the establishment of 'a national home' for the Jews in Palestine. The British government made no attempt to clarify how it would achieve these promised goals. It also did not clarify how the non-Jewish people in Palestine, i.e. the Arabs, would be affected and what steps it would take to protect them. Britain did all this to rally Jews behind the Allied war effort. After the War, Britain had no exit strategy from Palestine. It wanted to stay in that land as long as possible 'so as to protect strategic interests in the Middle East.' Thus, Britain relied on a number of flawed assumptions which shaped the governance of Palestine.
When the British finally planned an end game to the Zionist conflict they asked the Palestinian Royal Commission to consider the partition of Palestine into two independent states. However, the British government ultimately shelved this proposal. The British in fact had little understanding of the long term effects of these policies. The two states solution of 1937 did not take into account the impact on the ordinary Palestinians if there was a large scale transfer of Arabs from the Jewish part. The British then made another mistake of assuming that state sponsored violence followed by agreements between political elites could bring peace. Thus, by ignoring the concern of the ordinary Palestinians as well as not appreciating the Jewish sensibilities of the holocaust during the Second World War, the British made a mess of the two-state concept in Palestine.
The British seem not to have learnt from the lessons of history in Palestine and the mistakes they made there. Last week's vote in the House of Commons to recognise a Palestinian state is too little and too late. It comes with all the baggage it entails. The Palestinians are being pressured by the Israelis to concede all their demands. New West Bank Israeli settlements are being added to the Palestinian state, further restricting its size and potential. The issue of East Jerusalem being the capital of the Palestinian state is not being considered. The return of Palestinian refugees from the region surrounding it is also not being given any thought. The British are again at their old game. Without clearing all the mess they created they want to clear the way for a weak state that will be at the beck and call of Israel. Britain failed its mandate and now wants to absolve itself of any blame. Let us see how things play out for the Palestinian state in the future.
The writer is a former Ambassador and a commentator on current affairs. E-mail: [email protected]
Comments