29 - Al-Nakba debate

Al Jazeera English

8.41M subscribers

The historic struggle for Palestine is characterised as the claims and counter-claims of Arabs and Jews, but one factor that is often overlooked behind the Palestinian 'Nakba' or 'catastrophe' of 1948, is the part played by an old imperial power, Britain. The history is written by the victors, who are the rewriters of history as new information, new documents, and new historians, come to light. It is time to examine how history itself is the battleground for the hearts and minds of new generations today.

00:20

hello and welcome the historic struggle

00:23

for Palestine is characterized as the

00:25

claims and counterclaims of Arabs and

00:27

Jews but one often overlooked factor

00:31

behind the birth of Israel and the

00:32

Palestinian Nakba the catastrophe is the

00:35

part played by an old imperial power

00:37

Britain whose interests were best served

00:41

by the British in Palestine how did it

00:43

honor its mandated duty of care and what

00:46

were the calculations and miscalculation

00:48

it made in redrawing the map of

00:50

Palestine and reshaping its history the

00:54

67 words of the Balfour Declaration and

00:56

the 65 years of Israeli statehood

00:59

continue to cause conflict on

01:01

controversy if history is written by the

01:04

victors who are the writers of history

01:07

as new information new documents new

01:10

historians come to light

01:12

after essentially of British involvement

01:14

in Palestine it is time to take stock of

01:17

the cliches and propaganda that served

01:20

competing interests and examine how

01:23

history itself is the battleground for

01:26

the hearts and minds of new generations

01:28

today we discuss the historic events

01:32

that led to the Nakba

01:33

the birth of Israel and the making of

01:35

history we are joined here in London by

01:39

Rosemary House professor of Middle East

01:41

Policy Studies at City University London

01:44

and former head of the Middle East

01:46

program at the Royal Institute of

01:48

International Affairs also known as the

01:50

Chatham House

01:51

James Renton senior lecturer in history

01:55

University and author of the Zionist

01:58

masquerade the birth of the angular

02:00

scientist Alliance and last but not

02:03

least avi Shlaim emeritus professor of

02:05

international relations at Oxford

02:07

University author of collusion across

02:10

the Jordan King Abdullah the Zionist

02:12

movement and the partition of Palestine

02:14

and more recently Israel and Palestine

02:18

but first to mark the 65th anniversary

02:21

of anaka

02:22

Al Jazeera has been airing a special

02:24

series on its roots and ramifications

02:28

the outbreak of World War one in 1914

02:31

created new opportunities to reshape the

02:34

Middle East Hillel and had everything in

02:37

can in fact grew and al-mulk a

02:40

Philistine Accord Menken at Suez word

02:44

our briefing of the master and back

02:47

Canyon de la allah door has Liberatore

02:51

Philistine bara Oh fear Yahoo to fill

02:54

her Catalunya shriek in 1917 the British

03:03

Cabinet headed by Prime Minister David

03:05

Lloyd George pledged to establish a

03:08

homeland for the Jews in Palestine at

03:11

the Paris Peace Conference in 1919

03:14

Britain was represented by Prime

03:16

Minister David Lloyd George and Arthur

03:19

Bellefleur a delegation from the Zionist

03:22

Organization attended headed by Klein

03:24

baseman they presented a map seen here

03:28

proposing the area to be allocated for a

03:31

Jewish home

03:32

in 1922 the League of Nations formalized

03:36

British rule in Palestine the second

03:39

Clause of the British Mandate document

03:41

approved by the League of Nations

03:42

stipulated the British mandatory shall

03:46

be responsible for placing the country

03:48

under political administrative and

03:50

economic conditions that will secure the

03:52

establishment of the Jewish National

03:55

Home British High Commissioner Herbert

03:57

Samuel decreed Hebrew as an official

04:00

language of Palestine alongside Arabic

04:03

and English the letters E and why were

04:06

added to the word Palestine in Hebrew as

04:09

an abbreviation of the words Eretz

04:12

Israel

04:13

meaning Land of Israel why would we

04:16

carry on with the year that we can

04:18

attribute a woman the yahood a union to

04:21

death what artwork when you say that a

04:24

Scalia well Madea was a - Nasia

04:28

fair Yamaha Julia are malleable it on

04:32

the year we're in a happen man who as an

04:35

apple never ever suffer horribly

04:37

embarrassing

04:38

in the 1930s the number of Jews

04:41

immigrating to Palestine began to

04:43

increase significantly from 4,000 in

04:46

1931 the figure jumped to 9500 the

04:51

following year in 1933 the number rose

04:54

to 30,000 in 1934 42,000 and in 1935 a

05:01

further jump to 62,000 leads to hiya

05:11

hatta me cattle market Malaysia a

05:14

lottery had in our gamble true

05:18

in Wagga muna Fez yeah I eat a feral

05:23

[ ] Hawk will be returned if you

05:24

come I offer you but they should be

05:26

coming in rahiba villa in 1945 following

05:30

the end of World War two

05:31

US President Harry Truman appeared to

05:34

encourage the Zionist agenda by

05:37

recommending the 100,000 displaced Jews

05:40

in Europe be allowed to emigrate to

05:42

Palestine in February 1947 Britain

05:47

announced the decision to end its

05:49

mandate in Palestine its spokesman said

05:52

his country would turn over the

05:54

difficult situation to the United

05:56

Nations Britain was now washing its

05:59

hands of Palestine setting in motion

06:01

events that would lead towards the

06:04

momentous year of 1948 gentlemen was

06:14

Mary welcome there's let's start with

06:17

you so here we had a declaration that

06:19

basically promised a national homeland

06:22

for the Jews in Palestine what basically

06:25

motivated double for declaration from

06:29

reading all of your writings apparently

06:32

there is an evangelical angle there is a

06:34

zionist angle there's a colonial anger

06:36

perhaps a humidity angle that's at with

06:38

the evangelical is there an evangelical

06:40

roots for that declaration for those

06:45

British members of the British

06:47

establishment at the time who were

06:50

Christian with an evangelical bent yes

06:55

but I think it's important to recognize

06:57

that the man who penned the original

07:00

letter to Lord Rothschild

07:02

in other words Lord Balfour it was not

07:06

motivated by an evangelical Christian

07:09

mission in fact at the same time as he

07:12

was writing that letter he was also

07:14

shepherding through the British

07:16

Parliament a piece of legislation which

07:18

would limit Jewish immigration to

07:21

Britain but is there a contradiction

07:22

between promising national homeland for

07:25

the Jews in Palestine and passing laws

07:27

that are not friendly to Jews in England

07:29

they were there's no contradiction

07:31

whatsoever

07:32

in fact they were mooting the idea of a

07:34

Jewish homeland somewhere else in the

07:36

Empire the British were in imperial vain

07:38

they thought it was okay to organize the

07:41

lives of other people to move groups

07:44

around they were busy in the First World

07:47

War anticipating moving people from the

07:50

Indian subcontinent to Mesopotamia what

07:53

became Iraq they thought that was what

07:55

you do that's all part of the Empire

07:57

exactly

07:58

Jim's what I've read of of Arthur

08:02

Balfour is that he thought of himself as

08:04

an instrument of divine of the divine or

08:08

divine intervention as a mystic question

08:11

of sort I think the religion aspects to

08:15

a significant extent is a red herring it

08:18

was a profound contribution to the

08:24

reason why members of the British

08:25

establishment was so readily able to

08:28

accept one of the the key tenets of

08:31

Zionist ideology that the Jews were a

08:34

nation an ancient nation they saw

08:37

Palestine as the Holy Land as the

08:40

promised land as the landscape of the

08:42

drama of the Bible probably the primary

08:46

reason for the Balfour Declaration was

08:49

propaganda in that in 1917 the British

08:53

government was desperate to stem the

08:57

tide of pacifism in Russia the type of

09:02

revolutionary socialism in Russia and to

09:04

try to keep Russia in the war at the

09:06

same time they were desperate to try to

09:09

mobilize the full resources of the

09:11

United States in the conflict and it was

09:14

believed in the British establishment

09:17

that Jews held tremendous power in

09:21

Russia and also in the United States

09:24

that there's that smell of a bit of

09:26

anti-semitism absolutely it was shaped

09:30

by an anti-semitic belief that the Jews

09:32

control inventors of power in Jewish

09:35

influence before we got to the Jews no

09:37

influence and on the question of

09:38

evangelism RV I think there is a view

09:43

that the Balfour Declaration was

09:45

inspired

09:46

by knowledge of the Bible sympathy for

09:50

the Jews and recognition of the Jews as

09:55

an ain't ancient nation and according to

09:58

this view

10:00

Zionism was a noble project and the

10:03

Balfour Declaration was a novel and out

10:05

artistic move on the part of the British

10:09

government they completely reject this

10:13

explanation of the motives behind the

10:15

Balfour Declaration and it seems to me

10:19

that the driving force behind the

10:22

Balfour Declaration was not the Foreign

10:24

Secretary Arthur Balfour but the Prime

10:27

Minister David Lloyd George and the

10:31

timing is significant November 1917 when

10:35

Britain was not doing at all well in the

10:38

First World War and Britain was

10:41

anxiously looking for allies from any

10:44

quarters it could find and the support

10:47

for Zionism was based on a misperception

10:49

a misperception of the British political

10:52

elite and by Lloyd George in particular

10:55

Lloyd George thought that the Jews were

10:59

a really powerful force in world

11:03

politics he thought that the Jews made

11:05

the wheels of history turn and therefore

11:09

by issuing this declaration in support

11:11

of Jewish national aspirations in

11:13

Palestine he would acquire a really

11:16

powerful ally in the war I think we have

11:19

to be very careful about a distinction

11:21

between the British desire to try and

11:24

enlist the what they imagined to be the

11:26

weapon for the warfare of winning over a

11:29

Jewish world opinion during the conflict

11:32

and Imperial designs there were some

11:34

members of the British government who

11:36

thought that sian ISM would be a useful

11:38

way to try to secure British control of

11:42

Palestine after the First World War

11:45

now there was a general consensus in the

11:47

British government that obtaining

11:49

control of Palestine it was an important

11:52

thing in terms of Britain's imperial

11:54

security because Palestine was supposed

11:56

to act as a bulwark to Egypt and

11:59

his canal the artery of the British

12:00

Empire but I think it's important that

12:03

we acknowledge that there are only a few

12:07

members of the government who thought

12:09

that Zionism would be a useful way to go

12:12

about doing that but there is no point

12:14

of making enemies of the Arabs a the

12:16

point is is that there was a profound

12:17

consensus within the government about

12:19

Jewish power and its importance for the

12:21

war we have to remember that in 1917

12:24

everything was at stake it wasn't just a

12:27

question of iearning decision-making in

12:30

London not you and across the empire you

12:34

certainly had the the classic British

12:37

Arabists and you had the the servants of

12:40

the crown working in India who had a

12:43

completely different perspective on what

12:45

was likely to be the consequence of

12:47

facilitating the creation of a Jewish

12:49

home in Palestine I mean there were

12:51

those who were servants of the Empire in

12:53

the subcontinent who were worried of the

12:56

effect that it would have on Muslims in

12:58

India and I would like to suggest one

13:00

additional motive which is anti-french

13:06

sentiment because empires are much in

13:09

great powers are much more concerned

13:11

with the relations with one another then

13:14

there are with minorities and the

13:18

subjects yes the subjects so behind them

13:20

are about four declaration there is a

13:22

colonial mindset which dismisses of no

13:27

significance the Arab majority the

13:30

Muslim majority in Palestine but there

13:34

is also a calculation which was directed

13:38

against the French because in 1916

13:41

Britain and France signed the

13:43

sykes-picot agreement a secret agreement

13:45

to carve up the Middle East in two

13:48

spheres of influence between them and

13:50

Palestine wasn't assigned either to

13:53

Britain or to France and Lloyd George

13:57

thought that was a mistake

13:59

and he wanted to acquire Palestine for

14:04

the British sphere of influence and one

14:06

way of doing this is forming the

14:08

alliance with the Zionists who would

14:11

then claim Palestine and

14:12

would Britain would have an entree into

14:15

Palestine through its ionic how would

14:18

you in this context judge or evaluate

14:21

the language used in those very few

14:24

words of the Declaration the wording is

14:27

fascinating which is why the scholars

14:29

have been disarmed discussing them ever

14:33

since the Balfour Declaration promised

14:37

British support for the establishment of

14:39

a national home for the Jewish people in

14:43

Palestine provided it didn't prejudice

14:46

the civil and religious rights of the

14:49

non-jewish communities in Palestine now

14:52

in 1917 the Jews were 10% of the

14:57

population and the Muslims were 90% and

15:01

it's absurd to offer a national home

15:04

national rights to a minority of 10% and

15:08

ignore the rights the natural right of

15:10

the of the majority but that's precisely

15:13

what barfle did in his declaration and

15:17

that's why it's such a classic colonial

15:20

document okay but I don't think it's

15:23

only colonial I am always fascinated by

15:25

the capacity of the British to depict

15:29

things in a way that kind of glosses

15:32

over the kind of problems that that

15:35

logic the logic of the words the

15:37

document would imply and well basically

15:41

that this whole land they didn't define

15:43

what the size of it would be

15:45

they didn't define what the population

15:48

spread would end up being they didn't

15:51

trouble themselves with whether it would

15:55

be a kind of cultural home or it would

15:59

be a sovereign state in fact I don't

16:01

think most of the British establishment

16:04

envisaged sovereign statehood for

16:06

anybody in the Empire at that time but

16:08

empires do thrive on generalities don't

16:10

they don't care for discussion on

16:14

ambiguity ambiguity who can interpret

16:17

later yes to suit the only reason but

16:21

the ambiguities that are not

16:23

constructive ambiguity is they are

16:25

destructive and we do

16:26

ambiguity is for the subject and the

16:29

wording of the Balfour Declaration came

16:32

back to haunt the British in the

16:33

interwar period the dialogue between the

16:36

Zionists and the British authorities

16:39

went as follows the Zionists said but

16:42

you promised us a state and the British

16:45

replied no we didn't promise you a state

16:48

we promised you a national home which

16:50

isn't the same so the arguments

16:53

continued about the meaning of the

16:54

declaration George come come back in

16:57

1922 or so and say yes we were talking

17:00

about a Jewish state yes I think that

17:04

there's two points that need to be made

17:06

to them about the terminology the first

17:09

is is that when they were drafting the

17:11

decoration the focus was on its

17:13

potential impact on world Jewry outside

17:16

of Palestine there was hardly any

17:19

discussion in the cabinet at all as to

17:20

what the future might be for Zionism and

17:24

a big part of that the the inability to

17:26

truly understand the populations that

17:29

were affected on the one hand the

17:33

Palestinian population were not

17:35

considered to be a national community

17:38

they were considered to be a hodgepodge

17:41

they were thought by the British not to

17:44

be a significant concern and in addition

17:49

to that the British also completely for

17:51

the most part completely misunderstood

17:53

Zionism they thought that mainstream

17:56

Zionism was not the Status movement they

17:58

misunderstood Jews and Zionism and ours

18:02

they thought that they were backward

18:03

they thought Jews were more advanced

18:04

than Arabs but they thought that both

18:07

communities were backward and they

18:10

assumed that because they were backward

18:12

they would never seriously consider that

18:15

they would actually have proper

18:18

independence now moving on by the mid

18:21

30s with the Arab Palestinian revolt now

18:23

we have a British white paper that

18:26

speaks of perhaps two states on

18:29

Palestine or in parts of Palestine does

18:32

that mean that the British started by

18:33

then regretting some of the stuff that

18:36

they were making in the early part of

18:38

the century

18:39

I think in 1937 when you have the report

18:41

of the Palestine Royal Commission that

18:43

sent to Palestine to figure out what's

18:45

going wrong and what should be the

18:47

future direction and it's hugely

18:49

significant that this is the first time

18:51

that the British start to think about

18:53

what the endgame might be now the the

18:55

Commission plans for the solution the

18:57

two-state solution given that the

19:00

declaration the Balfour Declaration was

19:02

issued in 1917 and the British

19:05

government only seriously considers

19:06

where all of this is heading in the long

19:08

term in 1937 makes a lot of questions in

19:13

between was the Balfour Declaration has

19:15

been written into the League of Nations

19:17

mandate so under the terms of the

19:20

mandate the British are supposed to

19:22

implement it that carry through on the

19:25

Balfour Declaration one of the other

19:26

things they're supposed to do and didn't

19:28

do is to set up Assemblies of the

19:32

population in Mandate Palestine for them

19:36

to participate in the running of their

19:37

own affairs and they neglected to do so

19:39

so briefly obvious the British wrote the

19:46

Balfour Declaration into the terms of

19:48

the League of Nations mandate over

19:51

Palestine and then it became a legal

19:53

commitment but the British realized in

19:56

the interwar period that they had made a

19:58

mistake they were saddled with these

20:00

incompatible promises and they had to

20:03

somehow manage the two conflicting

20:05

communities that they had encouraged

20:07

during the First World War and there was

20:12

no solution

20:13

there was one land and two people and

20:16

this was the conflict was about the

20:18

British philosopher Isaiah Berlin

20:21

compared the British Mandate over

20:22

Palestine to a minor British public

20:25

school where there was the high

20:26

commissioner who was high-minded and

20:29

fair-minded and wanted justice for

20:32

everybody but the assistant masters were

20:35

much more sympathetic to the Arabs than

20:41

they were to the Jewish boys who had the

20:45

irritating habit of writing letters to

20:48

their influential relatives around the

20:51

world complaining about everything

20:53

from the quality of food to the quality

20:55

of the tea they may have been marginally

20:59

more sympathetic to the Arabs but they

21:01

were arrogant towards both I think that

21:05

the key thing here is it going to

21:06

stripes of the Balfour Declaration is

21:07

that the fact that the British did not

21:09

define did not define what a national

21:12

home was and there's a reason for that

21:14

the reason being is that first of all

21:17

the Balfour Declaration was issued

21:18

primarily for concerns outside of

21:21

Palestine during the war but also the

21:23

British assumed that they could easily

21:25

manage what they decide what they

21:26

thought was mainstream Zionism which was

21:29

non-status Zionism they also thought

21:32

they made another significant error in

21:34

that they thought that the Palestinians

21:35

were not a nation and would eventually

21:37

accept Zionism because they thought that

21:40

the Zionists and the Jews were quasi

21:41

Europeans not real Europeans quasi

21:44

Europeans almost white beginners when

21:47

they went to Palestine I guess more

21:48

European but never right before we end I

21:51

just need to finish up with 1947 RV so

21:54

here we have recently a new classified

21:57

in from information or documents to

21:59

released and I think here The Guardian

22:01

in April 26 says that the British

22:04

government knew from the moment it

22:07

planned to withdraw its forces from

22:08

Palestine more than six years ago 1947

22:11

that partition of the territory and the

22:14

founding of the State of Israel would

22:15

lead to war and the defeat of the Arabs

22:18

as a secret documents revealed so

22:21

actually there their departure was as

22:23

controversial as their arrival in

22:25

Palestine yes and as dishonest as their

22:30

rival in Palestine because during the

22:35

twilight of the British Mandate they

22:39

also played a double game officially

22:43

they disengage there was a UN partition

22:46

plan to partition mandatory Palestine

22:49

into a Jewish state and an Arab state

22:51

and the British refused to implement

22:55

this UN resolution so they stood back

22:58

but they knew full well as the documents

23:01

reveal that there would be a war and

23:04

that the Arabs would lose

23:06

and that the Jews will come out but we

23:08

shouldn't leave the impression that they

23:09

wanted that war hold that hold that

23:11

thought rosemarie these were the days of

23:14

empire as it were we will take a news

23:17

break and when we come back we'll

23:18

discuss more about both the British and

23:21

the Israeli narratives on Palestine when

23:24

we come back from an Uzbek

23:35

if I'm vice Minh beside him former

23:38

British Prime Minister David Lloyd

23:39

George reaffirmed his own Zionist

23:42

credentials it is 60 years since he

23:56

recruited me I've been converted into a

24:08

happy woman British news bulletins at

24:13

the time described Palestine as akin to

24:16

a desert the reality was very different

24:24

well welcome back Rosemarie you were

24:26

talking about whether they did or did

24:28

not intend for that to be part of their

24:31

war in our earlier discussion we were

24:34

mentioning what the fortunes of the

24:37

British in the First World War meant for

24:39

their decisions about Palestine we

24:41

should remember that by 1947 whilst they

24:44

were on the winning side in the Second

24:46

World War the British were a spent force

24:49

completely it was the beginning of the

24:51

end of the empire 1947 is the year that

24:55

they withdrew from India Palestine was

24:58

only one of the places from which they

25:00

felt they had to retreat because they

25:02

didn't have the power or the will to

25:05

suppress opposition to their presence

25:08

and hold on and they basically organized

25:13

themselves to get out of Palestine they

25:17

didn't feel that they have the capacity

25:19

to implement the two-state solution and

25:21

they favored and they acknowledged in

25:23

their own records that they were

25:25

favoring the Jewish community in the way

25:28

that they organized their retreat why

25:30

they because they needed the port of

25:33

Haifa to get away they knew that the the

25:37

you show the Jewish community the

25:40

Zionist organizations were much better

25:43

organized and could be much of a service

25:45

for the Empire and that they could do a

25:47

deal with them to get all the British

25:49

forces presence equipment and so on out

25:52

the the there wasn't the possibility of

25:55

a deal with any kind of Palestinian

25:57

Authority to do that yeah let's get to

26:00

the Israeli narrative avi so here we

26:03

have a narrative that says look this is

26:04

a prosecuted people came back to the

26:07

home of their forefathers they were

26:11

attacked by a huge number of Arabs and

26:14

armies and they miraculously warned

26:17

their independence what is right and

26:20

what is wrong with this narrative this

26:23

is the standard Zionist

26:25

narrative about the origins and the

26:28

course of the israeli-palestinian

26:32

conflict and it portrays the Jews as the

26:37

victims of

26:38

this conflict but in the final outcome

26:42

it was the Palestinians who the victims

26:47

there is a large Zionist historiography

26:51

about this conflict which elaborates on

26:55

this narrative but in the late 1980s a

27:00

new group of Israeli historians emerge

27:05

Ilan Pappe and myself I am one of them

27:10

and with the help of Israeli and British

27:14

and American and UN documents we mounted

27:17

a frontal assault on all the legends

27:20

that have come to surround the 1948 war

27:24

in the birth of Israel so why do the old

27:28

historians refer to you as not new and

27:31

not historians because they don't like

27:35

the conclusions that we have reached in

27:39

our rewriting of the history of 1948 on

27:42

the basis of the new evidence so let's

27:45

take for example the idea that Israel

27:47

was attacked by a number of Arab armies

27:50

and they are they have miraculously won

27:52

the war of independence against them

27:54

okay well the Israeli narrative says

27:59

that the whole of the Arab world was

28:02

united behind a clear war aim which is

28:06

to throw the Jews in into the sea and to

28:11

strangle the infant Jewish state at

28:14

birth but if you look at the Arab

28:17

coalition that invaded Palestine on the

28:20

5th of May 1948 which consisted of five

28:25

Arabs the regular armies of five Arab

28:28

states plus irregular Palestinian forces

28:31

you will see that it's the most bitterly

28:35

divided disorganized and ramshackle

28:39

coalition in the history of warfare and

28:41

there was no United Arab owain but in

28:46

the Syrians of Jordanians weren't united

28:48

so actually afraid of one another yes

28:51

there was rivalry between Egypt and the

28:55

Hashemite country is ruled by Hashemite

28:59

our rulers in Iraq and Transjordan

29:03

Lebanon and Syria were afraid of King

29:08

Abdullah's project and ambition for

29:11

Greater Syria to incorporate Lebanon and

29:15

Syria in his kingdom so there are very

29:17

very different agendas in this conflict

29:20

what about people without a land going

29:24

to a land without a people yeah I think

29:26

he's perhaps us dwelling for a moment on

29:29

the profound connection of what we were

29:30

talking about before which is the

29:31

British connection to the evolution of

29:33

the conflict and harness mythology and

29:36

also Palestinian mythology and the

29:39

mainstream idea sense of things is that

29:45

actually the the the British betrayed

29:48

Zionism and on the other hand of

29:52

mainstream Palestinian view and our view

29:55

is that the British colluded with the

29:59

Zionists but I think is very important

30:01

nonetheless that we don't fall into this

30:04

trap of going one side or another that

30:06

we acknowledge that there was also

30:07

profound ambivalence amongst the British

30:10

about the Zionist project right up until

30:14

at the end of the mandate I think

30:16

there's a continuity between Ernest

30:19

Bevin the British Foreign Secretary who

30:20

was directing Palestine policy at the

30:22

end of the mandate and his fear that a

30:25

Jewish state would become a satellite

30:27

for the Soviet Union and feared Jewish

30:29

communism and I think it's important

30:32

that we avoid the trap of falling into

30:35

two very straightforward nice and simple

30:37

narratives that really derive from the

30:40

beginnings of the mandate in the 1920s

30:42

onwards about the British were the good

30:44

guys or the British were the bad guys

30:45

well the British themselves obviously

30:47

have their narrative and it's different

30:49

from the other two and it it basically

30:53

as with all national narratives is about

30:56

vindicating the establishment especially

30:59

the establishment of the day and today

31:02

it's too embarrassing by half to

31:04

acknowledge that the

31:05

British may have had a profound role in

31:08

creating the mess that has continued as

31:11

a conflict ever since but it's very

31:14

difficult for all of us to identify any

31:18

one moment at which you could say that

31:22

that this is the moment for which they

31:25

must make the biggest apology because

31:28

shall we hold our breath or was it

31:30

coming apology well once they apologized

31:33

for one little piece of the story then

31:37

what happens to the whole of the rest of

31:39

the story are they supposed to apologize

31:40

for Empire are they supposed to

31:42

apologize for what they thought was

31:45

trying to keep the two sides apart in a

31:47

civil war

31:48

they described israeli-palestinian or

31:51

Jewish Arab conflict as a war between

31:55

the locals and they gave up trying to

31:59

separate them and I think to this day

32:01

the tendency has been not only in London

32:05

but also in other European capitals too

32:08

to put the major onus on both the

32:11

Israelis and the Palestinians for the

32:13

continuation of the conflict they don't

32:15

want to go back into history for a

32:17

variety of that's gonna be very

32:18

difficult isn't it after the case the

32:20

ruling of the hi Kourtni October 2012

32:22

about the case being brought against the

32:25

British government in relation to the

32:27

Mau Mau uprising in Kenya which is open

32:30

the can of worms it's no coincidence

32:31

that since then it's awesome is

32:32

compensation yes and that they now have

32:35

the right to bring a case against the

32:36

government it's no coincidence that we

32:38

now also have a campaign that's being

32:41

put forward by the Palestinian refugee

32:43

center in London for an apology for the

32:45

Balfour Declaration and British colonial

32:48

rule in Palestine

32:49

I would like to assign to Britain a

32:52

share of the responsibility for the

32:55

Nakba and James mentioned Ernest Bevin

32:59

the Labour's foreign secretary Bevan

33:02

once said that the Balfour Declaration

33:05

was the worst mistake in Western foreign

33:10

policy in the first half of the 20th

33:14

century but he was in power after the

33:18

war

33:19

after the Second World War and he was

33:22

not moved by any sentiments he was an

33:24

imperial policy maker and there is a

33:30

debate one of the main bones of

33:32

contention between the old historians

33:35

and the new historians is British policy

33:39

towards the end of the mandate the

33:42

oldest toy and say that the British

33:44

Britain was activated inspired by strong

33:49

anti Zionist and even anti-semitic calm

33:53

sentiments and that Britain's policy was

33:57

to arm and to encourage its Arab allies

34:01

to invade Palestine and put an end to

34:04

the Zionist project the new historians

34:11

perspective on British policy is rather

34:14

different Ilan pappé was the first to

34:17

challenge the Zionists our account and

34:21

he claimed that the key to British

34:26

policy towards the end of the mandate

34:30

was not through Israeli or / Arab it was

34:34

pro-british british imperial interests

34:37

and the key was greater Transjordan in

34:41

1947 1948 there was a tacit agreement

34:44

between king abdullah of Transjordan and

34:48

the Zionist leaders to partition

34:50

Palestine between themselves at the

34:52

expense of the Palestinians and this is

34:55

what happened in the end and a

34:58

subsidiary are a subsidiary argument is

35:00

that Britain knew and approved of this

35:05

collusion across the Jordan because the

35:10

British saw a Palestinian state as

35:13

synonymous with a multi-state and the

35:15

mufti was a renegade and hostility to

35:20

the mufti and a Palestinian state was a

35:22

constant factor in British policy to

35:27

throughout this period and I would say

35:31

that the subtext here

35:33

is that the British always understood

35:34

that there would be two states and a

35:37

two-state solution there was to be an

35:39

Arab state in a Jewish state but really

35:41

they thought that the Jordan River was

35:42

the dividing line between the two the

35:44

Jordan River but I think it is important

35:47

that despite the Bevin and the British

35:49

government thought that it was in their

35:50

interests to work with the reality of

35:55

United Nations support for a Jewish

35:57

state at that point Bevin was no fan of

36:01

the prospect of a Jewish state

36:02

even if reasons of realpolitik it was

36:06

something that he had to go with and at

36:08

the same time as everyone already

36:09

mentioned that there was this profound

36:12

distaste for the Palestinian Arab

36:15

leadership and I think that we have to

36:18

acknowledge that there is a clear

36:20

continuity from this point to the

36:22

present day in the international

36:24

community including the British

36:26

government of an uneasiness with what

36:30

they regard as non mainstream Zionism

36:34

they're always looking for moderate

36:36

Zionism in other words Zionism that will

36:38

fit in with the international

36:40

community's grand design and also at the

36:43

same time quote unquote moderate

36:45

Palestinians who will also fit in with

36:47

the international community's grand

36:49

design and that takes us all the way

36:51

back to the First World War when you say

36:53

international community grand design

36:54

meaning what exactly I mean in the sense

36:56

in in terms of the of the quartet so at

37:01

the Western head

37:03

absolutely but then again that's a bit

37:06

of a complicated because if we talk

37:08

about the West it doesn't really explain

37:09

the entire membership at the quartet

37:11

does it but I think that there is a

37:12

mainstream sense within international

37:15

politics that there is a search for

37:18

moderate Zionists and moderate

37:19

Palestinians and that there's a way

37:21

forwards that doesn't that isn't

37:24

involved mutually exclusive nationalism

37:26

on the part of both parties and I think

37:28

that this is a misunderstanding of this

37:30

war for statehood that goes back to the

37:33

first world it's a joke isn't it that

37:35

you get some Arabs who I think probably

37:39

are motivated by the desire to flatter

37:41

the British saying but you know us so

37:43

well what a joke

37:45

I mean basically the bridge

37:46

weren't seeing anything and it's not

37:48

unlike the the way the British plowed in

37:51

with the Americans into Iraq in 2003

37:55

and all sorts of things happened that

37:56

they've never anticipated they they

37:58

really do not have that good handle on

38:01

the realities of the region I must go

38:04

back to the Israeli narrative the

38:06

Zionist Israeli narrative so in the

38:08

1980s there's a new history that was

38:11

introduced which says look there are no

38:13

Palestinians these are Arabs that

38:14

emigrated in the 19th century to

38:16

Palestine there is no such a thing as a

38:18

Palestinian people and the likes of John

38:20

Peters onward time immemorial and so on

38:23

advance the idea that there is that

38:25

needs to be a swap of refugees Arab

38:27

refugees back to the Arab world and

38:29

Jewish refugees back into their homeland

38:31

what's wrong with this Israeli argument

38:41

it's such a completely unconvincing and

38:44

implausible argument because the

38:49

Palestinians are refugees and no one

38:51

denies that the debate is why did they

38:53

become refugees the old historian said

38:58

they left of their own accord the new

39:01

historians say historians say they were

39:04

pushed out no one denies that there were

39:06

refugees and that there were three

39:09

quarters of a million Palestinian

39:12

refugees more than half of the

39:14

Palestinian population in Palestine

39:16

that's the biggest refugee problem and

39:19

the most enduring refugee problem in

39:22

post-war so were they squeezed were they

39:25

encouraged by their leaders to leave as

39:27

the Zionist narratives introduces or is

39:30

something else very Maurice studied this

39:33

question in very great depth and with

39:36

the support of a mass of Israeli

39:38

documentation and his conclusion is that

39:42

there were many reasons for the

39:45

Palestinian exodus from Palestine but

39:48

the single most important most central

39:51

reason was Zionist military and

39:54

psychological pressure so by and large

39:57

most of the Palestinians were driven out

39:59

and

40:00

for Israel created this refugee problem

40:03

Israel is responsible for this problem

40:07

the documentary evidence includes

40:10

photographs obtained from the Israeli

40:13

archives of the busing of Palestinians

40:17

out of the areas in which they were

40:19

living of the separation of men and

40:21

women the organization of the population

40:23

into camps to be bused out or put in

40:27

lorries out though there was an

40:29

organization to the Exodus it didn't

40:32

happen overnight and it went on for

40:34

months and months over a year before I

40:37

go to what James talked about or called

40:40

Palestinian mythology I just want to

40:43

finish up with the question of Israel

40:45

you mentioned the new historians and the

40:47

new narrative introduced revisionist

40:49

history of sort how much influence does

40:51

that have in Israel during the few years

40:55

after the Oslo accord was signed in 1993

41:00

the Israeli public was quite receptive

41:04

to the new perspectives and you mean

41:07

because of the political environment

41:08

because because the Palestinians and the

41:11

Israelis have had embarked on the road

41:14

to peace and there was greater openness

41:16

to the narrative of the other side and

41:20

new interpretations had some traction

41:24

history books for secondary schools were

41:27

rewritten not abandoning the old Zionist

41:31

narrative the version that I was taught

41:34

at school in Israel but opening up a

41:38

debate about the causes of the

41:40

Palestinian Exodus and Edward Saeed who

41:45

wasn't a historian saw that the new

41:47

history for played quite an important

41:50

part in Israeli politics in the decade

41:54

after Oslo at three levels he said that

41:57

the new historians educated the Israeli

42:01

public about their own history and about

42:05

the relations with the Arabs it also on

42:09

to the Palestinians it presented a

42:12

version of history

42:13

which was

42:14

just the propaganda of the victors it

42:16

was genuine history honest history which

42:19

correspond to their own experience of

42:21

the Nakba and thirdly the new history

42:25

created a climate of opinion on both

42:28

sides of the divide which was conducive

42:30

to progress along the peace front

42:34

Jim's history perceived or revisited

42:37

within the constraints of ideological

42:39

and the political situation of the day a

42:41

great deal of the scholarship that's

42:45

there's been published in recent years

42:47

about the origins of the conflict and

42:49

the evolution of the conflict and

42:51

there's a willingness to accept and to

42:56

emphasize I think quite clearly the

42:59

significant role that was played by the

43:01

British but I think that in a lot of the

43:06

historiography there's still a tendency

43:09

to go down either one path or another

43:11

that that essentially for example with

43:15

reference to the British that they were

43:16

either pro-zionist or that they were

43:19

anti Palestinian but there is a new

43:21

history that speaks more to the

43:23

commonalities between Palestinians and

43:25

Jews in the early part of the century

43:27

then later perceived to be in a

43:31

commensal see ology of sort if you were

43:33

there's an attempt to restore the city's

43:35

relations for City Jewish relations

43:38

well mentioned historians of Europe like

43:43

[ ] sand who've questioned the have

43:46

talked about the invention of the Jewish

43:48

people and there's a thesis out there

43:51

that says that the Palestinians are also

43:53

Jews I mean this can go on and on what I

43:58

would say in terms of the situation and

44:01

its tragedy because we have Palestinians

44:05

either living outside historical

44:08

Palestine as refugees or within the West

44:12

Bank and Gaza as refugees and citizens I

44:15

beg your pardon

44:16

inhabitants of land under occupation and

44:19

if they are to have the rights

44:22

recognition of their rights as human

44:24

beings and as the

44:28

the victims of a sequence or series of

44:33

catastrophes and to have representation

44:38

citizenship somewhere if that has to

44:42

happen then it possibly is the case that

44:45

the British could help by acknowledging

44:48

that they have take some of the heat

44:51

take some of the weight and revisit

44:56

their own history and say that there are

44:59

a lot of people who had they acted

45:02

differently could have prevented some of

45:04

this spinning out the way it did instead

45:06

we have Tony Blair now the

45:07

representative of the international

45:09

community in Palestine all the parties

45:12

to this conflict need to reassess the

45:15

history in the light of new evidence

45:18

this is what the new historians have

45:21

done and I think this encourage the

45:23

emergence of new historians and we have

45:26

eminent new historians like Professor

45:28

Rashid Holliday of Columbia University

45:32

and Edward Saeed once wrote to me and

45:36

asked me to organize a conference at

45:39

Oxford on the moral and political

45:42

consequences of 1948 for him the moral

45:45

consequences came before the political

45:49

consequences that's significant the

45:52

result was a conference we organized in

45:54

a book that Eugene Rogan and I co edited

45:57

on the war for Palestine rewriting the

46:01

history of 1948 but to go back to an

46:06

earlier discussion we had his history

46:10

isn't written in a vacuum

46:11

history is written in a political

46:14

context and the emergence of the new

46:17

history in the late 1980s owed very much

46:22

to the aftermath of the Israeli invasion

46:24

of Lebanon in 1982 which was very

46:28

controversial and aroused a great deal

46:30

of criticism of the Israeli

46:32

establishment and that opened up a space

46:35

for going further back to reexamine

46:37

critically Israel's history and

46:40

similarly as a result of the outbreak of

46:44

the Second Intifada in 2000 the Israeli

46:49

minds have become closed again there has

46:52

been a reversal to fundamentalist

46:54

positions to us on them to this notion

46:57

that the Palestinians cannot be trusted

46:59

that the Oslo accord was a mistake and

47:02

the whole of the Arab world is against

47:06

us and we must stand up and fight for

47:09

ourselves but I guess it's we're back to

47:12

ground zero point zero as it were and

47:15

rosemary gentlemen we're gonna have to

47:17

end thank you for joining us until next

47:21

time

47:29

you