Last week, I briefly reviewed Palestinian leader Muhammad Amin al-Husseini’s 1936 affirmation that a newly independent Arab Palestine would have no room for its 400,000 Jewish residents. I also reviewed Lord Peel’s reaction, which was a rather sober warning that the sizable Jewish minority would be under grave risk, should the British ever leave.

Both Lord Peel and the Jewish leadership recognized that in post-Ottoman Palestine, the Arab drive towards independence was unstoppable. Independent Arab states were popping up all over the Middle East and Palestinian Arabs did not want to be left out.

A Jewish homeland was clearly incompatible with this dream, and it was obvious that Jewish immigration was to be greatly curtailed, and soon. For the Jews, curtailment was a double tragedy. It meant that they would continue to be a vulnerable minority, and worse still, they would be unable to provide refuge for Europe’s persecuted Jews.

The clock was ticking: everyone recognized that continued im­­migration would put the Jews in the majority sooner or later, possibly within 10 years, according to Peel’s estimates. The Arabs wanted none of this, and were moving aggressively to halt immigration and gain independence before their future aspirations were eclipsed by those of the Jews.

And, so it was into this tense situation that the most unusual and forgotten peace initiative ever presented in the Middle East saw the light of day. It was described in the “Peel Report” on page 143, only to die an untimely death by page 144.

The proposal was presented to the Mandate government “by Chaim Weizmann and his colleagues on behalf of the Jewish Agency and the Va’ad Leumi.” It attempted to solve the unsolvable dilemma of the time: How can one land possibly fulfill the national aspirations of two peoples?

The proposal was bold. The idea was for the British to give their blessings to the creation of a newly independent binational state, run in partnership by both Jews and Arabs. The Arabs would be required to assign 50 percent of the legislature to Jews, even though they currently held the majority. In return, the Jews would guarantee 50 percent of the legislature to the Arabs in perpetuity, even though most agreed that with continued immigration, the Jews would soon achieve majority status.

Power sharing was a price that the Jewish leadership was willing to pay in exchange for undiminished immigration at a time when Germany’s Jews were fleeing the racist Nuremberg laws. It also undermined the Mufti’s plans to destroy the developing Jewish state, as it would empower moderate and enlightened Arabs to reject calls for unwanted violence by their more extreme brethren.

Together, Jews and “educated Arabs” would share equally in the governance of a new Palestine, for the betterment of all. I am not sure what is more astonishing, the sheer chutzpah of this proposal, or the fact that nobody in 2010 knows that it ever existed.

Though Peel was impressed with their argument that “the Jews did not wish to be dominated by the Arabs and neither did they wish to dominate them,” he felt that it was naive for two reasons. First, it underestimated the Arab passion for independence as an Arab-dominated state; and second, it overestimated the courage and influence of moderate Arabs. The plan was rejected.

The tale of this forgotten peace initiative refutes many arguments presented by the anti-Israel crowd. A common accusation of theirs is that the primary goal of the Zionists was to dominate the land and drive out the Arabs.

Clearly, this is a gross misrepresentation: the primary goal was to create a Jewish homeland, which is a very different thing. In order to achieve that goal, the Zionists of 1936 were ready to share power with the Arabs, on a permanent basis and on an equal footing. Sadly, the chances for a common future faded quickly as the Arab Revolt increased in savagery and intensity. Jews soon reciprocated in kind against their Arab neighbors, meeting murder with murder, massacre with massacre. Six wars later, there was no turning back.

The column next week will conclude this four-part series on the Peel Commission. The main lessons from this incredible historical
event will be reviewed, and eerie parallels to today’s situation will be explored.

 

What did you think of this article?

Liked
Disliked
No Opinion