Prof Khalidi speaks of “a triple bind, which may have been unique in the history of resistance of indigenous peoples to European colonial settler movements”. The “triple bind” is then defined in the article as “(1) the international legitimacy granted Zionism even at a time when colonialism had widely been discredited; (2) the support for Zionists from the British to honor the Balfour Declaration; and (3) the power of the Zionist movement itself”.
In reality, this is merely a rehashing of the excuses that the Palestinians tell us regularly when trying to explain their defeat. It’s always about “forces beyond their control”. Moreover, there is so little self-criticism, and absolutely no willingness to see the world through someone else’s eyes.
In May 1939, the British decided to accept the Arab (Palestinian) position. Jewish immigration will end (in five years’ time), there will be a Palestinian state (in ten years’ time) with a solid Arab majority, and no land will be sold to Jews (thus preventing the founding of new Jewish settlements). It was a clear political victory of the Palestinians, and a total defeat of the Jews. The British claimed that they had kept their promise in accordance to the Balfour Declaration, but it was clear that the White Paper was the exact opposite of honoring the declaration (2) – and it’s an obvious indication of the weakness of the Zionist Movement (3). You would expect that the Palestinian Arab leadership would be dancing in the streets, declaring “success, success”. Strangely, they rejected the White Paper (they didn’t take “yes” for an answer).
If one wonders why there was “international legitimacy granted Zionism even at a time when colonialism had widely been discredited (1)”, it is merely an indication of the same intellectual block shared by the entire anti-Zionist camp. It’s an oft-repeated political point of view to claim that “Zionism is colonialism”, but it’s an intellectual failure when you assume that your political view is universally accepted. When one grows up, one finds out that others see the world differently. Those who supported Zionism in the international community were of the opinion that the Jews were returning to their ancient homeland (to their native soil).
I would humbly suggest to Prof Khalidi to look into the issue of self-criticism. It is not only an issue of historical research. It is also an issue of the “here and now”. The Palestinians’ answer was always “no”, and there was never any proposal on their part for finding a reasonable solution. They insisted on armed resistance, and eventually they pinned their hopes for total victory on the political and military power of the neighboring Arab states. Instead of pretending that they were defeated because of a “triple bind” or because of forces beyond control, they should look into the failed policy of “no, no, no”. And, today as well, there is no proposal that the Palestinians can accept – not even a proposal that they themselves would put into writing (because in the end, as we have seen, they won’t take “yes” for an answer).
RSS Feed
September 27th, 2017 
Awake Goy 
Posted in 
Tags: 
