Institute for Domestic & International Affairs, Inc.

Historic Security Council

Palestine

Director: Shariq Ahmed

© 2010 Institute for Domestic & International Affairs, Inc. (IDIA)

This document is solely for use in preparation for Philadelphia Model United Nations 2010. Use for other purposes is not

permitted without the express written consent of IDIA. For more information, please write us at idiainfo@idia.net

Background _________________________________________________________________ 1

Policy Dilemma ______________________________________________________________ 3

Chronology__________________________________________________________________ 6 2000- 1500 BCE: The Land of Canaan ________________________________________________ 6 1000 BCE: The First Jewish Kingdom ________________________________________________ 6 722-164 BCE: Foreign Invasions in Jewish Kingdoms ___________________________________ 6 61BCE- 300s CE: Romans then Byzantines Rule Palestine________________________________ 7 600s - 1096: The Rise of Islam and Covenant of Umar ___________________________________ 7 1099 CE- 1187 CE: The Crusades ____________________________________________________ 8 1250 - 1517: The Mamluks Control Palestine___________________________________________ 9 1517: The Ottoman Takeover _______________________________________________________ 9 1798: Napoleon’s Invasion and Palestinian Identity _____________________________________ 9 1882-1893: Ottoman Immigration Restrictions ________________________________________ 10 29 August 1897: First Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland ____________________________ 11 August 1914: World War I_________________________________________________________ 11 July 1915- March 1916: Hussein-McMahon Correspondences ___________________________ 12 May 1916: Sykes-Picot Agreement __________________________________________________ 12 2 November 1917: The Balfour Declaration ___________________________________________ 13 January 1919: Feisal-Weizmann Agreements _________________________________________ 13 August 1919: King-Crane Report ___________________________________________________ 14 June 1922: The Churchill White Paper_______________________________________________ 14 July 1922: The British Mandate_____________________________________________________ 15 August 1929: Arab Riots Lead to the Passfield White Paper _____________________________ 15 April 1936: Arab Revolt ___________________________________________________________ 16 July 1937: Peel Commission Report _________________________________________________ 17 May 1939: The White Paper of 1939 _________________________________________________ 17 1940: Zionist Reaction to White Paper _______________________________________________ 18 May 1942: The Biltmore Conference_________________________________________________ 18 6 November 1944: Assassination of Lord Moyne _______________________________________ 18 13 November 1945: Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry _____________________________ 19 22 July 1946: Bombing of King David Hotel __________________________________________ 19 4 October 1946: Truman Announces Support for Partition ______________________________ 20 14 February 1947: Britain Hands Palestine Question to U.N. ____________________________ 20 28 April 1947: UNSCOP Established to Address Palestine_______________________________ 20

Actors and Interests __________________________________________________________ 21 United Kingdom _________________________________________________________________ 21 United States ____________________________________________________________________ 22 France__________________________________________________________________________ 23 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics __________________________________________________ 23 Irgun Zvai Leumi: Mr. Menachem Begin_____________________________________________ 24 Jewish Agency for Palestine: Mr. David Ben-Gurion ___________________________________ 24 Arab Higher Committee: Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Hajj Amin al-Husseini________________ 25 Transjordan: King Abdullah bin al-Hussein __________________________________________ 26 West Germany: Chancellor Konrad Adenauer ________________________________________ 27

Possible Causes _____________________________________________________________ 27 Religious History _________________________________________________________________ 27 The Holocaust and European Anti-Semitism __________________________________________ 28 Zionism_________________________________________________________________________ 29 Arab Resistance __________________________________________________________________ 29 British Policy ____________________________________________________________________ 29

Possible Solutions ___________________________________________________________ 30 Single State Solution: Arabs________________________________________________________ 31 Binational State __________________________________________________________________ 31 Single Democratic State ___________________________________________________________ 31 Two-State Solution _______________________________________________________________ 32 Argentina _______________________________________________________________________ 32

PhilMUN 2009 1

Background The conflict between Arabs and Jews over Palestine is thought by many to be the

extension of hostility present since biblical times. 1 According to the Bible, the Israelites

were expelled from Egypt and entered Canaan (Palestine), conquering the surrounding

lands and establishing a Jewish state.2 After a series of invasions and subjugations by

foreign empires, the Romans conquered the area, expelling the Jews from Jerusalem and

renaming the land “Palestine”.3 In the 7th Century, the Arabs conquered Palestine, and

apart from two brief stints during the Crusades, Arab empires retained complete control

of the region until the demise of the Ottoman Empire in 1918.

By the late 19th Century, Zionism arose as a nationalist and political movement

aimed at restoring the land of Israel as a home for the Jewish people. Tens of thousands

of Jews, mostly from Eastern Europe but also from Yemen, started migrating to Palestine.

Zionists saw national independence as the only solution to centuries of anti-Semitism,

persecution and oppression endured by the Jews. Zionism was a mostly secular

movement with some religious and cultural ties to Jerusalem. Most Jews believed that

only the Messiah could lead them back to this “promised land” according to the Torah,

but the suffering experienced during World War I and the Holocaust changed their mind.

During that time, many European Jews were expelled from their homes and displaced. It

is important to note that there exist some anti-Zionist Jewish groups.4

After World War I, the Ottoman Empire crumbled and Britain and France divided

the Middle East amongst themselves as imperialist powers. Palestine was controlled by

Britain and fell under the British Mandate. Around this time, a Zionist leader and scientist

in London named Chaim Weizmann developed the explosive chemical acetone. In return

for helping British war efforts, he was promised “a Jewish national home” in Palestine, as

long as it did not violate the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish

1 Bickerton p. 2 2 http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm 3 http://www.israel-palestina.info/arab-israeli_conflict.html 4 Ibid.

PhilMUN 2009 2

communities. This deal was outlined in the Balfour Declaration of 1917. This document

and its varied interpretations serve as one of the original disputes between Arabs and

Jews.5

The Balfour Declaration is disputed because while Britain was negotiating with

the Zionists, it was also making deals with the Arabs. In 1916, Britain offered to support

the Arabs in their pursuit for independence from the Ottoman Turks in return for Arab

support for the Allied Powers. So, in 1916, Sharif Husayn, the leader of Mecca, revolted

against the Ottomans with the promise that the British would help the Arabs gain

independence in the Middle East. The Arabs asserted that part of the land promised to

them was the same land that Britain promised to the Jews a year later. 6

In 1919 an agreement was reached between the Zionists and the Arabs: the Arabs

would support a “Jewish national home” as long as the Arabs were assured control of

Syria. However, Syria was given to the French as part of their mandate after the breakup

of the Ottoman Empire, and so the agreement fell apart.7 Britain and France proceeded to

divide and administer their imperial colonies in the Middle East with their own interests

in mind instead of those of its inhabitants.

An increase in Jewish immigration and land purchases in the region were met with

resistance from the Arabs, leading both groups to engage in periodic fights and riots of

increasing intensity throughout the 1920s and 1930s. Under Arab pressure, the British

lowered Jewish immigration to the region after proposals to divide the area had been

rejected by Palestinian Arabs. Jewish refugees of World War II and Holocaust survivors

had no place to flee, since almost all other countries refused them entry. So, Jewish

organizations started immigrating illegally to Palestine. At the Biltmore Conference of

1942, the Zionists again demanded an independent state in Palestine, this time in order to

gain control of the illegal immigration taking place.8

5 butanol.com/docs/Weizman-Terre_Haute.doc 6 http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm 7 Ibid. 8 http://www.israel-palestina.info/arab-israeli_conflict.html

PhilMUN 2009 3

Despite U.S. pressure, Britain refused to let Jewish immigrants, including

Holocaust survivors, settle in the region. They were either sent back or detained in

Cyprus, leading to more protests, increasingly bold demands by both the Arabs and the

Zionists, and a sharp rise in violence. The region was almost out of the control of the

British and about to sink into chaos.9

Policy Dilemma With the end of World War II, the hierarchy of power has shifted, resulting in the

U.S. and its allies as global powers. The U.S. and Soviet Union, the world’s two

superpowers, are beginning to compete with each other throughout the world. The United

Nations recently replaced the League of Nations as the primary international forum with

fifty-six member states. European imperialism is drawing to an end and consequently, an

unprecedented number of states are beginning to declare independence, especially in the

Middle East where states are riding the wave of Arab nationalism. Palestine, however,

has not joined the ranks of these states, as it is still trapped in a web of tension and chaos.

The situation in Palestine is on the brink of collapse. Violence is transient:

between the Zionists and Arabs, Zionists and British, Arabs and British, and even Arabs

and Jews amongst themselves; both Jewish and Arab terrorists have been trying to

undermine British control.10 Illegal immigration is rampant. Bitterness toward

imperialism abounds. Disputes over land, borders, resources, waters, homes, religion,

history, and legal documents are all beginning to take shape. The eyes of the world are on

this region, since its status affects states across the world. The British just recently

decided to cut their losses in the region and withdrew from its prominent role. Palestine is

in turmoil, so its political and legal fate is largely the responsibility of the new United

Nations. It is now up to the newly-created Security Council to address its first task and

sort out the problem of Palestine.

9 Ibid. 10 Ibid., 79

PhilMUN 2009 4

The question of Palestine involves the identity and attachment of both groups to

the disputed land. Both the Palestinians and the Israelis claim sovereignty over the same

small stretch of land and believe that the area is crucial to their existence as a people.11

These two groups have the same dream of independent statehood. On a piece of land that

is roughly the size of New Jersey, land, water, and resources are too scarce to sustain

both populations simultaneously on their respective terms. Aside from territory, this

conflict has severe religious undertones, as religion has both caused deep divisions

between the two groups and has been invoked to justify claims to the land as well as

excuse violence towards each other.

The conflict between the Palestinian Arabs and Zionist Jews has many layers and

is difficult to see through a single dimension. It can be seen as a religious war between

the followers of Islam and Judaism, with each claiming divine right to the land and each

following divine instructions against the other. It can be seen as an ethnic war, in which

Jews displaced centuries ago are looking to reclaim their land from their successors, the

Arabs; Both groups have a history of inhabitance in the area thus spurring a conflict. It

can be seen as a question of whether the land belongs to the group that was in the region

first or the one who has been there most recently and longest. It can be seen as a war of

opposing nationalistic groups, each looking to thwart the oppression of outsiders and to

establish an independent state. It can also be seen as a diplomatic war, with both groups

having had the land promised to them by outside powers.12

Both groups lay similar claims to Palestine, including religious, territorial, and

historical assertions that will be explored further later in this brief. And both groups seem

to be equally motivated to realize their own ambitions at the expense of the other group.

The Security Council is challenged with the task of analyzing history and deciding the

most diplomatic solution. Coexistence in a bi-national state would be the most favorable

solution for the global community, but depending on how it is implemented, it may also

11 Ibid., 2 12 Bickerton p. 3

PhilMUN 2009 5

be an impossible one. The domination of one nation over the other could also be a

solution, but the question is whether it will be a permanent and sustainable one.

Establishing a Jewish state somewhere else has also been discussed, but a feasible

location is still unknown. It is doubtful that the Zionist Jews would concede to that and it

is also unlikely that another area can be found. The two-state solution has been promoted

in the United Nations as a possible answer, but has been criticized for its lack of detail

and practicality. Several other solutions have been mentioned but none have been

completely clarified.13 It is important to keep in mind that the measures taken in order to

ensure a solution’s effectiveness are just as important as the actual solution itself.

Due to the regional implications of the conflict, preventing further escalation of

the violence between the Palestinian Arabs and Zionist Jews is of utmost importance,

followed closely by the establishment of a just and lasting solution. As a fledgling

international organization, the United Nations, and more precisely the Security Council,

must prove itself on the global stage to be an effective forum for international debate and

governance as well as a successful mediator of conflict. It must peacefully resolve this

most complex and intricate of disputes. Stability in this increasingly important region of

the world is vital to not just the neighbors of Palestine but also to the U.S. and Europe,

both of who harbor large Jewish populations, as well as Asia and Africa, which have

large numbers of Muslims, all with their eyes focused on the outcome of this conflict.

The fact that the Middle East is beginning to be caught in the crosshairs of a new power

struggle between the two superpowers is more of a reason to address this issue quickly

and successfully. With the recent discovery of oil in the region, this conflict promises to

gain even more economic significance to the rest of the world. It is time for the Security

Council to leave a lasting and favorable first impression within the international

community.

13 http://www.mideastweb.org/peaceplans.htm

PhilMUN 2009 6

Chronology 2000- 1500 BCE: The Land of Canaan

Canaanites and other Semitic people arrived at the Eastern end of the

Mediterranean around 2000 BCE. Present-day Palestine was known as the Land of

Canaan. The Jewish people evolved from the Canaanites. Around 1500 BCE, following

the breakup of the Egyptian empire, a Semitic tribe called the Hebrews left Mesopotamia

and invaded Canaan. Canaan was settled by these Semitic tribes as well as the Hittites

and Philistines.14

1000 BCE: The First Jewish Kingdom According to the Bible, Moses led some of the Israelites out of Egypt. Under

Joshua, they conquered the tribes and city states of Canaan. According to Hebraic

traditions, King David conquered Jerusalem around 1000 BCE and established an

Israelite kingdom over much of Canaan including parts of Transjordan. The kingdom was

divided into Judea in the south and Israel in the north following the death of David’s son,

Solomon. Jerusalem remained the Jewish capital and center of worship until the Jewish

revolt in 133 CE.15

722-164 BCE: Foreign Invasions in Jewish Kingdoms The ancient Jewish kingdoms of Israel and Judea had been conquered and

subjugated by several foreign empires.16 The Persians restored the Judean kingdom and

allowed the Jews to rebuild their temple. This kingdom fell to Greek and later Hellenic-

Syrian domination when Alexander the Great conquered Persia.17 In 167 BCE, the Jews

revolted from Syria under the leadership of the Maccabeans, forming a kingdom with its

capital in Jerusalem. The kingdom received Roman “protection” when Judah Maccabee

14 http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm 15 Ibid. 16 http://www.israel-palestina.info/arab-israeli_conflict.html 17 http://www.mideastweb.org/palmaps.htm

PhilMUN 2009 7

was made a “friend of the Roman senate and people” in 164 BCE according to the

records of Roman historians.18

61BCE- 300s CE: Romans then Byzantines Rule Palestine Around 61 BCE, Roman troops under Pompei invaded Judea and pillaged

Jerusalem in support of King Herod. The land was divided into the districts of Judea,

Galilee, Peraea and a small trans-Jordanian section. The Romans called the large central

area of the land, which included Jerusalem, Judea. According to Christian belief, Jesus

Christ was born in Bethlehem, Judea, in the early years of Roman rule. Roman rulers put

down Jewish revolts around 70 CE and 132 CE.

In 135 CE, the Romans drove the Jews out of Jerusalem, following the failed Bar

Kochba revolt. The Romans named the area Palaestina, at about this time. The name,

which became Palestine in English, is derived from the term Palaistine Syria, used to

refer to the entire southern part of Syria, meaning “Philistine Syria.” Most of the Jews

who continued to practice their religion fled or were forcibly exiled from Palestine,

however, Jewish communities continued to exist, primarily in the Galilee, the

northernmost part of Palestine. Palestine was governed by the Roman Empire until the 4th

Century and then by the Byzantine Empire. In time, Christianity spread to most of

Palestine. The population consisted of Jewish converts to Christianity and paganism as

well as peoples imported by the Romans and others who had probably inhabited Palestine

continuously.19

600s - 1096: The Rise of Islam and Covenant of Umar Christian Palestine fell to the Persians in 614 CE. With the rise of Islam, the

Middle East and Palestine was conquered by Muslim armies as they moved out of

Arabia.20 The Caliph Umar, successor to the Muslim Prophet Muhammad, conquered

Jerusalem in 638 CE. He reached a peace agreement with the Roman Patriarch Sofronius,

18 http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm 19 Ibid. 20 http://www.mideastweb.org/palmaps.htm

PhilMUN 2009 8

who had been in charge of Jerusalem under the Romans. This agreement, known as the

Covenant of Omar,21 ensured the care and protection of Christian and Jewish holy places.

It also granted Christians protection under Islamic rule in return for a poll tax and

allowed them to practice religious freedom in Jerusalem. The Covenant left Jews

unprotected and unable to live in Jerusalem.22 However, Umar did not enforce this part of

the Covenant, as he allowed the Jews, who had been kicked out of Jerusalem by the

Christians, to live there. But, under Muslim rule, different groups of people lived in

different parts of the city.23 Although it is centuries old, the Covenant is still regarded by

some Palestinian Christians and Muslims as a valid legal document.24

Christians and Jews were allowed to practice their religions under Muslim rulers at

this time, but most of the Middle East gradually assimilated into the predominant Arab-

Islamic culture and converted to Islam.25 Just as Jerusalem was holy to the Jews as the

site of the Jewish Temple and Foundation Stone, it was significant to Christians as the

location of Jesus’ Last Supper, death, and resurrection,26 and to Muslims as the location

of the Prophet Muhammad’s miraculous ascension to heaven and the site of the Dome of

the Rock and Al-Aqsa mosque.

1099 CE- 1187 CE: The Crusades After the Arabs, the Seljuk Turks conquered Jerusalem. They were quickly

replaced by the Fatimids of Egypt, who allied themselves with the Crusaders. The

Crusaders broke this alliance and invaded Palestine in 1099, massacring the Muslim and

Jewish defenders in the process and forbidding Jews from entering Jerusalem. The

Crusaders pillaged and destroyed the city of Jerusalem, operating under the Pope’s

promise that if Jerusalem was successfully recaptured, they would be granted remission

21 http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0015_0_15095.html 22 Pasachoff, Naomi E.; Littman, Robert J. (2005), A Concise History of the Jewish People p.118 23 http://www.mideastweb.org/covenantofomar.htm 24 "The Convenant of Omar". The Handstand. February-March 2006. http://www.thehandstand.org/archive/february-march2006/articles/abbas.htm. Retrieved 2009-11-21. 25 http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm 26 http://www.jerusalem-insiders-guide.com/jesus-in-jerusalem.html

PhilMUN 2009 9

of sin and be sent to Heaven.27 The Crusaders had brief control of Palestine until 1187,

when Muslim ruler Saladin re-conquered Jerusalem. All subsequent Crusades failed and

the Crusaders were done by 1291, when Muslims recaptured Acre.28

1250 - 1517: The Mamluks Control Palestine The Mamluk dynasty, originally from Egypt, eventually came to power and took

control of Palestine. Arabic-speaking Muslims made up most of the population, but in the

late 1300s, Jews from Spain and other European lands started settling in Jerusalem to

escape Christian persecution in Europe.

1517: The Ottoman Takeover The Ottoman Empire defeated the Mamluks and added large chunks of the Arab

world to its empire. Jews fleeing the Spanish Inquisition were allowed to settle in the

empire, including in Palestine.29 The Ottomans did not differentiate between Palestine,

Syria and other territories, instead arbitrarily dividing the land up into provinces.

Jerusalem was made its own governorate, separate from the other subdivisions.30

1798: Napoleon’s Invasion and Palestinian Identity Napoleon invaded Egypt and Palestine in 1798; however, his forces were caught

in the midst of a plague and he was forced to retreat.31 The Ottomans regained control,

but at their hands, Palestine suffered from a corrupt government. The Egyptians, under

Ottoman vassal Muhammad Ali, gained control of Syria and Palestine for a decade

starting in 1831, however, their strict policies led to a revolt by Arabs in Palestine.32 It is

believed that this revolt marked the beginning of the formation of a separate Palestinian

27http://historymedren.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ/Ya&zTi=1&sdn=historymedren&cdn=education&tm=4&f=00&tt=14&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.historynet.com/magazines/military_history/3028446.html 28 http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm 29 Ibid. 30 http://www.zionism-israel.com/maps/Ottoman_Palestine_1860.htm 31 http://www.worldtimelines.org.uk/world/africa/nile_valley/AD1500-1800/napoleon 32 Baruch Kimmerling, PROCESS OF FORMATION OF PALESTINIAN COLLECTIVE IDENTITIES, Middle Eastern Studies, April 2000, 36, 2, pp. 48-81.

PhilMUN 2009 10

Arab identity.33 According to Shamir, this was “the first application of the concept of

territorial state... This was the inception of the modern history of Palestine.”34 Although

Ali ruthlessly crushed the revolt,35 the population of Palestine was reduced because Arabs

and Jews both fled to safer places.

When the Ottomans reorganized and regained control of the area from the

Egyptians, they began to allow Jewish Zionist groups to start settling there. The Arab and

Jewish populations grew until 1880, at which point the population of Palestine was

400,000 (about 24,000 Jews).36

1882-1893: Ottoman Immigration Restrictions Jewish Zionists, mostly from Russia and Eastern Europe, hoping to escape the

restrictions and “pogroms” of the Russian state began immigrating to Palestine, with the

first wave amounting to close to 25,000. In 1882, French philanthropist Baron Edmond

de Rothschild began to fund Jewish colonists going to Palestine. He was not a Zionist and

instead saw it as an “investment and as an act of piety.”37 He bought land from Arab

landowners, usually legally but sometimes with bribes, and drove the peasants off the

land. The Ottomans noted that increased Zionist Jewish immigration would probably lead

to tension in the region and therefore decided to forbid Jewish pilgrims and businessmen

from permanently settling in Palestine. Two years later, Jewish businessmen were no

longer permitted to enter Palestine, while Jewish pilgrims still could. In 1892, the

Ottomans forbade the sale of state land to foreign Jews in Palestine, but in 1893,

European governments coerced the Ottomans to allow legal Jewish residents in Palestine

to buy land, as long as they did not establish colonies on it.38 During this period, the 33 http://www.mideastweb.org/palrevolt.htm 34 Shamir, Shimon "Egyptian Rule (1832-1840) and the Beginning of the Modern History of Palestine," in A. Cohen and G. Baer," eds. Egypt and Palestine: A Millennium of Association (868-1948) (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1984, 220-221. 35 Baruch Kimmerling, PROCESS OF FORMATION OF PALESTINIAN COLLECTIVE IDENTITIES, Middle Eastern Studies, April 2000, 36, 2, pp. 48-81. 36 http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm 37 Bickerton, p. 25 38 http://www.prc.org.uk/newsite/en/right-of-return/38-palestinian-refugees/390-chronology-of-events-before-the-nakba-1876-1918-

PhilMUN 2009 11

Ottomans also began to encourage Muslims from other parts of the empire to settle in

Palestine.39

29 August 1897: First Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland The First Zionist Congress convened in Basel, Switzerland and reported that the

goal of Zionism was to “create for the Jewish people a home in Palestine secured by

public law.”40 The Congress also decided to establish the World Zionist Organization,

which would put the Zionist colonization plan into action by setting up a company to buy

land in Palestine. This plan was outlined by Theodor Herzl, father of modern Zionism, in

his book Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State). Herzl felt that anti-Semitism was inherent in

Gentiles (non-Jews) and the solution to the plight of the Jews lay in the establishment of a

secular Jewish nation-state. He listed Argentina and Palestine as possible locations for the

new state.41

August 1914: World War I

By the outbreak of World War I, the Jewish population in Palestine hovered

around 60,000, a little under 10 percent of the population. In Jerusalem, the Jews

comprised a majority of the population. There were deep divisions and disagreements

between the Sephardic Jews (Hebrews who had been there) and Ashkenazi Jews (Eastern

European immigrants). The start of WWI saw an increase in the number of Ashkenazi

Jews settling in Palestine, as they fled the violence consuming Europe. Arab opposition

to Jewish immigration was not unified either. Ottoman officials regularly ignored laws

restricting Jewish immigration, allowing them to purchase land in Palestine in return for

financial favors. Public opposition was instead led by the Greek Orthodox Christians of

Palestine. Tensions were beginning to rise between Jews and Arabs as the new influx of

39 http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm 40 http://www.zionism-israel.com/zionism_definitions.htm 41 Bickerton, p. 20-24

PhilMUN 2009 12

Ashkenazi Jews had very different goals and attitudes toward Palestine and the Arabs

than the existing Sephardic Jews of Palestine.42

July 1915- March 1916: Hussein-McMahon Correspondences

Sherif Hussein was the leader of Mecca and the most powerful Arab

representative, and from 1915-1916 he exchanged a series of letters with the British high

commissioner in Egypt, Sir Henry McMahon. They agreed that in return for Hussein’s

help in revolting against the Ottomans, who were threatening British interests in the

region, Great Britain would help Arabs achieve independence and reestablish the Arab

Caliphate in some of the Arab lands. Whether Palestine was part of the agreement is

debated, since the word wilayah (vilayet), used in the agreement, could be interpreted

differently. This was later used as an excuse by the British. Most observers agreed

however, that the Arab interpretation seemed more legitimate than the British one.43

May 1916: Sykes-Picot Agreement

At about the same time that the Hussein-McMahon agreement was made, the

British were also secretly meeting with the French, deciding on how to divide up the

Ottoman lands amongst them after the end of the war. The two exerted either direct or

indirect influence over the entire region. Under the agreement, Jerusalem and part of

Palestine would be under international administration, while the rest of Palestine would

be controlled by the British. Russia approved the deal in return for control of other

Ottoman lands. This agreement with the French was in contradiction to the Hussein-

McMahon agreement that Britain had made with the Arabs.44

42 Bickerton, p.27-29 43 Bickerton, 35-36 44 Bickerton, 37-38

PhilMUN 2009 13

2 November 1917: The Balfour Declaration

In 1917, Chaim Weizmann was the president of the World Zionist Organization as

well as a chemist who found a way to develop synthetic acetone, an explosive chemical

used by the British in the First World War. In return for Weizmann’s chemical expertise,

British foreign secretary Arthur Balfour sent a letter to Zionist leader Lord Rothschild

stating that the British government:

views with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will… facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.45

In addition to acetone, the British government had several other reasons for declaring

support for the Zionists, such as greater strategic influence in the Middle East and the

ability to give European Jews somewhere to reside outside of Europe. The wording of the

document was very vague, with phrases like “in Palestine” and “a national home” not

being properly defined and causing controversy.46

January 1919: Feisal-Weizmann Agreements

At the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, Emir Feisal, who represented the Arabs,

and Weizmann, who represented the Zionists, came to an agreement on Arab-Jewish

relations in Palestine. They believed they could work together and coexist in the area,

provided Arab peasants’ and farmers’ rights were protected and there was religious

freedom. It pointed toward a Jewish state and a Palestinian state in Palestine, with each

helping the other in economic development. All these promises hinged on the condition

that Arabs would be granted independence from the colonial powers. The British and

Zionists ended up ignoring Arabs’ views because they were concerned with their own

interests and also because there was no definitive spokesperson to communicate Arab

45 Walter Z. Laqueur and Barry Rubin, eds., The Israel-Arab Reader: A Documentary History of The Middle East Conflict, 4th ed. (New York: Penguin Books, 1984), p.18 46 Ibid., 39.

PhilMUN 2009 14

sentiments, as the Arabs themselves were internally divided. Feisal would later rescind

his support for the agreement because Arabs would be put under French rule instead of

granted independence.47

August 1919: King-Crane Report

U.S. President Wilson dispatched the King-Crane Commission to Syria and

Palestine to understand local views on the region’s future. It reported that Arabs rejected

Zionist goals and opposed French rule; they wanted to be independent, but if that was

impossible, they would rather be under U.S. supervision.48 The Commission

recommended that, “the project of making Palestine distinctly a Jewish commonwealth

should be given up”.49 Nobody paid attention to the report, and the British and French

would not allow Arabs to be independent.

June 1922: The Churchill White Paper

Jewish land purchases and immigration continued to increase and tensions started

to rise in 1921 and 1922. Riots broke out between the Arabs and Jews, injuring and

killing many, while British forces tried hard to suppress the violence. The British chief

justice realized that Arab violence stemmed from a “legitimate fear of economic danger

posed by Jewish immigrants”50 and immigration to Palestine was temporarily suspended.

Winston Churchill, the colonial secretary, issued a White Paper in which he reaffirmed

the Balfour Declaration, but said that Jewish immigration could resume as long as it did

not exceed Palestine’s “economic absorptive capacity”. However, he did not elaborate on

what that meant, leading to further confusion and controversy.51

47 Ibid., 40. 48 Ibid., 41. 49 http://www.prc.org.uk/newsite/en/right-of-return/38-palestinian-refugees/389-chronology-of-events-before-the-nakba-1918-1935- 50 Bickerton, 48 51 Ibid., 49.

PhilMUN 2009 15

July 1922: The British Mandate

The League of Nations divided Ottoman lands into mandates given to Britain and

France, to be administered until the inhabitants were ready for self-government – the

Balfour Declaration became international law. European powers kept control of the

region, and wartime promises to both Jews and Arabs were postponed. France was given

control over Syria and Lebanon while Britain would control Iraq and Palestine, which

was defined as the land on both sides of the Jordan River. In Syria, Feisal was crowned

king at an Arab congress, and was subsequently expelled by the French, who viewed him

as a threat to their power. To avoid any problems with Feisal, the British let him rule Iraq

instead. They also cut Palestine in half and the portion east of the Jordan River was called

Transjordan, and was exempted from the Balfour Declaration and given to Feisal’s

brother Abdullah to rule. From that point on, the name Palestine was only in reference to

the land west of the Jordan River.52 The Jewish community in Palestine was becoming

more organized, institutionalized, independent, and successful. In fact, some of the

developments and opportunities established by the Jewish sector also had a beneficial

impact on the Arabs. The Arabs were divided, starting to fall apart and lag behind, and

were opposed to the mandate and Zionism. A British census showed that at this time,

Palestine was 78% Muslim, 11% Jewish and 9.6% Christian.53

August 1929: Arab Riots Lead to the Passfield White Paper

In the 1920s, Jewish-Arab relationships improved a little, as Jewish immigration

rates dropped, however, this rate increased dramatically in 1929 as Jews once again

escaped to Palestine as a result of the Great Depression and increased European anti-

Semitism. When violence once again broke out in Jerusalem, it rapidly spread to

neighboring cities. The riots left nearly 250 Arabs and Jews dead, with sixty Jews having

52 Ibid., 41-47. 53 http://www.prc.org.uk/newsite/en/right-of-return/38-palestinian-refugees/389-chronology-of-events-before-the-nakba-1918-1935-

PhilMUN 2009 16

been massacred in Hebron alone, where Jews had lived since Abrahamic times. Britain

sent Sir Walter Shaw to investigate the violence. The ensuing Shaw Report placed blame

for the violence on the Arabs, and pointed to Arabs’ fear for their economic and political

future as the main underlying cause of conflict. As a result, Britain issued the Passfield

White Paper that halted Jewish immigration and recommended that government land only

be sold to landless Arabs, leading to an uproar from Palestinian Jews as well as Zionists

in London. To calm them down, Prime Minister MacDonald issued a letter later known to

Arabs as the Black Letter which essentially nullified the White Paper, causing anger and

frustration among Arabs and some began to boycott and even subvert government

activities and actions.54

April 1936: Arab Revolt

Between 1933-1935, Europe began to change dramatically. In Germany, Adolf

Hitler came to power, blaming Jews for all the country’s problems, and the Nuremberg

racial laws went into effect, creating an increasingly hostile atmosphere for European

Jews. The Jewish population responded by immigrating to Palestine in massive amounts.

By 1936, Jews made up 30 percent of Palestine, a population that numbered around

400,000. Jewish nationalism was strong, but so was Arab nationalist sentiment. Arab

fears of a Jewish takeover were also at an all-time high, as the increasing Jewish

population made it a very real possibility. In this tense atmosphere, a little bit of violence

quickly became a widespread conflict in which Jews, Arabs, and British officers were all

killed. This conflict, known as the Arab Revolt, lasted for 3 years. The Mufti of

Jerusalem, who was supported by Nazis and Fascists, waged violence against Jews,

British, and sometimes even against Arabs who disagreed with him. The Revolt marked

the first collaboration of the Jews and the British, as they worked together to suppress the

revolt. Arab organizations formed the Arab Higher Committee to encourage civil

disobedience and shut down municipal governments that they felt had failed them. Much 54 Bickerton, p. 50

PhilMUN 2009 17

of the violence was directed at the British and the Jews, both of whom responded with

more violence. The conflict lasted until the start of World War II.55

July 1937: Peel Commission Report

Led by Lord Robert Peel, the Peel Commission investigated the Arab Revolt, and

issued a report in which it proposed the partition of Palestine into separate Jewish and

Arab states. The Jewish state would be small, about 5000 square kilometers, and the Arab

state would be joined to Transjordan. Arabs insisted that all of Palestine belonged to

Arabs, and rejected partition. The Jews, who had reservations of their own, reluctantly

accepted the idea. However, the British considered the idea of partition to be impractical

and discarded it. They began to cut down on Jewish immigration and land purchases once

again.

May 1939: The White Paper of 1939

By 1939, the British realized that an agreement between the Arabs and Jews was

not anywhere close to fruition, so Colonial Secretary MacDonald outlined a new

approach in the White Paper of 1939, stating that Palestine would become an independent

state and British ally within ten years. It limited Jewish immigration to 75,000 for the

next five years, basically ensuring that Palestine would be an Arab state. Land sales to

Jews were severely restricted or prohibited. The 1939 White Paper nullified the Balfour

Declaration and went against British policy in the area for the previous two decades. On

the brink of World War II, the British could not risk alienating the Arabs and other

Muslims around the world. The White Paper infuriated Jews, and they refused to

cooperate with the British any further. The Arabs felt cheated and also rejected it,

because under the White Paper, Jewish immigration would be allowed for five more

years, at which time the Jewish population would make up one-third of Palestine.

55 Bickerton, p. 51

PhilMUN 2009 18

1940: Zionist Reaction to White Paper

The 1939 White Paper caused Zionists to realize that they would have to take

more action in order to achieve their goals. Europe was being cautious and did not want

to risk angering the Arabs, who they now needed to achieve other interests. Zionist

groups began assisting in the illegal immigration of thousands of Jews from Europe into

Palestine. Several Zionist paramilitary groups also formed, and started committing acts of

terror to undermine British authority, primarily by stockpiling weapons and by attacking

British forces and police. The most prominent of these groups were the Irgun, under

Menachem Begin, and the Stern Gang. Over the next six years, terrorism by these groups

increased in frequency and magnitude.56

May 1942: The Biltmore Conference

After learning about atrocities committed by the Nazis and the British refusal to let

more Jews immigrate into Palestine, Zionist leaders met at the Biltmore Hotel in New

York City and explicitly called for the establishment of Palestine as a Jewish state. They

not only rejected the White Paper, but realized that they had to fight against the British,

not ally with them. Weizmann was replaced as Zionist leader by David Ben-Gurion, who

wanted immediate Jewish statehood, by force if necessary, as opposed to Weizmann’s

philosophy of gradualism.

6 November 1944: Assassination of Lord Moyne

On 6 November 1944, the Zionist terrorist group known as the Stern Gang

assassinated anti-Zionist Minister of State Lord Moyne in Cairo, Egypt. Lord Moyne was

in charge of implementing the 1939 White Paper and was a supporter of partition. His

56 Bickerton, p. 70

PhilMUN 2009 19

murder prevented the British from adopting a pro-partition policy; their policy in

Palestine did not change, and it turned Winston Churchill against the Zionists.57

13 November 1945: Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry

A few months after the end of WWII, the U.S. and Britain formed the Anglo-

American Committee of Enquiry to decide on the best solution for the massive amount of

refugees and displaced persons (DPs) that were left homeless as a result of the war and

the Holocaust. The committee recommended that 100,000 Jews should immediately be

moved to Palestine, but could not agree on the area’s future. British Foreign Secretary

Ernest Bevin refused to do that because Britain could not afford the financial burden

linked with the proposal. This refusal turned out to be a mistake, as it further antagonized

Zionists and fueled an increase in acts of violence and bloodshed.58 Zionist terrorism and

illegal immigration continued to increase, and most of the violence was directed toward

British troops.

22 July 1946: Bombing of King David Hotel

As Zionist terrorism increased, the British started to become more and more

frustrated, as it was getting to be expensive to keep the peace, both in money and in

British lives. Zionist terrorist groups attacked with more frequency and ferocity, and their

strategy seemed to be working, as the British slowly lost control of Palestine. Perhaps the

biggest blow to their ego came in July 1946, when Menachem Begin and the Irgun

bombed the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, where the British military was

headquartered. In addition to British military personnel, many Arabs and Jews also died

in the explosion.

57 http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm 58 Bickerton, p. 76

PhilMUN 2009 20

4 October 1946: Truman Announces Support for Partition

U.S. President Harry Truman did not want to involve the U.S. directly in the

process of making peace between Arabs and Zionist Jews, because he did not want to

threaten U.S. oil interests in the region. He believed that a partition would not directly

involve the U.S. and would not alienate Arabs, while at the same time gratifying the

strong Jewish voting constituency in the U.S. But, things did not go according to plan,

and his announcement not only angered the Arab League, but also led to the opposing

Republican Party winning a majority in the U.S. Congress. He came under intense

pressure from American Zionists to use U.S. influence in achieving Zionist goals.

14 February 1947: Britain Hands Palestine Question to U.N.

The British, who were weakened from WWII and fed up with Zionist terrorism,

decided they could no longer fight the turmoil and chaotic condition of Palestine, and

chose to turn the Question of Palestine over to the newly-formed United Nations. They

realized that they could not help reach a settlement, and Palestine would from that point

on be the U.N.’s problem.

28 April 1947: UNSCOP Established to Address Palestine

In April, the U.N. agreed to consider the question of Palestine. It called for the

first-ever Special Session, and established the Special Committee on Palestine

(UNSCOP) to make recommendations regarding the issue. The Zionists cooperated with

the committee, while most Arabs boycotted it. In August, UNSCOP revealed its

recommendations in a report that proposed the termination of the mandate, independence

of Palestine, partition into an Arab state and a Jewish state, economic union between the

two states, and the internationalization of Jerusalem.59 The British decided to accept the

recommendation to end the mandate, but left the decisions regarding the region’s future

59 Bickerton, p.81

PhilMUN 2009 21

up to the U.N. General Assembly, so as not to anger Arabs and jeopardize British

interests in the region.

Actors and Interests The following descriptions are out outspoken individuals that have been

participating in the question of Palestine. These individual personalities have been

charged with negotiation and deliberation, and in some cases, their personal views do not

necessarily reflect the policy positions of the states or groups they represent.

United Kingdom Ernest Bevin is the British Foreign Secretary, appointed by Prime Minister

Clement Attlee. Before this appointment, he was a minister in Winston Churchill’s

cabinet during World War II. Although he got along well with Churchill, Bevin is a

tough-talking member of the Labour party who made many enemies, both in Britain and

abroad, by speaking his mind bluntly and lacking tact. He is extremely anti-Communist,

and has even endured allegations of anti-Semitism. This is because he supports an Arab

state in Palestine, and is against the creation of a Zionist Jewish state. However, he did

support the Zionists in the early 1930s. He has repeatedly opposed mass Jewish

immigration to Palestine, and wants to protect British oil interests in the Middle East,

especially control of the strategic oil port of Haifa. To do this, he wants to make sure he

appeases the Arabs.

Bevin is angry at the United States for hypocritically trying to address the Jewish

refugee problem but not allowing displaced Jews into the U.S. In addition, Bevin has

become increasingly anti-Zionist as Zionist terrorist groups such as the Irgun, under

Menachem Begin have continually attacked British troops and caused chaos in Palestine.

One of his primary goals is to end the violence carried out by Zionists as well as Arabs.

But, Bevin has had to rely more and more on the U.S., as Britain has been left weakened

both militarily and economically as a result of World War II. So, while the British still

have the most external influence in Palestine, Bevin will have the difficult task of

PhilMUN 2009 22

balancing Zionst, Arab, as well as U.S. pressure in trying to address the conflict. This

may not be a negative thing, as Bevin does not want to be involved in a major conflict in

Palestine, and wants the U.S. to share some responsibility in Palestine. However, Britain

still wants to retain its predominance in the Middle East. It is in Britain’s best interest to

find a solution to this issue so that it may walk away from the mandate era with at least

some shred of dignity left.

United States Before being elected as U.S. President, Harry Truman served as vice president

under Franklin Roosevelt. Truman just recently authorized the U.S. to use atomic bombs

in Japan, facilitating the end of World War II. After war’s end, the U.S. has emerged as a

world superpower, due in part to the weakening of several powerful states as a result of

WWII. The United States has only recently started to take serious interest in the region.

The primary American concern is to increase its share of oil resources in the Middle East.

To that end, it wants to work closely with Arab states and avoid angering them, while at

the same time opposing many Zionist policies. But, Truman also feels the need to address

the growing Jewish refugee problem in Europe, and since he does not want to admit too

many of them into the U.S., he feels that Palestine would be an ideal location. What

complicates things for him is the fact that the he is facing midterm congressional

elections at home, and American Jews have a lot of political power in the U.S. He has

been coming under intense pressure from the domestic Jewish lobby to support the

Zionist cause in Palestine. Truman is also against committing troops to the region in case

of a Soviet invasion or renewed violence between Arabs and Jews and wants to convince

Britain to take care of those things so he does not have to. He is growing increasingly

wary of the world’s other superpower, the Soviet Union, whose interests have been

conflicting with U.S. interests as of late. It is in the best interests of the U.S. to limit

Soviet influence in the region. While Truman is in favor of partition, his own State

Department and Defense Department are urging against it, citing oil interests and

evidence presented by the British that many Zionists were communist. Appeasing

PhilMUN 2009 23

everybody, while at the same time trying to protect U.S. interests and his own political

interests is becoming an increasingly difficult task.

France Before becoming president of the French Republic, Charles de Gaulle was a

general in WWII. France, along with Britain, had colonized most of the Middle East

before the war and had control of Syria and Lebanon, which fell under the French

mandate. After the war, the French colonial empire started to disintegrate. The U.S. and

Britain began occupying colonies that were previously in the French empire. De Gaulle is

trying to regain control of the colonial empire, salvaging what he can in the new French

Union. At the same time, he is trying to fight a wave of decolonization and rebellion

within colonies across the world. French intelligence has learned that Britain is trying to

create a “Greater Syria” using both British and French colonies, in which it would have

sole influence. De Gaulle is fighting hard to ensure this does not happen. He is very

hesitant of a proposed partition, but is also easily swayed by the more powerful U.S.,

U.K., and USSR.60 France has always been a major player in the Middle East and De

Gaulle is intent to restore France’s influence in the region.

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Joseph Stalin was appointed general-secretary of the Communist Party in the

Soviet Union in 1922 with Vladimir Lenin’s help, after he had organized the Red Army

to invade Georgia. Lenin died soon after, and Stalin has since led the Soviet Union. The

Soviets have emerged from WWII as the world’s only other superpower, and their

communist ideology is starting to create a bipolar global structure in which the U.S. and

USSR are increasingly at odds. The USSR has in the past opposed Zionism, viewing it as

a form of Western imperialism.61 Though Stalin may have no belief in the Zionist cause,

he has started shifting his policy in order to push Britain out of the Middle East and to

prevent the U.S. from gaining too much of a foothold in the region. He has supported 60 http://www.jstor.org/stable/2536791?cookieSet=1 61 http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/001808.html

PhilMUN 2009 24

some Zionist groups in their aim to undermine British authority in Palestine. Stalin also

sees the allure of having a socialist Jewish state as an ally in the Middle East, given the

large quantity of Socialist Jews in Eastern Europe as well as Palestine.

Irgun Zvai Leumi: Mr. Menachem Begin Menachem Begin deserted from the Polish army in 1942 and arrived in Palestine

to reestablish the Zionist militant group Irgun. He is a maximalist who subscribes to

Vladimir Jabotinsky’s Revisionist ideology, which calls for not a homeland, but a Jewish

state on both sides of the Jordan River. As a result, he does not support a partition plan.

Revisionists see other Zionists as weak cowards, and believe that their moral claims to

Palestine are more legitimate than the Arabs.62 The Irgun has been responsible for many

terrorist attacks in Palestine, especially against the British. He has also been helping

thousands of Jewish refugees enter Palestine illegally. Begin is despised by Ernest Bevin

for his continual attacks on British troops and the Irgun’s constant attempts to subvert

British authority and cause chaos in Palestine. Others, however, view this strategy as

brilliant, since Begin has been instrumental in forcing the British out of Palestine and the

question has now moved to the U.N. Begin’s actions have won him many supporters, but

there are those even within the Zionist community that oppose him. Jewish Agency

leader David Ben-Gurion is against Begin’s tactics, and has even had members of Irgun

arrested and given to the British. Begin is perceived by these other Zionists as someone

who is hurting their cause more than helping and damaging their chances at getting a

Jewish state. It is clear that Begin has so far been unyielding in his quest for a single

Jewish state in all of Palestine, and that he is willing to go to any measure to achieve that.

He is certainly opposed to the British, to Arabs, to partition, and even to leftist Zionists.

Jewish Agency for Palestine: Mr. David Ben-Gurion David Ben-Gurion was a socialist Zionist who belonged to the Labor Party and in

1935 he became leader of the Jewish Agency for Palestine. The Jewish Agency 62 Bickerton, p.44

PhilMUN 2009 25

administers all the functions of a government for the Jews in Palestine under the British

mandate. It is the principal governing body for the Zionists in Palestine. It represents

mainstream Zionist interests and started off as just an organization that promoted Jewish

immigration and land purchase in Palestine. It is also in charge of the Haganah, the

Jewish militia that has gotten stronger and more organized over the years. Ben-Gurion’s

primary concern is to create a safe homeland where persecuted Jews can live, and he has

been quietly slipping Jewish immigrants into Palestine. Until the 1939 White Paper, he

had instructed the Haganah to only practice self-defense, even in the face of Arab attacks.

However, after the White Paper was issued, Ben-Gurion has changed his position and

now believes that independence cannot be achieved without fighting both the Arabs and

the British. As a result, he has started building up a Jewish army to confront the Arabs

and British. He has supported plans for partition, at the cost of having Revisionist

Zionists such as Menachem Begin oppose him and break away to form the Irgun. Ben-

Gurion, unlike Begin, understands Arab opposition to Jewish immigration and a Jewish

state, but feels it is necessary to create a safe haven for Jewish refugees around the world.

Arab Higher Committee: Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Hajj Amin al-Husseini

The Arab Higher Committee was created in 1936, with Al-Husseini as its

president. It attempted to represent Arab political views and interests and bring some sort

of organization to the Arabs, who lacked any cohesiveness. In 1921, the British

appointed Mohammad Amin al-Husseini Grand Mufti of Jeruslaem, in charge of

Jerusalem’s holy Islamic sites. Since then, he has been extremely anti-Zionist, rejecting

any plan that included Jewish involvement in Palestine. He has waged violent campaigns

against Jews in Palestine, and is infamous for his cruelty toward Jews, British, and even

sometimes Arabs who opposed him. He was very anti-British as well, feeling as though

the British had constantly let the Arabs down and would not let them achieve

independence. He called for general strikes and nonpayment of taxes and also led the

Arab Revolt which culminated in the 1939 White Paper. He rejected the Peel

PhilMUN 2009 26

Commission’s partition proposal and his organization assassinated a British official

during the Arab Revolt, causing the British to come after him. He fled to Germany, where

he developed ties with Hitler and got caught up with the Nazis. He was later arrested and

convicted of war crimes, but escaped to Egypt. He is now chairman of the Arab Higher

Committee once again, and is still vehemently opposed to Jewish immigration, land

purchasing, a Jewish state, or any other situation in which Palestine is not an exclusively

Arab state.

Transjordan: King Abdullah bin al-Hussein King Abdullah is a son of Sherif Hussein of Mecca and reportedly a direct

descendant of the Prophet Muhammad. He helped organize the Arab Revolt while

Transjordan was under the British mandate, and was crowned king in 1946, when it

received its independence from Britain. King Abdullah has shown support for the Peel

Commission’s partition plan, because an Arab state in Palestine would be joined with

Transjordan, an idea that goes hand in hand with the King’s dreams of a “Greater Syria”

which he would rule. With Arabs in a state of confusion and disarray, and with many

internal divisions amongst them, King Abdullah is one of the few voices of the Arab

people on an international stage. He wants Jewish immigration to Palestine ended, along

with an independent Arab state. While the King may empathize with Jewish Holocaust

survivors, he and other Arabs believe that they should not have to pay for Europe’s

mistakes. If European powers want to make amends for the suffering they caused the

Jews, they should do so at their own expense, not at the expense of the Arabs. He points

to the unwillingness of British and US governments to accept Jewish refugees as

hypocrisy. He also believes that Jews cannot claim a historic right to Palestine when

Arabs have been the overwhelming majority there for nearly 1,300 uninterrupted years.63

The King has a special position, as he has the ability to mediate between angry

Palestinian Arabs and the British mandate authority.64 This unique position comes with a

63 http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/kabd_eng.html 64 King Abdullah and Palestine

PhilMUN 2009 27

lot of responsibility, and King Abdullah needs to act carefully so as not to further upset

the Arabs he is representing while at the same time taking British interests into account.

West Germany: Chancellor Konrad Adenauer After WWII was over, Germany was left in a completely weakened state, at the

mercy of the Allied Powers. It was economically crippled, and heavy reparations were

imposed on it. Germany was divided in two, with West Germany being occupied by the

western powers. Konrad Adenauer, chairman of the Christian Democratic Union party,

became the first Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany. Germany, responsible

for the Holocaust, needs to redeem itself in the eyes of the rest of the world by helping to

solve the Jewish refugee problem. Europe still has traces of anti-Semitism, while Arabs

are openly hostile to Jewish immigration. It is Germany’s responsibility and moral

obligation to help come up with a safe place for displaced Jews to settle. But at the same

time, Germany cannot risk angering the Arabs, whose oil and other resources they will

need in order to rebuild their weakened state.

Possible Causes Religious History

At its most basic, this conflict can be seen as a religious dispute between Muslims

and Jews. Both sides distrust each other and religious extremists from both sides have

carried out attacks in the name of God. These surprisingly similar religions have managed

to exploit every difference between them. Judaism and Islam are both monotheistic

religions that share the same roots in the Abrahamic tradition. According to Jewish

tradition, God will give the Jews the Promised Land, Israel, where they will finally live in

peace. Palestine holds some of the most sacred sites in Judaism. However, these sites are

also sacred in Islam. Solomon’s Temple was located in the same spot in Jerusalem as the Mary C. Wilson Bulletin (British Society for Middle Eastern Studies), Vol. 14, No. 1 (1987), pp. 37-41 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/194453

PhilMUN 2009 28

Western Wall, Dome of the Rock, and al-Aqsa Mosque. Because of the religious aspect

of this conflict, any solution will need to address the problem posed by equally

compelling claims to Jerusalem. Another reason religion is problematic in this conflict is

because many of the claims made on both sides are rooted in religious history. While one

side may claim divine right to the land, the other side has a different notion of divinity

and dismisses these claims entirely. Another complication posed by religion comes from

Christianity. Some Christians believe that the second coming of Jesus Christ will not

occur until the Jews are in the Promised Land. Muslims, who do not believe Jesus Christ

to be God, dispute this. In fact, even other Christians dispute this. To make matters even

more complicated, there are even some Jews who believe that they cannot force their way

into the Promised Land; God has to give it to them. Religious claims, disputes, and

divisions are one of the fundamental causes of the conflict.

The Holocaust and European Anti-Semitism Anti-Semitism in Europe, culminating in the Holocaust, created a hostile living

environment for European Jews. They fled persecution, as they had many other times in

history, and realized that they had very few options available, since states like the US and

Great Britain refused them entry. One option that seemed alluring was Palestine, and

Jews began immigrating there in mass quantities. This scared Arabs, who saw Jewish

immigration as a threat to their political and economic power. Arabs felt slighted that

they may not be able to achieve the independence that had been promised them since the

beginning of the colonial period. They also felt as though they were indirect victims of

the Holocaust, since their land was being taken by foreigners. They did not realize, or

maybe did not care, that those foreigners had nowhere else to go. Another reason the

Holocaust may have accelerated the problem, apart from increased immigration, was

because Europe was full of shame that it had allowed horrors of that magnitude to occur.

It felt a moral obligation to make amends with the Jews, and it did so by trying to

facilitate the creation of a Jewish state, despite Arab anger. Many Zionists blamed Britain

PhilMUN 2009 29

for the large number of Jewish deaths, saying that British immigration policy trapped a

lot of Jews in Europe, where they were then systematically killed by the Nazis.

Zionism Zionist ideology was extremely controversial in Palestine. The Zionist aim of

creating a Jewish homeland and/or state was met with fierce resistance from Arabs, and is

what directly started the conflict. Zionists justified settling in Palestine by arguing that

apart from the religious and historical claims they had to the land, their presence

benefited the Arabs also. To some extent this was true, as Jewish workers were more

organized and the first wave of Jewish immigrants helped raise the economic capacity of

the region. Zionists also claimed that the plight of Jews, especially during the Holocaust,

necessitated the creation of a Jewish state. The Arabs also point to Zionism as a reason to

fight. They emphasized Zionists’ use of terror and guerilla tactics to oust the British as a

major impediment to peaceful relations. This “gun-Zionism”65 greatly angered the

British, causing an escalation in the conflict.

Arab Resistance The Arab resistance to Jewish land purchases, immigration, organization, and quest for a

state also aggrandized the issue. While the Arabs may have been fighting out of fear for

their political power, frustration from a lack of independence and out of a suspicion of

Zionist goals, events like the Arab riots of the 1920s did not do much to address the issue.

Instead, they intensified the violence and tension on all three sides. Similarly, the Arab

Revolt, although it paved the way for the 1939 White Paper, did not accomplish much

more than a significant loss of life for all parties involved.

British Policy British policy in Palestine during the mandate years was incredibly mismanaged.

The British kept reversing their policy back and forth, never settling on any one course of

action. In addition, they shrouded many of their negotiations in secrecy. They signed 65 Bickerton, p.66

PhilMUN 2009 30

many simultaneous agreements that contradicted one another and did nothing but create

more anger and confusion amongst the various players. For example, at about the time

they issued the Balfour Declaration, they also signed the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the

Sherif-McMahon letters, all of which contained conflicting agreements. The fact that the

British kept flip-flopping in their policy and never committed to one strategy added to the

chaos. Anytime the Arabs or the Jews rioted or committed terrorist acts against each

other or against the British authorities, the British would reevaluate their policy and

change course. They would give in to demands, as they did with the Balfour Declaration

and also with the 1939 White Paper following the Arab Revolt. This not only frustrated

both the Arabs and the Jews, but it showed them that through rioting, terror, and violence,

they could pressure the British into appeasing them. The lack of commitment in British

mandate policy encouraged both Arabs and Jews to use extreme tactics to get the upper

hand with the British. The fact that the British government itself was divided internally

on how to approach the matter only made it harder to create a firm policy for Palestine.

For example, Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin and Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald

constantly butted heads and disagreed over specific courses of action. These types of

divisions with British government hindered its ability to effectively rule its mandated

territory.

Possible Solutions Many solutions have been proposed to try and solve this problem. It is necessary

to decide which one would work best, and how to implement it or change it in order for it

to be most effective. It is entirely possible that the best solutions may not yet have been

proposed even, and are waiting to be formulated in the minds of this Security Council.

Single State Solution: Jews

Some extreme Zionists, including Menachem Begin and other Revisionists, view a

single Jewish state as the only acceptable solution. The state would stretch from the sea to

the Jordan River, including both banks of the river and all the surrounding land. The

PhilMUN 2009 31

government would be Jewish and Arabs would be pressured to leave or have their rights

curtailed. There would be unlimited Jewish immigration. Most of the world will probably

look unfavorably upon this idea, but if implemented correctly and without regard for

human rights; it could succeed in stabilizing the region.

Single State Solution: Arabs For most Arabs, a single Arab state is the only option. Everything else is off the

table and they will refuse to even consider anything other than this. They believe that

Palestine is their land and that they do not have to compromise or accommodate anyone.

Also, they have become angry and frustrated at the empty promises of independence that

the colonial powers, mainly Britain, keep feeding them. This plan would end Jewish land

purchases and immigration and put a stop to Zionism in the region. Arabs disagree as to

what type of government would run this state; some prefer a secular, democratic one

while others prefer some kind of theocracy adapted from Islamic law.

Binational State Some left-leaning Zionists, such as Reform Rabbi Judah Magnes, philosopher

Martin Buber, and the organization Brit Shalom, have proposed the idea of a binational

state. In this state, Jews and Arabs would have administrative subdivisions like cantons.

The proponents of this idea saw that Arab and Zionist goals were incompatible, but still

wanted to try and salvage what was left of the relationship between Jews and Arabs in

Palestine. Supporters of this idea included the USSR and the Jewish political party known

as the “Young Guard”, which tried to promote equality between working class Arabs and

Jews. When this idea was proposed to the Anglo-American Commission, it was

immediately rejected by Arabs. Although a bit idealistic, with some tactful diplomacy

and a few changes, it could very well be a solution to the current problem.

Single Democratic State This may be the biggest stretch, but if a single democratic state can be agreed upon

by the Arabs and Zionists, it would be the best possible scenario for the other actors, such

PhilMUN 2009 32

as the US and UK. In this state, the government would be elected democratically, by the

vote of the people. However, this is going to be very hard not only to have the member

groups agree on, but also to implement. The Arabs will not want to do it because it goes

against their maximalist position, and the Zionists will refuse because they will still be a

minority. If this were to work, provisions would have to be made to guard against a

tyranny by the majority, among many other problems.66 While this may not be looked

upon favorably by the Arabs, Zionists, or USSR, it will serve as a beacon of hope for the

democratic world and as a bastion of democracy in an unstable part of the world.

Two-State Solution This solution has been getting a lot more attention recently, especially after the

Peel Commission Report and the UNSCOP majority report. It has been suggested many

times, but seems just as unlikely to work as any of the other solutions proposed. The

solution has already been completely rejected by Arabs. It is not very appealing to

Zionists either, who will see only a very small portion of Palestine be allotted for a

Jewish state. But, the Zionists have reluctantly accepted the proposal. According to the

two-state solution, the land known as Palestine will be partitioned into two completely

separate states. There have been many different partition plans discussed, but the one that

seems to have the most support (which is still not a lot of support at all) is the UNSCOP

majority report which divides the land into an Arab state and a Jewish state, and puts

Jerusalem under international administration. Even though the Zionists may have agreed

to it, the Arabs promise to go to war if it is implemented. Avoiding further violence is

extremely important, so any solution decided upon will need to minimize violence and be

agreeable to all sides.

Argentina One other solution that has been proposed but not given much thought is

Argentina. In his book “Der Judenstaat”, father of Zionism Theodor Herzl suggested two

66 http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000122.htm

PhilMUN 2009 33

possible homes for the Jewish people. One, of course, was Palestine. The other place was

Argentina. Although Argentina seems like a very random choice, it may not be a bad

idea. Argentina is home to a very large Jewish population, and is a lot less controversial

than Palestine. But, it also does not have the religious appeal that the Promised Land has.

If the Zionists primary goal is to secure a safe haven for Jewish refugees, then this could

work. However, they have other interests, just like everyone else. The Arabs would

almost definitely accept this idea, because it would mean that the Jews would no longer

be threatening them. Although it is unlikely to happen, it is worth thinking about,

especially since all the other ideas suggested so far are equally as unlikely to work out.

PhilMUN 2009 34

Discussion Questions • Who has a right to this land? Should it go to the one who was there first? Or the

one who has been there longest and most recently?

• What arguments are valid? What aren’t? (ex: inhabitance, history, religion, international deals/agreements)

• Is there any way to coexist? How will they share scarce resources?

• How can they live in harmony without trying to destroy each other? Is this even

possible?

• How can they reconcile their histories, beliefs, past violence, and differences in order to stabilize the region?

• How can a lasting peace process be formulated? Who is in the best position to

broker a peace agreement?

• What must be done to stabilize the region to provide a foundation for future peacekeeping efforts?

• Religious ideology plays an important role for both Palestinians and Jews. How

can this space for religion be recognized and supported in terms of peace building?

• Who are the actors who will benefit from stability in the region? How can their needs be addressed from a security standpoint?

• What are the most effective/ viable solutions to the problem? Which ones have

the most realistic chance of working?

• What are some ideas that haven’t been thought of or proposed that may have a chance at success?

• What measures need to be taken in order to ensure that the solution is put into effect and garners lasting results?