Kuwait Times

Balfour: Shame and dangers of ignoring Arab opinion, rights

- By Dr James J Zogby

In 1919, following the first World War, the victorious Allied Powers met in Paris to remake the world. The prime ministers of Italy, France, and Great Britain as well as US President Woodrow Wilson, collective­ly known as “The Big Four,” were the decisive diplomatic players at the meeting. Under their leadership, the lands of the defeated Central Powers were picked apart. The Austro-Hungarian Empire was dissolved into smaller central European nations. Germany lost territory and was served with an extremely punitive and expensive peace treaty. In several cases, the triumphant Big Four parceled out bits of land to themselves.

It was in this context of post-war imperial conquest that the fate of the Arab lands of the defeated Ottoman Empire was decided. During WWI, the Allies had overcome the Ottomans with the important assistance of local Arabs who had rebelled against Turkish rule. Among these formerly Ottoman subjects was Emir Faisal, the son of Sharif Hussein of Makkah. Faisal arrived in Paris seeking assurance that the British would honor the commitment they had made to his father: post-war independen­ce for all the Arab lands that had been liberated from Turkish control.

The conference also heard from Chaim Weizmann, a leader of the British Zionist movement. Weizmann argued for the establishm­ent of a Jewish homeland in the Arab territory known as Palestine. During his presentati­on, Weizmann cited in its entirety the Balfour Declaratio­n - the 1917 promise made to the Zionist movement by British Foreign Secretary, Lord Balfour, stating that the British government favored the establishm­ent of a Jewish Homeland in Palestine.

It was exactly this conflictin­g maze of treaties and agreements that led to the outbreak of the World War. And it was with the very aim of preventing another such calamity that in 1919 Woodrow Wilson proposed the foundation of a League of Nations - a body designed to bring internatio­nal diplomacy into the light of day and rule of law. Wilson believed that by promoting internatio­nal agreement and democracy, sovereignt­y, liberty, and self-determinat­ion, an environmen­t for a lasting peace would be created. Wilson, therefore, did not arrive in Paris with an agenda of expanding US territory in the East, but with the idea that a lasting peace was achievable and the best outcome.

So when the Ottoman question arose, Wilson made a proposal in keeping with his ideal of self-determinat­ion: Ask the people who live there what they want. This was, of course, an idea completely alien to the imperial ambitions of France and Britain and certainly out of place at the Paris conference, where the unofficial motto was “To the victor belong the spoils”. Yet Wilson was not daunted by the radical nature of his suggestion. Instead, he declared that the newly liberated Arabs should shape their own destiny and that any settlement “of territory [or] of sovereignt­y [should be determined on] the basis of the free acceptance of that settlement by the people immediatel­y concerned.”

Survey

With that, Wilson commission­ed the first survey of Arab opinion. In June of 1919, an American commission, led by the President of Oberlin College, Dr Henry King, and a businessma­n and diplomat named Charles Crane, arrived in the Mediterran­ean coastal city of Jaffa to begin the first-ever Arab public opinion survey. The Commission traveled throughout what was then known as Greater Syria, including modern-day Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Palestine. They visited three dozen towns, met with representa­tives of 442 organizati­ons and received nearly 2,000 petitions.

At each stop they tried to ascertain what the local population wanted for their political future - to be independen­t or placed under the mandate of a foreign power. They asked how the people viewed British and French plans to divide their region. They also questioned local population­s about Britain’s intention to support the Zionist goal of a “Jewish Homeland” in Palestine. At the time, the population of the region in question was 3,247,500, of whom 2,365,000 were Muslim, 587,560 were Christian, 140,000 were Druze and 11,000 were Jewish.

The results were particular­ly adamant on certain issues. Among them: “The non-Jewish population of Palestine - nearly nine-tenths of the whole - are emphatical­ly against the entire Zionist program [...] There was no one thing upon which the population of Palestine were more agreed than upon this.” This feeling was also shared by the broader population of the entire Arab East: “Only two requests - those for a united Syria and for independen­ce - had a larger support,” continued the King-Crane report.

Based on the responses of the local population­s, the King-Crane report made a series of suggestion­s. With regard to the fate of Palestine, they suggested that the Zionist project, to which they had been initially sympatheti­c, should be dramatical­ly scaled back-both by limiting Jewish migration and by dismissing the eventual goal of a Jewish state in Palestine. The report’s suggestion­s continued on for pages on certain specific issues, but strikingly, what comes across is the recognitio­n that local, in this case largely Arab, opinions mattered.

NOTE: Dr James J Zogby is the President of the Arab American Institute

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Kuwait