Frederick Hughes
Colonialism is a popular term in today’s vocabulary, most often used as an accusation. Israel has become a common target for such accusations and faces frequent challenges to its actions and policies. However this term, although used frequently, requires a deeper analysis of its applicability to Israel and its history.
What is Colonialism?
As defined in the Cambridge Dictionary, Colonialism can be understood as “control by one country over another and its economy, or support for such control”. History abounds with examples of classic colonial activities by major nations of the world – Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands to name just a few. Typically, an act of colonisation would involve the following:
- Exploitation of local people and resources
- Displacement of indigenous people
- An extension of power and influence for the benefit of the colonising country
Modern-day critics of Israel use such a definition to describe the process and intention of Israel being formed as a nation state in 1948. Indeed, Zionism and Colonialism have become virtually synonymous in the minds of many. Along with other accusations such as “genocide” and “apartheid”, this term is being applied to Israel freely and without a justifying argument. But does it truly apply to Israel?
Zionist Beginnings
It should be noted at first that the term “colonising” was used by the founders of political Zionism in relation to the establishing of a Jewish homeland in the area that had been loosely termed Palestine since the Roman suppression of the Bar Kochba rebellion in 136AD. This aspiration for a homeland was supported by the British government’s Balfour Declaration in 1917, and the San Remo agreement of 1920. It should also be noted that even before Theodore Herzl began to build the Zionist movement in 1894, the first waves of Jewish immigration (aliyah) had been taking place (beginning in 1882).
Thus Zionism was formed against an existing backdrop of Jewish immigration, but shared the same defining motive – to establish a safe homeland for the Jews of the world who were subject regularly to persecution, expulsion, and deadly pogroms. This fact alone is sufficient to distinguish the story of modern Israel from a classic view of colonialism. The Jews making aliyah were doing so out of necessity, having learned that no other place in the world would offer a safe and stable homeland. There was no “mother country” looking to gain from forming a colonial outpost in the area of Palestine. Conversely, as amplified by the subsequent rise of Nazi Germany, the perceived “gain” for many countries was to rid themselves of Jews. Some, but not all, sectors of the religious Jewish population also regarded a “return to Zion” as the fulfilment of Biblical prophecy. These two motivations together created a powerful impetus for the process of Jewish immigration.
Indigenous People?
The question of the indigenous population of the Palestine region is complex. Even after the Roman expulsion following the Bar Kochba rebellion, a Jewish population has remained permanently in the land, together with a non-Jewish Christian, and later Muslim Arab population. The demographics have changed over time, with the majority swinging from Christian to Arab, and latterly to Jews. However, it is clear that Zionism was never a case of “discovering” a new land and founding a new colonial system in it. The Jews also make a Biblical claim on the land, in accordance with the covenant given by God in the book of Genesis. There are many examples of archaeological and documentary evidence that corroborate with Biblical history.
Additionally, it must be recognised that the geographical makeup of the Middle East at the birth of Zionism was vastly different to what appears on the maps of today. The Ottoman empire included the ancient nations of Syria and Lebanon, but also undefined land that is now recognised as Jordan, Iraq, and Israel (plus the disputed Palestinian territories). The immigration was not, therefore, an occupation of a well-defined state of Palestine, but into a general area within a much larger empire. Indeed, the concept of a Palestinian people did not take shape until later in the 20th Century.
Forced Displacement?
Again this is a complex and hotly-disputed subject. Critics of Israel hold the view that through the War of Independence in 1948, some 700,000 people of the Arab population were forcibly displaced from their homes. Also that many towns and villages were either destroyed or occupied. Counter arguments hold that the Arab populations were encouraged or ordered by the Arab armies to leave their homes in order for the war against the Jews to be conducted without hindrance. The reality is most likely that both sets of events took place at some level. There is clear evidence of voluntary evacuation of areas by the Arab population during the war, Haifa being one example. At the same time, forcible evacuation was conducted as part of Plan Dalet, drawn up by the Israeli leadership as a means of ensuring Israeli security, both before and after the war. Evacuation under this plan was targeted at communities bordering Israeli neighbourhoods, which would have been vulnerable and indefensible without a security buffer.
A consequence of the war which receives much less attention is the fact that a similar number of Jews were evicted from the neighbouring Arab countries after 1948. These were quickly and effectively absorbed into the new state, in an inversion of the displacement argument.
Exploitation of the Population?
Israel has been described in recent times as an “apartheid state”. This accusation is built on the differing rights and opportunities available to Palestinians in comparison with Israel citizens. Crudely speaking, the premise is that the Jews view themselves as superior to the Arabs and afford themselves superior rights. However this premise does not align with the fact that 2 million Arab citizens of Israel enjoy the same rights and opportunities as the Jewish citizens. These citizens are those (and their descendants) who chose to receive citizenship at the time when the new state of Israel was formed. Palestinian Arabs living in Gaza and the West Bank do not hold Israeli citizenship since they are living in an area that is not officially part of the State of Israel. Some Palestinians sought Israeli citizenship or residency, but many reject this as a possibility because of ideological opposition to the existence of Israel. It must be understood that these areas have never been part of a state in its own right – after the War of Independence, the West Bank and Gaza were occupied by Jordan and Egypt respectively. Since then, sufficient conditions to allow the creation of a Palestinian state (i.e. commitment to peaceful coexistence with the state of Israel) have never been reached.
Criticisms such as this fail to take into account the long-term hostility between Israel and its Palestinian neighbours. For example, checkpoints were increased and the Jerusalem wall built as a response to the Second Intifiada, to stem the flow of Palestinian suicide bombers into Jerusalem. Until such time as security measures can be relaxed as a response to a genuine commitment to peaceful coexistence, life for Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem will of necessity be restricted.
It must also be recognised that tens of thousands of Palestinian workers are employed by Israeli businesses, being unable to find satisfactory employment under the Palestinian Administration.
Conclusion
Is Israel a colonialist project? The answer to this is multi-layered. The founders of Zionism and the modern state did make reference to Israel in these terms, and had a clear aspiration to secure a homeland for the Jewish people. However, the history and development of modern-day Israel does not fit well with the classic definition of colonialism.
Critics of Israel may raise moral objections regarding appropriation of land, displacement of population, etc. However these objections cannot be considered without appreciation of modern Israel’s history, particularly that Israel has faced an existential crisis ever since its formation. Decisions that might have been questioned in times of peace have been necessitated by the ever-present threat of war.
To answer the question with a further question: Is Israel a colonialist project, or in fact a story of the struggle for survival of a people denied a safe homeland anywhere else in the world?
Leave a Reply