Below is the letter that David Ben-Gurion wrote to his son, Amos, on October 5, 1937, 10 years before the UN General Assembly (GA) recommended partitioning Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state. (Leave aside the lack of parallelism there.) Ben-Gurion would become Israel’s first prime minister in 1948. The letter is revealing.
Contrary to popular belief and as Jeremy R. Hammond documents, the UN did not – and had no authority to – partition any territory, including Palestine, which Great Britain had conquered from the Ottoman Empire in World War I and ruled under the League of Nations’s colonial mandate system. With Resolution 181, the GA merely recommended the partition to Great Britain, which had announced its intention to depart Palestine in May 1948: the resolution “Recommends to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union.” The Arab inhabitants, who trusted in Britain’s promise of independence if they revolted against the Turks during World War I, did not agree to a partition. The ball was passed to the UN Security Council, which refused to accept the task. “The simple fact of the matter is that the plan was never implemented,” Hammond writes.
Even though Jewish land purchases by 1947 amounted to less than 7 percent of Palestine (with some sales of dubious legitimacy and entailing the dispossession of the Arab Lockean owners), and although Jews comprised only 30 percent of the total population, the recommended partition would have allocated 55 percent of the land to a movement of people professing to be Jewish (despite their secularism) based on ancient ancestry. The new Jewish state would have contained 397,000 nonconsenting Arabs and 538,000 Jews.
Despite the partition recommendation having gone nowhere, on May 14, 1948, as the British were leaving, “the members of the National Council, representing the Jewish people in Palestine and the Zionist movement of the world,” under Ben-Gurion’s leadership, declared Israel’s independence – without declaring its borders. (It still has not.) The Arab population of Palestine, which, like many Jews, descended from the ancient Canaanites (and other migrating peoples), had lived in and worked there continuously for many generations (as Ben-Gurion well understood; see Shlomo Sand, The Invention of the Jewish People, pp. 185-6). But now they were out in the cold. What ensued was not pretty.
As things turned out, and after the 1948 Zionist paramilitary campaign of expulsion and massacre, which provoked a half-hearted defensive response from neighboring Arab countries, Israel, by 1949, held 78 percent of the land, leaving 750,000 dispossessed individuals. The Zionists had signed a treaty with Jordan, enabling the kingdom to take the West Bank for itself. Some 500 Palestinian villages were wiped off the map. After June 1967, Israel had it all.
About a decade earlier, Ben-Gurion had written to his son after Britain’s Royal (Peel) Commission, anticipating the future UN, recommended partitioning Palestine. This followed a Palestinian Arab revolt against their heavy-handed colonial rulers. The letter comes from the Ben-Gurion Archives. The Institute for Palestine Studies (IPS) in Beirut translated it from Hebrew. (Italics are in the original. Boldface and all caps are my emphases. See the IPS commentary here.)
In his letter, Ben-Gurion wrote that the partition of Palestine, while not ideal, would give the Zionists (advocates of Jewish statehood) a foothold from which to expand into the whole of Palestine, including Transjordan (as Jordan was known then). In part, he wrote,
If I were an Arab I would have been very indignant [about recommended partition]…. What we really want is not that the land remain whole and unified. What we want is that the whole and unified land be Jewish. A unified Eretz Israel would be no source of satisfaction for me – if it were Arab.
Moreover, he said, if the Arabs did not acquiesce (for their own good), the Zionists would be prepared “to talk to them in a different language,” that is, to use force to “expel Arabs and take their place.” (That’s about what happened.) Thus, while Ben-Gurion is often portrayed as a reasonable moderate Zionist, he might be better described as a pragmatist in contrast to the more fanatical hardliners who wanted it all right away. But that did not make him a moderate.
All of this shows, as I wrote in Coming to Palestine, that the Palestinian Arabs are the aggrieved party in the conflict, which is not to say they have done everything right or have committed no war crimes. (See Jeremy R. Hammond’s Benny Morris’s Untenable Denial of the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.)
Two more things. First, when secular Zionism arose in the late 19th century, which proposed an “ingathering of exiles” (that is, virtually the entire Jewish diaspora), most observant Jews opposed twisting their religion into a nationalistic movement in search of statehood. They feared that a state would replace God and Torah. They also believed that a Jewish state would endanger their emancipated status in their home countries and require domination of the Palestinian Arabs. The anti-Zionists’ prophecy proved correct. In light of the Holocaust, which changed the presentation of Zionism from an ingathering project to a refugee program, Jewish anti-Zionism faded but did not disappear.
Second, while this letter tells us something important about the past, history cannot inform present decision-making mechanically. Just as toothpaste cannot be put back in the tube, historical injustices, as they recede in time, cannot be undone; attempts to do so would likely bring new injustices. That is, a way must be found to observe the natural individual rights of Palestinians, including refugees, without new oppression of innocents. How to do that, I do not know. (A group of Israelis and Palestinians have launched the Federal Forum to discuss how some form of federalism, possibly a Swiss canton system, might settle the conflict peacefully and justly.)
The history disclosed in Ben-Gurion’s letter dispels the notion that the Zionist project was admirably humane, if only in its early days. There was no immaculate conception. Zionism is not a good idea gone wrong, as some people would have it. About 750,000 Palestinians were driven from their homes and villages before and after Ben-Gurion declared independence. Zionism began with a lie: “A land without a people for a people without a land.” It was no such thing. And the people there were not primitives; they had vibrant agriculture, crafts, markets, and trade. It continued with another lie: “The Jews made the desert bloom,” as though the Palestinian Arabs were not growing great crops for domestic consumption and export. As a child, I was fed these untruths, no doubt unwittingly, by my parents, religious authorities, and Hebrew school teachers. Yes, the Nazi’s monstrous program to eliminate Europe’s Jews made it necessary for the survivors to go somewhere. America should have opened its gates; most European Jews would have preferred the urban United States to the exotic Palestine. Some way should have been found that did not involve expelling and massacring the Palestinian Arabs. But the Zionist project – the quest for a Jewish state at any cost – ruled that out.
The ensuing violence of the Nakba (catastrophe due to expulsion); the repeated wars; the brutal and humiliating occupation and de facto or de jure annexation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights; the occupation of and attacks on Lebanon – all of it followed from the premise that the land really belongs to the European descendants of Canaanite tribesmen who lived there more than 2,000 years ago – even though many ancient inhabitants had freely emigrated in search of greener pastures before the Romans arrived in Judea. In other words, there was no exile. (See Sand, linked above.) From the beginning, the ground was paved for the emergence of the most fanatical, bloodthirsty factions on both sides of the divide.
5 October 1937
Dear Amos,
…Here what I want to talk about is the conflict you are experiencing between your reason and your emotions with regard to the question of the state. Political matters should not be a question of emotions. The only thing that should be taken into account is what we want and what is best for us, what will lead to the objective, and which are the policies that will make us succeed and which will make us fail.
It seems to me that I, too, have “emotions” [quotation marks in original. Hebrew: regesh]. Without these emotions I would not have been able to endure decades of our hard work. It definitely does not hurt my feelings [regesh] that a state is established, even if it is small.
Of course the partition of the country gives me no pleasure. But the country that they [the Royal (Peel) Commission] are partitioning is not in our actual possession; it is in the possession of the Arabs and the English. What is in our actual possession is a small portion, less than what they [the Peel Commission] are proposing for a Jewish state. If I were an Arab I would have been very indignant. But in this proposed partition we will get more than what we already have, though of course much less than we merit and desire. The question is: would we obtain more without partition? If things were to remain as they are, would this satisfy our feelings? What we really want is not that the land remain whole and unified. What we want is that the whole and unified land be Jewish. A unified Eretz Israel would be no source of satisfaction for me – if it were Arab.
From our standpoint, the status quo is deadly poison. We want to change the status quo. But how can this change come about? How can this land become ours? The decisive question is: Does the establishment of a Jewish state [in only part of Palestine] advance or retard the conversion of this country into a Jewish country?
My assumption (which is why I am a fervent proponent of a state, even though it is now linked to partition) is that a Jewish state on only part of the land is not the end but the beginning.
When we acquire one thousand or 10,000 dunams, we feel elated. It does not hurt our feelings that by this acquisition we are not in possession of the whole land. This is because this increase in possession is of consequence not only in itself, but because through it we increase our strength, and every increase in strength helps in the possession of the land as a whole. The establishment of a state, even if only on a portion of the land, is the maximal reinforcement of our strength at the present time and a powerful boost to our historical endeavors to liberate the entire country.
We shall admit into the state all the Jews we can. We firmly believe that we can admit more than two million Jews. We shall build a multi-faceted Jewish economy – agricultural, industrial, and maritime. We shall organize an advanced defense force – a superior army which I have no doubt will be one of the best armies in the world. At that point I am confident that we would not fail in settling in the remaining parts of the country, through agreement and understanding with our Arab neighbors, or through some other means.
We must always keep in mind the fundamental truths that make our settlement of this land imperative and possible. They are two or three: it is not the British Mandate nor the Balfour Declaration. These are consequences, not causes. They are the products of coincidence: contingent, ephemeral, and they will come to an end. They were not inevitable. They could not have occurred but for the World War, or rather, they would not have occurred if the war had not ended the way it did.
But on the other hand there are fundamental [emphasis original] historical truths, unalterable as long as Zionism is not fully realized. These are:
1) The pressure of the Exile, which continues to push the Jews with propulsive force towards the country.
2) Palestine is grossly under populated. It contains vast colonization potential which the Arabs neither need nor are qualified (because of their lack of need) to exploit. There is no Arab immigration problem. There is no Arab exile. Arabs are not persecuted. They have a homeland, and it is vast.
3) The innovative talents of the Jews (a consequence of point 1 above), their ability to make the desert bloom, to create industry, to build an economy, to develop culture, to conquer the sea and space with the help of science and pioneering endeavor.
These three fundamental truths will be reinforced by the existence of a Jewish state in a part of the country, just as Zionism will be reinforced by every conquest, large or small, every school, every factory, every Jewish ship, etc.
Our ability to penetrate the country will increase if we have a state. Our strength vis-à-vis the Arabs will likewise increase. The possibilities for construction and multiplication will speedily expand. The greater the Jewish strength in the country, the more the Arabs will realize that it is neither beneficial nor possible for them to withstand us. On the contrary, it will be possible for the Arabs to benefit enormously from the Jews, not only materially but politically as well.
I do not dream of war nor do I like it. But I still believe, more than I did before the emergence of the possibility of a Jewish state, that once we are numerous and powerful in the country the Arabs will realize that it is better for them to become our allies.
They will derive benefits from our assistance if they, of their own free will, give us the opportunity to settle in all parts of the country. The Arabs have many countries that are under-populated, underdeveloped, and vulnerable, incapable with their own strength to stand up to their external enemies. Without France, Syria could not last for one day against an onslaught from Turkey. The same applies to Iraq and to the new [Palestinian] state [under the Peel plan]. All of these stand in need of the protection of France or Britain. This need for protection means subjugation and dependence on the other. But the Jews could be equal allies, real friends, not occupiers or tyrants over them.
Let us assume that the Negev will not be allotted to the Jewish state. In such event, the Negev will remain barren because the Arabs have neither the competence nor the need to develop it or make it prosper. They already have an abundance of deserts but not of manpower, financial resources, or creative initiative. It is very probable that they will agree that we undertake the development of the Negev and make it prosper in return for our financial, military, organizational, and scientific assistance. It is also possible that they will not agree. People don’t always behave according to logic, common sense, or their own practical advantage. Just as you yourself are sometimes split conflicted between your mind and your emotions, it is possible that the Arabs will follow the dictates of sterile nationalist emotions and tell us: “We want neither your honey nor your sting. We’d rather that the Negev remain barren than that Jews should inhabit it.” If this occurs, we will have to talk to them in a different language – and we will have a different language – but such a language will not be ours without a state. This is so because we can no longer tolerate that vast territories capable of absorbing tens of thousands of Jews should remain vacant, and that Jews cannot return to their homeland because the Arabs prefer that the place [the Negev] remains neither ours nor theirs. We must expel Arabs and take their place. Up to now, all our aspirations have been based on an assumption – one that has been vindicated throughout our activities in the country – that there is enough room in the land for the Arabs and ourselves. But if we are compelled to use force – not in order to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev or Transjordan, but in order to guarantee our right to settle there – our force will enable us to do so.
Clearly in such event we will have to deal not only with the Arabs living in Eretz Israel, since it is very probable that Arabs from the neighboring countries will come to their aid. But our power will be greater, not only because we will be better organized and equipped, but also because behind us stands a force still greater in quantity and quality. This is the reservoir of the millions in the Diaspora. Our entire younger generation of Poland, Romania, America, and other countries will rush to our aid at the outbreak of such a conflict. I pray to God that this does not happen at all. Nevertheless the Jewish state will not rely only on the Jews living in it, but on the Jewish people living in every corner of the world: the many millions who are eager and obliged [emphasis original] to settle in Palestine. There are not millions of Arabs who are compelled or willing to settle in Palestine. Of course it is likely that Arab adventurers and gangs will come from Syria or Iraq or other Arab countries, but these can be no match for the tens and hundreds of thousands of young Jews to whom Eretz Israel is not merely an emotional issue, but one that is in equal measure both personal and national.
For this reason I attach enormous importance to the conquest of the sea and the construction of a Jewish harbor and a Jewish fleet. The sea is the bridge between the Jews of this country and the Jewish Diaspora – the millions of Jews in different parts of the world. We must create the conditions that will enable us in times of necessity to bring into the country in our own ships manned by our own seamen, tens of thousands of young men. Meanwhile we must prepare these young men while they are still in the Diaspora for whatever task awaits them here.
I am confident that the establishment of a Jewish state, even if it is only in a part of the country, will enable us to carry out this task. Once a state is established, we shall have control over the Eretz Israeli sea. Our activities in the sea will then include astonishing achievements.
Because of all the above, I feel no conflict between my mind and emotions. Both declare to me: A Jewish state must be established immediately, even if it is only in part of the country. The rest will follow in the course of time. A Jewish state will come….
Sincerely,
Your father
Reprinted from Free Association – Sheldon Richman’s Newsletter.
Sheldon Richman is a Father; grandfather; free-market anarchist; lover of reason, liberty, and pipe tobacco; and author of “What Social Animals Owe to Each Other,” “America’s Counter-Revolution: The Constitution Revisited,” “Coming to Palestine,” et al.