Anthony A.J.

Yarnall

Political Science 325 // Section AA

Professor Duman // Facilitator Noveck

A Silent Pragmatism

Rashid Khalidis The Iron Cage describes the British Mandate of Palestine as

being constructed on a system that outright favored the institutions of Jewish minority as

the successor government in the region due to racial and religious prejudices against

the areas Palestinian Arab majority. Khalidi asserts that the British resorted to practicing

governing tactics aimed at sowing division among the indigenous Arab leadership to

thwart any credible attempt they might have made to assert legitimate control over

Palestine, an area he views as being the rightful possession of the Arab population.

According to Khalidi, the British systematically denied the existence of a Palestinian

national identity in direct violation of Wilsons Fourteen Points, a directive they swore to

uphold as a member state of the League of Nations.This denial was instrumental in the

British [design] to exclude national self-determination for the Arab majority, even while

facilitating the same end for the Jewish minority.

While I will not attempt to refute Khalidis claim that the British intended to

support the Zionist successor state to the Mandate over any Palestinian challenger from

the start, I do reject his claim that the British decision to do so was steeped in a subtly

racist rationale[that intoned] the Jews [as] important, a people of significance, while

[denigrating] the Arabs of Palestine [as] insignificant. I intend to prove, both by Khalidis

own shirking admissions and his misappropriated quotes of primary sources, that the

British were not motivated by misguided racist beliefs but the pragmatic notion of

upholding a solid state apparatus in a contentious (yet economically valuable) region.

 To best understand the British position, one must glimpse the Empires long term

goals in the region. Couched in colonial megalomania, these ambitions are not morally

sound, however they are not motivated by the outright hate and fear that Khalidi imbues

them. Professor Duman stated in lecture that the British sought control of Palestinian

ports such as Haifa to facilitate the shipment of Iraqi oil via the Mediterranean. The

British mandate system typically employed a state structure composed of indigenous

functionaries, yet the Crown maintained a high level of supervision through the

imposition of [executive] controls...backed up by the stationing of their military forces

throughout the [mandate areas]. Within the Middle East, most indigenous

functionaries were composed of prominent Arab leaders, whose grasp on power was

further legitimized by colonial decree. The system ensured a monopoly on violence via

proxy, allowing the British to extract resources without interruption (in the form of revolts

or power struggles between native powerbrokers) and minimal materiel investment.

In Jordan the British installed King Abdullah, and in Iraq, King Faisal. Both were

established leaders in the region before the arrival of British hegemony and once in

power, they managed to maintain kingdoms with enough social cohesion to facilitate

effective extraction. In Palestine, however, no clear hegemon rose above the fray, aside

from an outside bet- the Zionists. The Zionist claim to the region was tenuous at best,

however the group had developed an advanced organizational structure and had been

actively buying land in the region since Ottoman times.

[The] lack of even a minimal level of cohesion by comparison with other Arab

elites is evidenced by the Palestinian landowners selling land to Zionist organizations,

despite the practice being outlawed by the Ottomans in 1858. The obvious threat of
Zionist incursion was not enough to unite the gentry of the region in refusing the sale of

their land to the Jews. Lord Passfield, in a meeting with Palestinian dignitaries, relays

this elementary failing with traditionally veiled British frustration, stating Would you

mind considering our difficulty that we cannot create a Parliament [in Palestine] which

would not be responsible and feel itself responsible for carrying out the Mandate?

Passfield is asserting that a Parliament composed of Palestinian delegates would not be

invested enough in preserving peace in the region- that internal power jockeying would

destabilize the government and disallow the Crown its ease in utilizing the ports. At the

same summit, Passfield suggests the Palestinian Arabs create an orderly Arab Agency

to distill and advance their cause, an instruction that falls on deaf ears. Why would the

British entrust an important extraction asset, such as the port at Haifa, to a group that

would not even consider forming an institution a quarter as organized as the ever

burgeoning Zionist project?

The evidence of a pragmatically focused British decision to support the Zionist

administration of Palestine is furthered by the writings of Foreign Secretary Arthur

Balfour: Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in

present needs, in future hopes of far greater import than the desires and prejudices of

the [Palestinian Arab leadership]. Khalidi, predictably, sees this as an example of the

British contempt for Palestinian Arab culture: however, I view this quote as a shining

example of ubiquitous cultural imperialism. Balfour does not view the Zionist aspirations

with any color of preference beyond utilitarianism: he sees the Jewish settlement project

as a mere tool in the hands of the empire, in the same vein as the other martial races

[who were] utilized to fight Britains wars for the empire. In the case of the Zionists, it is
their dedication to a religious creed that makes them such an attractive bulwark against

sedition.

The British were keen on exploiting the Jews incorruptible devotion as a means

of ensuring their continued use of the Palestinian ports. Instead of currying favor with a

local power, the British saw the obvious advantage in exporting an unwanted minority

from England and western Europe to a hostile land where the group would have little

choice but to bitterly resist internal division and foreign incursion to guarantee their own

survival. The British favored the Zionists over any indigenous power because their

propensity to create viable social orders was proven and their loyalty (by way of their

self-sufficient stability) would be unmatched. The perverse wisdom of this decision is

evident in the contemporary existence of Israel over the other installed monarchies (with

the exception of Jordans viable monarchy).

While British meddling in the mideast was not done with pure intention, it was not

executed with any sort of racial hierarchy as a guide. Rashid Khalidi is right to assert

that the British favored a Zionist succession of the Palestinian Mandate over any Arab

allegory- however, he is wrong when he ascribes the motive to racism instead of a

carefully fashioned pragmatism- an insidious hallmark of the Crown.