Explaining Why Zionism Cannot Be Considered As a Racist Ideology Between 1897 and 1948

Explaining Why Zionism Cannot be Considered as a Racist Ideology Between 1897 and 1948

Student name: Patrick Landwehr

Student number: 2405768

University: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

Tutorial

Education: Middle Eastern Studies

Dr. Ronit Nikolsky

Date: 24-11-2016

Total words: 7498

Contents Introduction ...... 2 Chapter 1 Defining Racism ...... 5 Chapter 2 Ideology, Attitudes, and Practices ...... 9 Chapter 3 Zionism and the Arab Question 1897-1948 ...... 12 3.1 The Zionist Ideology and its Aims ...... 12 3.2 Zionist Attitudes, Practises, and Arabs ...... 13 3.3 Jewish Immigrants and the Purchase of Arab Land ...... 16 3.3 The Biltmore Conference and the Biltmore Programme...... 20 Conclusion ...... 22 Bibliography...... 24

Introduction

“A society that endorses a 40-year occupation of another people cannot be a liberal one. A society that discriminates against 20 percent of its population because they are not Jews cannot be described as progressive. The problem in Israel is not the role of religion or tradition; it is the role of Zionism, a very clear ideology of exclusion, racism and expulsion. This ideology allows the army to play a significant role in most of the domestic and foreign policies, and it is probably right to say that Israel is not a state with an army, but an army with a state.”1

The above words from Ilan Pappé, a well-known Israeli scholar and a social activist, emphasise that Zionism can be considered as an exclusive and a racist ideology. His sentences are an example of the ongoing debate among academics whether Zionism can be considered as a racist kind of worldview. In the political arena, the words “Zionism” and “apartheid” are still frequently used by politicians, United Nations officials, and human rights activists critical of the Israeli policy towards the non-Jewish Israeli citizens and the Palestinians in the occupied territories.2 So, although this resolution has been revoked in 1991, on November 10, 1975, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 3379 which “Determines that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.”3 Pappé’s sentences and Resolution 3379 exemplify that Zionism was labelled as a racist ideology.

However, there is a prior assumption that Zionism is a racist ideology by its’ very nature, is problematic. First, this view of essentialism needs to be nuanced because this perspective does not take into account the different forms that existed within Zionism throughout its history. Whilst most of the Zionist movements had in common that they were seeking political independence for the Jewish people, this aspiration is not per se racist; on the contrary, “all the

1 Apostolis Fotiadis, ““occupiers cannot also be liberal”: An Interview with Ilan Pappe,” The Electronic Intifada, June 21, 2008, accessed September 3, 2016, https://electronicintifada.net/content/occupiers-cannot-also-be- liberal-interview-ilan-pappe/7575. 2 Daryl Glaser, “Zionism and Apartheid: a moral comparison,” Ethnic and Racial Studies 26, no. 3 (May 2003): 403-321, accessed September 3, 2016, http://www.tandfonline.com.proxy- ub.rug.nl/doi/pdf/10.1080/0141987032000067264?needAccess=true, Human Rights Watch, “Israel/Palestine Events of 2015,” Human Rights Watch, 2015, accessed September 3, 2016, https://www.hrw.org/middle-east/n- africa/israel/palestine, and UN Watch, “UN confirms anti-Israeli prof for 6-year post investigating “Israel’s violations”,” UN Watch, March 23, 2016, accessed September 3, 2016, http://www.unwatch.org/un-nominates- anti-israeli-professor-6-year-post-investigating-israels-violations/. 3 UN General Assembly, “RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY DURING ITS THIRTIETH SESSION,” United Nations, November 10, 1975, accessed September 3, 2016, https://documents- dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/000/92/IMG/NR000092.pdf?OpenElement.

2 peoples have the right of self-determination” and this statement can be found both in article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and the Political Rights. 4

Even if we consider that the Zionist project has resulted in an undemocratic and ethnocratic Jewish state, this result does not necessarily make Zionism a racist ideology; the Israeli state could also have developed in a more democratic and egalitarian way5; secondly, the declaration of the establishment of the state of Israel, on May 14, 1948, made it clear:

“it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”6

The above declaration and the aspiration of Zionism, to create a home for the Jewish people in Palestine, does not inevitably lead to the conclusion that the Zionist ideology has been intrinsically racist between 1897 and 1948; although the current policies of Israel inside the green line, such as the use of the Jewish National Fund and the Israeli Law of Return, can be considered as a form of repression or discrimination.7 The main problem is the use of the word “discrimination” or “racist” in this definition, as Yusef Gourani, a researcher and historian at Tel Aviv University, reminds us: “any discrimination against Arabs is not necessarily racist, just as any violent act against Jews is not necessarily a pogrom.”8 Given these points, this essay aims to evaluate why Zionism cannot be considered as a racist ideology.

To characterise an ideology as racist, one has to be clear about what the exact definition of racism is. The difficulties and three key elements that define the extent of racism will be discussed in chapter 1. An understanding of a racism is necessary to comprehend the difficulties

4 United Nations, “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966 entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49,” The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, March 23, 1976, accessed September 3, 2016, http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx. 5 Arie Dayan, “The Debate over Zionism and Racism: An Israeli View,” Journal of Palestine Studies, 22, no. 3 (Spring, 1993), 99 www.jstor.org/stable/2537573. 6http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/peace/guide/pages/declaration%20of%20establishment%20of%20stat e%20of%20israel.aspx 7 Dayan, “The Debate over Zionism,” 100. 8 Dayan, “The Debate over Zionism,” 100. 3 of the word ideology.9 Firstly, the different viewpoints of an ideology and practices within an ideological group and its members. Secondly, the praxis that follows from this ideology. The assumption that a certain ideology has a precise definition has to be nuanced and should be discussed before we look into a set of ideas that can be labelled as a Zionist ideology. This will be outlined in chapter 2.

Varying versions of Zionism has resulted in there being no single monolithic or accepted ideology throughout the history of the Zionist movements. Despite these varieties, the largest organisation and influential one is the World Zionist Organization (WZO). The official resolutions of the Zionist congresses of the WZO, then named Zionist Organisation (ZO) from 1897 till 1960, can be considered as the main Zionist organisation. In 1897, the ZO set out the goals of this new political movement in the so-called Basel Programme. The content of the Basel Declaration can be considered as the official aims of the Zionist ideology. The three resolutions of this document will be analysed and compared to the definition of racism in Section 3.1

Section 3.2 examines how the relationship between Jews and Arabs had become worse and to what extent the Zionist attitudes and practices were responsible for the Arab grievances from 1917 till 1939. To find out how the ZO dealt with the Arab question in Palestine, the official declarations of the ZO in 1921 and 1923 are examined, also, the Aliyah’s, immigration to the land of Israel, will be discussed to discover if these new Jewish immigrants were driven by a Zionist ideology and which other factors were responsible for the movement of European Jews to Palestine. The eight points of the Biltmore Programme will be examined in Section 3.3. The content indicates a turning point in the ZO’s official aims. The question arises why this change happened and how important this change was for the future relations between Arabs and Jews in Palestine.

After reading these three chapters, it is still debatable that from the beginning of the Zionist enterprise in 1897, the aim of this political movement was to label the Arabs as inferior or to expel them from Palestine. In 1948 the Jewish state was in effect created and the result of the War of Independence or Al-Nakba, depending on the Israeli or Palestinian perspective, was that most of the Arab inhabitants of Palestine were expelled. This Palestinian exodus may be a result of the Zionist ideology, but not of a racist ideology.

9 Robert S. Stuart, “Ideology, Theory, and Mentality: Some Issues in the Historical Study of Ideology,” Labour History 50 (May 1986): 63, accessed September 3, 2016, https://www.jstor.org/stable/27508783?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents. 4

Chapter 1 Defining Racism When one thinks of obvious examples of racism throughout history, most of the time people will recall the systems of Nazi Germany, the apartheid in South Africa, and the segregated southern states of the United States of America. Racial discrimination was the basis of these governments’ policies which affected everyday life. Sociologist Steve Garner warns against the common misperception of racism in which these regimes “are not paradigms but rather extreme points on a continuum.”10 He further argues that the above-mentioned examples “that constitute the whole”, namely intentional segregation, exclusive violence (against a particular group), and verbal attack, are absolutely racist while other more subtle elements are often ignored.11

Garner sees that the phenomenon of racism is “far broader and more complex than such a view would suggest.”12 The term racism lost some of its explanatory power because the word is so frequently used in the public discourse, the political arena, and the academic endeavour. The urge to find a precise definition, by studying the different phenomena of racism, is obvious, when one considers the many terms such as “aversive racism”, “indirect racism”, “symbolic racism” “cultural racism”, “scientific racism”, “individual racism” and “institutional racism”. There is no common agreement among scholars what racism actually is or what it is not. The many forms of racism cannot easily be defined in one simple and plain definition.13

The sociologist Michael Banton argues that the use of the word “racist” should be used very cautiously.14 Robert Miles, who is a Marxist sociologist, adds that not only a too narrow definition of racism is problematic, but also that a too broad definition of the term can result that “everything” can be described under the concept of racism.15 The most radical stance is to abandon the use of racism in one’s vocabulary, as stated by the historian George M. Frederickson. He studied the history of Western racism and admitted: “that the word racism “will be expunged from popular or professional discourses.”16 Before we can equate Zionism with racism, it is important to discuss, at least, a theory of racism in which an ideology plays a central role.

10 Steve Garner, Racisms: An Introduction (London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2009), 5. 11 Garner, Racisms, 5. 12 Garner, 5. 13 Francisco Bethencourt, Racisms: From the Crusades to the Twentieth Century (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), 1-10. 14 Michael Banton, Ethnic and Racial Consciousness (New York: Routledge, 1997), 28. 15 Garner, 5. 16 Carlos Hoyt Jr., “The Pedagogy of the Meaning of Racism: Reconciling a Discordant Discourse,” Social Work 57, no. 3 (July 2012):227, accessed September 3, 2016, http://sw.oxfordjournals.org/content/57/3/225.abstract.

Garner discusses the work of Robert Miles, whose well-known book is Racism, and Miles brings to mind that “racism” is above all an “ideology”.17 Garner does not think that Miles’ definition is precise; nonetheless, Miles proposes a useful five-part approach to deal with the term racism, as one can read in Garner’s book:

1) “Racism is an ideology.”18 2) ““Race” and “racism” as everyday concepts can be critiqued using a social science analysis of racism.”19 3) “Racism should be flexible designed so as to note the shifting emphases in meanings attached to it, and the constant importance in the political economy of migration.”20 4) “The interdependence of racism and nationalism through the development of the capitalist system should be foregrounded.”21 5) “Political and moral aspects must also be acknowledged alongside social scientific ones.”22

Garner points out that Miles’ definition of ideology should be understood as a “discourse that distorts the truth about human beings and the social relationships between them.”23 On the negative side, Miles’ approach was often criticised as too vague, lacking any precision, and using “ideology” in a too fashionable way.24 On the positive side, Garner contends that Miles’ work is significant because he tried to establish an epistemological tool to distinguish the essential racial elements of racism from other ideologies.25 In other words, how does racism function as an ideology?

Miles’ contention that racism equals ideology, as can be seen above in point 1, does not give us much clarity to analyse Zionism as a racist ideology. Garners interpretation of Miles’ ideology may also not be exact enough to analyse if Zionism is a racist ideology. Both authors are not clarifying enough what a racist ideology is.

17 Garner, 10. 18 Ibidem, 10. 19 Ibidem. 20 Ibidem. 21 Ibidem. 22 Ibidem. 23 Ibidem. 24 Ibidem. 25 Ibidem. 6

Matthew Clair and Jeffrey S. Denis, who wrote about the sociology of racism, argues that racism is fundamentally “an ideology of racial domination”.26 In this ideology, a believed cultural or biological pre-eminence of a racial group is essential to condone the way to treat or to act against inferior racial groups.27 Recognised distinctions of physical appearance are used to distinguish the differences among groups of people.28 This process of characterising groups of people is named “racialisation”, and “becomes racism when it involves the hierarchical and socially consequential valuation of racial groups.”29

Clair and Denis substantiate that the term racism is analytically different from “racial inequality” and “racial discrimination”. According to them, racial inequality relates to the unequal results, in salary, health, education and work, while racial discrimination deals with the unequal manner of treating other races.30 The authors argue that racism could be involved in the two described processes; however, they warn us that racial inequalities and the many forms of discrimination are not always the result of racism.31

A thorough analysis of these three phenomena is necessary in order to establish how they relate to each other and to what extent an ideology of racial domination is contributing to racial inequality and racial discrimination. To equate the Zionist ideology with racism, it is essential to prove that from the beginning of the creation of Zionism, there was already an ideology that showed that the Arabs were considered as an inferior race or group. This racist ideology would explain theoretically why the Zionists had expelled these “inferior” Arabs from Palestine and this ideology would justify the unequal treatment of the Arabs in Palestine.

Before one can discuss the many applications of the term in any given society, Garner argues that there are three elements of racism to consider.32 According to him, the International Council on Human Rights Policy (ICHRP) is a good example of this strategy:33

“Racism thus has three elements: (i) it is a vision of society that is composed of inherently different groups; (ii) it includes an explicit or implicit belief that these different groups are unequal by nature –

26 Matthew Clair and Jeffrey S. Denis, “Sociology of Racism,” in The International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, ed. by James D. Wright, second ed. (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2015), 875. 27 Clair and Denis, “Sociology of Racism,” 875. 28 Clair and Denis, 875. 29 Ibidem. 30 Ibidem. 31 Ibidem. 32 Garner, 11. 33 Garner, 11.

7 often enough based on a Darwinian interpretation of history; and (iii) it shapes and manipulates these ideas into a programme of political action. Combined, these three components give racism its force.”34

Because of the plurality of the term “racism”, Garner, like the ICHRP, proposes three key elements of racism. The first element is a historical power relationship in which over a period of time, groups of people were characterised (racialisation) on certain distinct physical features.35 Garners’ first element is almost identical as the definition of racial discrimination, defined by Clair and Denis.

The second element is an ideology, or a set of ideas, that defines human beings as distinct races according to their specific characteristics. The different subtle forms and the more obvious practices of discrimination are the third element.36 This third element of practices, compared with three terms described by Clair and Denis, is the same as racial inequality and almost identical with the third point of the ICHRP. The extent of racism is defined by these three essential features and therefore can be used to analyse the official resolutions of the ZO.

34 Garner, 11 and the International Council on Human Rights Policy The persistence and mutation of racism, 4- 5. After I have found the official document on the internet, it becomes clear that Garner was talking about the International Council on Human “Protection”, while in fact the organisation is named International Council on Human “Policy”. 35 Garner, 11. 36 Ibidem.

Chapter 2 Ideology, Attitudes, and Practices The most common meanings of the term ideology are: firstly, “a set of ideas that an economic or political system is based on” and secondly, “a set of beliefs, especially one held by a particular group, that influences the way people behave” according to the Oxford Learner's Dictionaries.37 These conscious and unconscious collections of ideas direct people’s thinking, aims and expectations. Political, socio-economic and social interactionist systems are guided by these ideas and principles.38 An ideology can be dominant and normative in any society. The word ideology is commonly used to define the other, for instance, ideological adversaries in the public and academic arena. The difficulties related to the term ideology is how it directs and influences individuals and groups.

Teun A. van Dijk, a specialist in the field of critical discourse analysis, thinks that ideologies, opinions, and knowledge “are all forms of social cognitions”.39 He further argues that ideologies are social belief systems more than anything else.40 This means that ideologies are mostly obtained, transmitted and multiplied through communication by language in a conversation or a text.41

Van Dijk contends that “ideologies are belief systems that are only shared by specific (ideological) groups of people, and are typically not shared and taken for granted by the whole sociocultural community.”42 The question arises whether one can point out a “clear-cut” ideology that is taken for granted by all members of a group or community. Even if a dominant (racist) ideology exists, eventually this ideology can be challenged, opposed or effectively by its own members or by other groups.43

Within a group, the attitudes of individuals based on an ideology assume that this ideology is continuously changing, influenced by political and social developments. This means that the practices cannot only be viewed differently but also the praxis can differ within the practices of

37 Oxford Learner's Dictionaries, “Definition of ideology noun from the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary,” Oxford Learner's Dictionary, accessed September 4, 2016, http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/ideology. 38 Cambridge Dictionary, “Meaning of “ideology” in the English Dictionary,” Cambridge Dictionary, accessed September 4, 2016, http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ideology. 39 Teun A. van Dijk, “Ideology and Discourse,” in The Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies, ed. by Michael Freeden and Marc Stears (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 177. 40 Van Dijk, “Ideology and Discourse,” 176. 41 Van Dijk, 176. 42 Ibidem. 43 Ibidem, 177.

9 these members. From the general tenets of an ideology arise a variety of attitudes that eventually result in the actual applications by its members. Moreover, an individual can be a member of different ideological groups and might have been influenced by conflicting ideologies.44 A person may be a convinced Zionist, but in other social situations other ideologies will be more fitting or be more consequential.45

The question still remains to what extent an ideology is responsible for the expulsion and unfair treatment of the Arabs in Palestine. Even if we assume that a certain ideology is indeed responsible for these unfavourable results, again one has to ask himself if this ideology is racist. Most likely, many other historical socio-economic and political factors could have contributed to the inequalities and discrimination of the Palestinians.

So if we assume that, as an “unambiguous” Zionist ideology, the Jewish people aim for a recognised and safe homeland in Palestine, the actual ideas and practises to achieve this were viewed differently among the many Zionists and Jews. As an example, ultra-Orthodox Jews were opposed to the idea of returning to the Land of Israel, while others were looking for a better solution in a universal framework. Some opponents criticised this aspiration as too drastic or too reactionary and there were still people who were concerned about how it would affect the status of the citizenship of the country they were currently living in.46 This ideological conflict and the often heated debates become visible in the language in diaries, documents or talks of members of a particular Zionist movement or Jews who could not relate to the Zionist enterprise. Hence, the yearning for the ancient Land of Israel was perceived differently among Jews and Zionists and this is still the case even today.

The historical developments such as the appearance of nationalism in 19th century Europe, the First World War and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the British Mandate in Palestine, and the Nazi regime in Germany and the Second World War, may have influenced the ideologies, the attitudes, and the practices of individual Zionists and Zionist groups. The actions that were taken in order to achieve a Jewish homeland in Palestine were initially not necessarily based on a racist ideology, as will be pointed out in the next chapter.

The means to achieve a safe “Jewish” homeland could have “racial” or “ethnic” connotations but are not unequivocally motivated by racist intent. Even if the actual results, for instance, to

44 Van Dijk, 177. 45 Ibidem. 46 Anita Shapira, Israel A History (London: Orion, 2015), 3-5.

10 achieve security in Israel, are based on racial or ethnic concepts, this still does not justify the conclusion that this happened because of a racist ideology. In other words, there is a clear distinction between the tenets of an ideology and the praxis that results from this ideology.

Chapter 3 Zionism and the Arab Question 1897-1948 3.1 The Zionist Ideology and its Aims There are many primary documents that can be studied when it comes to analysing Zionist ideologies. It is also difficult to encapsulate a decisive set of Zionist ideas, because of the many different forms and concepts related to “Zionism” such as Religious Zionism, Christian Zionism, Liberal Zionism, Revisionist Zionism, Green Zionism, Secular Zionism and Post- Zionism.47

Arguably, the best organisation that can give us a reliable Zionist set of ideas, is the ZO and was founded by Theodor Herzl in 1897. In the 1890s, different Zionist movements came into existence and each organisation gave its own solutions to deal with the Jewish identity and the rising of anti-Semitism in Europe. However, Zionism as a political movement was not coordinated with a clear direction and a set of precise ideas.48 As a result of Herzl’s effort, the different perceptions of Zionism were organised into one single political movement.49 In 1960 this political movement changed its name and was called the World Zionist Organization (WZO). Even today on the internet, the WZO still refers to article 1 of the constitution of the original Basel program of this First Zionist Congress.

This program describes the ideology of the Zionist political movement in which they seek “to secure for the Jewish people a publicly recognised, legally secured home in Palestine for the Jewish people.”50 In order to achieve this, the following four aims were written in German:

1) To encourage Jewish craftsmen, agriculturalists, entrepreneurs, merchants and other workers to settle in Palestine;51

2) To unite and to organise all the Jews into regional groups according to the laws of the countries where they are respectively living;52

3) To strengthen the awareness of being a Jew and national apprehension;53

47 Gideon Shimoni, The Zionist Ideology (Hanover, NH: Brandeis University Press, 1995), 83-266. 48 William L. Cleveland and Martin Bunton, A History of the Modern Middle East (Boulder: Westview Press, 2013), 223. 49 Cleveland and Bunton, A History, 224. 50 Walter Laqueur, A History of Zionism: From the French Revolution to the Establishment of the State of Israel (London: Tauris Parke Paperbacks, 2003), 106. 51, Laqueur, A History of Zionism, 106. 52 Laquer, 106. 53 Ibidem, 106.

4) To take the necessary steps to achieve the needed acquiescence of those governments in order to fulfil the Zionist aims.54

To what extent can this programme be equated with a definition of racism? From the above four points, one cannot read that this organisation wanted to expel the Arab inhabitants or to label them as an inferior group. The first point may be problematic due to the fact that Arabs already lived in Palestine, but these methods are not necessarily based on a superior kind of identity to disavow other “inferior” groups.

The diaries of individual early Halutzim (Jewish settlers) indicate that there were settlers who considered the Arab inhabitants as inferior.55 The question arises if any diaries can justify the conclusion that the Zionist ideology is racist. It seems more logical to use the official written statements of the largest Zionist organisation that, theoretically speaking, represents “all” of its members. The Basle Program is likely to be more reliable to discern a consistent set of Zionist ideas or aims than the written documents of one single person. Although being a member of a national group has always an element of exclusiveness, the desire of a Jewish homeland and the four points of the Basle Program do not amplify the notion that these are racist ideas.

3.2 Zionist Attitudes, Practises, and Arabs From the arrival of the first Jewish settlers till the creation of the Israeli state, one of the main issues was that the Zionist movement had to deal with the Christian and Muslim Arabs in Palestine. While the Zionist official policy was not necessarily racist, it was obvious that the Jewish-Arab relations “were soon marked by mutual antagonism, segregation, and rivalry.”56

The Zionist ideology can be held responsible for the stimulation of immigration of Jews and the acquisition of land in Palestine. These two elements laid the basis for the tensions between the Jewish and Arab communities. The Arabs of Palestine were suspicious of the influx of Jewish immigrants who claimed Palestine as their home. When more Jewish immigrants arrived in Palestine, the Arabs of Palestine became even more afraid to lose their land and eventually their existence.

54 Laqueur, 106. 55 Boaz Neumann, Land and Desire in Early Zionism, (Brandeis University Press, 2011), 89-95. 56 Philip Mattar, Encyclopedia of the Palestinians (N.p.: Infobase Publishing, 2005), 553. 13

The Arabs opposed these two developments by negotiating with the British who officially had a mandate over Palestine. Additionally, the Balfour Declaration, the British support for a national home for Jews in Palestine, fomented the already created tensions and frustrations of the Arab inhabitants of Palestine before 1917.

Chaim Weizmann’s, a Zionist leader, first encounters with some of the Arab leaders in Palestine, had the effect that the Zionists thought that the development of sustainable economic and social relations with the Arabs would benefit both sides.57 Evidence of the attitude of the ZO towards the Arab question can be found in some of its official declarations. The Twelfth Zionist Congress of 1921 in Carlsbad is an example of an official resolution on relations with the Arabs in Palestine:

“With sorrow and indignation the Jewish people have lived through the recent events in Palestine. The hostile attitude of the Arab population in Palestine incited by unscrupulous elements to commit deeds of violence, can neither weaken our resolve for the establishment of the Jewish National Home nor our determination to live with the Arab people on terms of concord and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing Commonwealth, the up-building of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development. The two great Semitic peoples united of yore by the bonds of common creative civilisation will not fail in the hour of their national regeneration to comprehend the need of combining their vital interests in a common endeavour.

The Congress calls upon the Executive to redouble its efforts to secure an honourable entente with the Arab people on the basis of this Declaration and in strict accordance with the Balfour Declaration. The Congress emphatically declares that the progress of Jewish colonisation will not affect the rights and needs of the working Arab nation.”58

The above sentences need some clarification why the Zionist movement declared this resolution. In the early days of Jewish immigration, there were some small-scale attacks of Arabs on Jewish settlements and conflicts between individuals, but during the riots in May 1921, when Arabs of Palestine attacked Jews in Jaffa after a Jewish workers’ demonstration, the level of violence of the attacks was of a very different order of magnitude: 95 persons were killed and 219 were wounded. 59 Already a year before, on April 1920 during the so-called Nebi

57 Mattar, Encyclopedia of the Palestinians, 553. 58 OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO The Jewish National Home in Palestine, Submitted to the Conference on Palestinian Problems (New York, 1924), 28. 59 Laqueur, 209.

Musa riots around the Old City of Jerusalem, hundreds of people were severely injured and four Jews and five Arabs were killed in the clashes.60

The intensity of the riots and the many casualties indicate that something has changed in the attitude of the Arabs towards the Zionists. Walter Ze'ev Laqueur, a historian specialised in the history of ideas, argues that 1921 was a turning point when the Zionists became more aware of their Arab neighbours and started to reflect on how to deal with them.61 The Arab question became the main topic in the Zionist congresses’ discussions and some Zionists criticised the Zionist movement for “having so long ignored the existence” of the Arabs in Palestine.62

Were the Zionists not aware of the Arab population in Palestine? In the 1880s, Russian Zionists were confident that Jews and Arabs could live peacefully together in Palestine while others thought that Jews and Arabs could both profit from the Jewish settlements.63

Before 1920, Zionists, such as Haim Margalit Kalvarisky, Yitzhak Epstein, and Sokolow, already urged to establish a good relationship with the Arabs of Palestine.64 They argue that a healthy national self-centeredness and the development of the Jewish settlements should be based on the “highest moral principles and proceed only in agreement with the Arabs”, while the majority of Zionists tended to ignore the Arab presence in Palestine.65

The Zionist leadership in Europe thought that the presence and activities of Jewish workers would improve the relationship between the Arabs and the Jews. Unfortunately, the arrival of more Jewish labourers on the soil of Palestine with the Second Aliyah, was, in fact, the main cause that the Jewish-Arab relations between 1904 till 1914 worsened.66 The new Russian Jewish arrivals were heavily influenced by the Russian socialist doctrines and their memories of the Russian pogroms. Members of the Poale Zion, a Marxist–Zionist Jewish workers’ movement, believed that Palestine was an underdeveloped country ruled by Arabs and these Russian Jews held the Muslims responsible for the backwardness of the land. These new Jews “had no feelings of guilt about the Arabs.”67

60 Tom Segev, One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs under the British Mandate, (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2011), 127-144. 61 Laqueur, 209. 62 Ibidem, 209. 63 Ibidem, 210. 64 Ibidem, 215-218. 65 Ibidem, 217. 66 Ibidem, 218. 67 Ibidem.

According to Laqueur, it is tragic that those Zionists who wanted to have good relationships with the Arabs, unfortunately, were also partly responsible for aggravating the conflict between the Jews and Arabs in Palestine.68 As a consequence, another resolution was adopted in 1923 by the Thirteenth Zionist congress on relations with the Arabs:

“The Congress repeats its declaration that the rights of all Communities in Palestine will in all circumstances be regarded as equally sacred”. (…) The Congress expects that the Arab people, too, which has at its disposal extensive territories outside Palestine, on which a national regeneration is taking place, will regard with ever-growing understanding the national revival of the Jewish people, which desires to live in complete harmony and concord with the Arabs in Palestine, as a positive and valuable factor in the Near East.”69

The two resolutions of 1921 and 1923 indicate that the Zionist ideology and aims were not racist. While the riots may have influenced and differed Zionist beliefs, ideas, and practices, the official resolutions illustrate that the Jews wanted to live in peace and harmony with the Arab population in Palestine.70 But the intention expressed by these words to live peacefully with each other is not enough. The main problems were the influx of more Jewish immigrants and the acquisition of Arab land. These practises could derive from the aims of the ZO according to the ideology to build a safe home in Palestine.

3.3 Jewish Immigrants and the Purchase of Arab Land One of the Zionist aims was to stimulate the immigration of Jews to Palestine. To build up the Jewish population was necessary to make a credible claim to the existence of a Jewish national home.71 The question is to what extent these new immigrants were motived by the Zionist ideology and how they contributed to the relationship between the Jews and the Arabs, and which other factors may have stimulated these waves of Jewish immigration from 1882 till 1948.

A wave of violence against Jews in an area from Odessa to Warsaw occurred in 1881. Around 7 million Jews lived in these regions and because of this violence, many of them emigrated to South America and the United States.72 Between 1882 and 1903, the first largescale Jewish

68 Ibidem, 220. 69 OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO The Jewish National Home in Palestine, 30. 70 Mattar, Encyclopedia of the Palestinians, 533. 71 Cleveland and Bunton, 235. 72 Ahron Bregman, A History of Israel (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), 8.

16 immigration to Palestine occurred because of the violence against Jews. These 35.000 new immigrants were primarily secular Jews from Russia.73 Many of them saw themselves as pioneers and wanted to develop a modern Hebrew society based on Jewish labour and agricultural settlements.74

Founded in 1901, the Jewish National Fund was the main Zionist organisation that was responsible for the negotiation of land purchases for Jews. They bought tracts of lands from Arab owners in order to lease them exclusively for Jewish immigrants. This organisation stimulated new immigrants to engage in agricultural activities and provided the necessary capital for agricultural equipment and innovation.75 Well-known Arab notable families in Palestine were eager to sell farmable land because of the high amount of money the Zionists were ready to pay.76 28 Jewish agricultural settlements were established from 1882 and 1903.77

Just like the first Aliyah, the pogroms and anti-Semitism in Russia were responsible for the second Aliyah. The second immigration of 1904-1914 consisted of approximately 40.000 Russian Jews.78 More tracts of lands were purchased for the realisation of more new settlements.79 The first office of the Zionist political movement was opened in 1908 and was responsible for the acquisition of land. While the members of the First Aliyah had no problems to hire Arab workers, Jews from the second Aliyah argued that only Jewish people should cultivate the farmable land. This struggle for Jewish labour was an important ideology for the two new founded Zionist labour parties by the new Jewish immigrants during the second Aliyah. Their political and ideological impact are important to understand the intercommunal conflict in Palestine, when their leaders, such as Ben-Gurion, became de facto the leaders of the Jewish community in Palestine in the 1930s. They were openly against the employment of Arab labour and they argued that the Arab peasants should be replaced by Jews.80

The attitude of the Labour Zionist movement was also different towards the third point of the Basle programme: they thought that they did not need the recognition of powerful countries such as the Ottoman Empire, France, and Britain, to achieve a Jewish home. The establishment of a Jewish working class was necessary for the construction of cooperative agricultural

73 Cleveland and Bunton, 235. 74 Bregman, A History, 8. 75 Cleveland and Bunton, 236. 76 Ibidem, 236. 77 Bregman, 10. 78 Cleveland and Bunton, 235. 79 Bregman, 11. 80 Charles Smith, Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents (Boston : Bedford/St. Martin's, 2012), 45.

17 communities of independent small farms (moshav) and communal farms or factories (kibbutz). Thus, a Jewish home could only be established with the practises of the Jewish working class.

The third Aliyah, from 1919 to 1923, consisted of 30.0000 Jews primarily from Eastern Europe.81 These newcomers were helped by the Zionist emigration organisation to come to Palestine.82 Members of the Labour Zionist movement established in 1920 officially a trade union (Histradut). This organisation became more involved in the stimulation of Jewish immigration and they became the owners of more cooperative and industrial enterprises.83 Ben Gurion started to emphasise that the Jewish workers were necessary for the entire economy, and Labour Zionism began to make strenuous efforts for a complete separation of Jews and Arabs.84

Two years later, the fourth wave of Jew immigrants occurred from 1924 to 1926. These 50.000 Jews came mainly from Poland.85 The growing antisemitism in Poland and the heavy income tax of the Polish government that affected Jewish businessmen, were two important factors that caused the immigration. The fact that the United States closed their doors for Jewish immigration, resulted that Palestine became the major outlet for Polish Jews to immigrate.86 Compared with the other Jewish wave of immigrations, these new arrivals were not pioneering Zionists who wanted to sacrifice themselves for the Zionist cause.87 They preferred the urban way of life and their presence resulted in a construction boom in Palestine. The building of new suburbs in Tel Aviv and almost a doubling of the city’s population from 21.500 to 40.000, are examples how the new immigrants contributed to the Zionist aims while they were not necessarily driven by a Zionist ideology.88 After 1926, it seemed that the influx of new Jewish immigrants slowed down.89

In the middle of the 1930s, already thirty percent of the total population were Jews due to the increased immigration caused by Hitler’s rise to power.90 From 1933 to 1936, 170.000 new

81 Cleveland and Bunton, 235. 82 Bregman, 20. 83 Bregman, 21. 84 Shabtai Teveth, Ben-Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs: From Peace to War (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), 4, 66. 85 Cleveland and Bunton, 235 86 Bregman, 23. 87 Ibidem, 23. 88 Ibidem, 24. 89 Cleveland and Bunton, 235. 90 Ibidem, 261.

Jewish emigrants arrived in Palestine.91 While not all of these Jewish immigrants were Zionists, because of the demographic changes, the Arabs of Palestine were even more afraid to become a minority and to lose their land.92

The growing population of Jews and Arabs in an area with limited agricultural possibilities, suggests that the ownership of farmable land would inevitably become an issue of conflict.93 The impact of the transfer of tracts of land from Arab to Jewish ownership was disastrous for the Arab peasantry. As a result of these land transfers, many Arab farm dwellers were evicted and unemployed. Their situation became even worse because of a new British taxation policy: a direct payment with cash was required instead of the payment in kind during the Ottoman period.94 Arab tenant farmers were forced to borrow money at a higher rate of interests from most of the time large Arab landholders. Because many Arab dwellers could not pay the growing debt, they had no choice to sell their lands to the Arab debtors or agents of the Jewish National Fund.

During the period of the British mandate, two third of the total Arab population in Palestine were farmers. The new tax policy, the attitudes of the Arab landlords towards the peasants, the selling of their land, and the Zionist willing to pay for the land, created the frustration and anger among many Arab farmers. Add to this impoverishment the expansion of Jewish agricultural settlements, roads, towns, villages, and the political infrastructures, and the Zionists and the British were most likely to blame for these results.

The Arab peasants’ discontent were expressed in the riots of 1921, 1929 and the Third Arab Revolt from 1936 till 1939. The Zionist leaders were still not aware how serious the Arab grievances were; they still thought it was possible to establish good relations with them. It was only after the Third Arab Revolt in Palestine that the Zionist leaders realised that they were underrating the Arab opposition to the increasing Jewish immigrants and the purchase of more Arab land by the Zionist organisations. While it is difficult to assess if the Zionist leadership could really improve the relationship with the Arabs in Palestine, the fact remains that the resistance of the Arabs grew gradually and the repeated attacks on Jewish settlements are evidence that a change of rapprochement would become less likely.

91 Ibidem, 235. 92 See table 13.1 for an estimation of the population of Palestine by ethnic group 1931-1946. Ibidem, 236. 93 Ibidem, 235. 94 Cleveland and Bunton, 236.

The White Paper of 1939 was issued by the British in order to reassure the Arabs in Palestine. In the first section of the paper, the British rejected the idea of a creation of a Jewish state, but the establishment of a Jewish home was possible within a period of ten years in an independent Palestinian state.95 Both Jews and Arabs would share the authority of one government in this state.96 In the second section, the Jewish immigration was restricted to 75,000 over the next five years and “After the period of five years, no further Jewish immigration will be permitted unless the Arabs of Palestine are prepared to acquiesce in it”.97 The last section was dealing with the transfer of lands:

“no room for further transfers of Arab land, whilst in some other areas such transfers of land must be restricted if Arab cultivators are to maintain their existing standard of life and a considerable landless Arab population is not soon to be created”.98

Many Zionists were aggravated because of these three points and especially when Jews were becoming more persecuted in Europe, such as Germany. Many rumours and information about the extermination camps were publicly spread during the Second World War. The culmination of the Third Arab Revolt, the White Paper of 1939, and the killings and massacres of European Jews, had influenced and changed the Zionist and Jewish opinions about the Arab question and the establishment of a Jewish home. In the 1940s, younger Zionists were more eager to fight because they believed Palestine was their land alone.99 It seemed to many Zionists that the early pessimists were right to conclude that a conflict with the Arabs was unavoidable.100

3.3 The Biltmore Conference and the Biltmore Programme

Because of the Second World War, the 1942 Zionist conference was cancelled. Yet 600 Jews and Zionists came together at the Biltmore Hotel in New York. The Biltmore Conference adopted a series of eight resolutions, the so-called Biltmore Programme, that indicate a significant change in former Zionist attitudes and beliefs, as point six illustrates:

95 “British White Paper of 1939,” Yale Law School Lillian Gold Library the Avalon Project: Documents in Law, History Diplomacy, accessed November 2, 2016, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1939.asp. 96 Yale Law School, “White Paper.” 97 Yale Law School, “White Paper.” 98 Yale Law School, “White Paper.” 99 Anita Shapira, Land and Power: The Zionist Resort to Force, 1881-1948 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992), ix. 100 Shapira, Land and Power, 268.

“6. The Conference calls for the fulfilment of the original purpose of the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate which recognizing the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine' was to afford them the opportunity, as stated by President Wilson, to found there a Jewish Commonwealth. The Conference affirms its unalterable rejection of the White Paper of May 1939 and denies its moral or legal validity. The White Paper seeks to limit, and in fact to nullify Jewish rights to immigration and settlement in Palestine, and, as stated by Mr. Winston Churchill in the House of Commons in May 1939, constitutes `a breach and repudiation of the Balfour Declaration'. The policy of the White Paper is cruel and indefensible in its denial of sanctuary to Jews fleeing from Nazi persecution; and at a time when Palestine has become a focal point in the war front of the United Nations, and Palestine Jewry must provide all available manpower for farm and factory and camp, it is in direct conflict with the interests of the allied war effort.”101

At first glance, this resolution emphasised that the promises of the Balfour Declaration should be honoured. However, the citing of “a Jewish Commonwealth” is far more significant than “a Jewish Home”, as mentioned in the Balfour Declaration. According to the Biltmore Program, the urge to establish a Jewish state was morally justified because of the Nazi persecution of Jews. The White Paper restricted immigration to Palestine so it was almost impossible for persecuted Jews to find a safe haven. The demand of a Jewish Commonwealth was accepted by all major Zionist groups with the exception of Hashomer Hatzair.102 The proposal of a binational state in Palestine was firmly rejected mostly by the Zionist Organization of America and Hadassah.103

Within the Zionist movement, the old moderate members, represented by Chaim Weizmann, were replaced by more assertive Zionists who were represented by Ben-Gurion.104 In general, more Zionists began to favour Ben-Gurion’s view of “immediate statehood, the establishment of a Jewish state in all of Palestine, and armed resistance, if necessary, to achieve Zionist goals,” instead of Weizmann’s preferred negotiations with the British, and his gradual approach of the partition of Palestine between Arabs and Jews.105 Another aspect that might explain the change within the Zionist movement was that the British intentions were questioned by Zionists. They

101 “Declaration adopted by the Extraordinary Zionist Conference at the Biltmore Hotel of New York City, 11 May 1942.,” The United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine, accessed November 2, 2016, https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/F86E0B8FC540DEDD85256CED0070C2A5. 102 Isaac Levitats, “Pro-Palestine and Zionist Activities,” in American Jewish Year Book Vol. 45 1943-1944, ed. Harry Schneiderman and Morris t. Fine (Philadelphia: the Jewish Publication Society Press, 1943-5704), 207. 103 Levitats, “Pro-Palestine and Zionist Activities,” 207. 104 James L. Gelvin, The Israel-Palestine Conflict One Hundred Years of War (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2014), 123. 105 Gelvin, The Israel-Palestine Conflict, 123.

21 argued that if the British were giving Czechoslovakia away to appease Hitler, it was possible that Palestine would be given away to the Arabs. The restriction of land purchases and immigration were seen as elements of British policy appeasement. This strengthened many Zionists to believe that the immediate creation of a Jewish state was needed. This was the only way to control the Jewish immigration.

In the end, the Biltmore Program was accepted and the creation of a Jewish Commonwealth became the official goal of the Zionist movement.106 While the fifth resolution of the program was “expressing the readiness and the desire of the Jewish people for full cooperation with their Arab neighbours”, the fact that the ZO officially wanted a Jewish state, resulted that a major conflict between Arabs and Jews was inevitable.107

Conclusion Despite the different viewpoints how to define racism, there is a broad consensus that this concept should consist of an ideology based on a feeling of superiority towards other races, ethnicities, groups of people or characteristics that define the other as inferior. To define racism, an ideology of racial domination must contribute or influence racial inequality and racial discrimination. These three elements are the driving force of racism.

Although this approach could be useful to analyse racism, it is difficult to assess whether racism can be distinguished when one of the three elements are less visible. The practices based on characteristics of race, ethnicity, or group are often seen as forms of racism while this may not always be the case (Chapter 1). So if a racist ideology cannot be discerned, can we still speak of racism, because there are differences between an ideology, the social attitudes, and the actual practices that derive from this ideology? Again, to what extent is an ideology responsible for the socio-economic and political practices that influence individuals, groups, and institutions? And even if this the case, is it a “racist” ideology or just an ideology?

Another problem is to empirically distinguish a consistent stable set of ideas that may represent all the members of a group while within a group there are always different opinions among its members. An ideology can be contested, supported, and interpreted in many ways. Because beliefs and ideas change over a period of time, it is necessary to analyse the causes that might explain why an ideology has changed (Chapter 2).

106 Levitats, 207. 107 Itzhak Galnoor, Partition of Palestine, The: Decision Crossroads in the Zionist Movement,(State University of New York Press, 2012), 278 and Gelvin, 123. 22

The official statements of the ZO may be the most reliable source to discern a set of ideas and beliefs that represent most of its members. The original program of the First Zionist Congress indicates that these aims were not racist (Section 3.1).

Some Zionists emphasised the importance of a good relationship with the Arabs of Palestine. However, the majority of the Zionists neglected or underrated the Arab grievances that were caused by the influx of Jewish immigrants and Jewish purchase of Arab land in Palestine. But selling of the land was all done according to the law with the approval of rich Arab landowners.

Most Zionists thought that a favourable relationship with the Arabs was still possible although there were always minor conflicts between Jews and Arabs. The conflicts between 1897 and 1936 were not considered as real obstacles. Besides, the Jewish settlements would also benefit the Arabs. Despite these good intentions, the settlements contributed to the deterioration of the Arab-Jewish relationship. The official resolutions of 1920 and 1921 of the Zionist Congress were announced to show the Arabs that the Jews wanted to live in peace with them in Palestine. This indicates that around the 1920s the Zionist ideology was not racist.

In the 1930s, more Jews came to Palestine because of the political situation in Europe. This intensified the atmosphere. The frequent attacks on Jewish settlements and the increasing number of casualties on both sides made many Zionists realise that they could no longer ignore the Arab grievances. The Third Arab revolt made it even clearer that it might be difficult to establish a good relationship between Jews and Arabs (Section 3.2).

The British tried to reassure the Arabs in Palestine, in 1939, the British White Paper restricted Jewish immigration and purchase of Arab land. The situation of European Jews became grimmer during the Second World War and as a consequence, many Zionist were angered by the British policy: it was difficult for Jews to come to Palestine. The Baltimore program indicates a major change in the attitude of the WZO. All the major Zionist organisations agreed that the official policy should aim to create a Jewish state in Palestine. This was necessary to save the persecuted Jews of Europe. Between 1939 and the Baltimore conference of 1942, a greater armed conflict with the Arabs seemed to be imminent (Section 3.3).

One can still argue to what extent a conflict between the Zionists and the Arabs could have been avoided. It is clear that these tensions developed gradually and also the general Zionist view changed because of the intensified Arab aggression. This aggression was partly due to a lack of

23 timely and proper assessment of the Arab grievances. The fate of Nazi persecuted Jews in Europe coupled with the British restrictions in Palestine, turned the Zionist idea of Jewish Home into a Jewish Commonwealth. Even if we conclude that the Zionists were fully responsible for this conflict and the disposition of the Arabs of Palestine, one can still not conclude that this happened because of a monolithic Zionist racist ideology between 1897 and 1948.

Bibliography Banton, Michael. Ethnic and Racial Consciousness. New York: Routledge, 1997.

Bethencourt, Francisco. Racisms: From the Crusades to the Twentieth Century. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003.

Bregman, Ahron. A History of Israel. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.

Cambridge Dictionary. “Meaning of “ideology” in the English Dictionary.” Cambridge Dictionary. Accessed September 4, 2016. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ideology.

Clair, Matthew, and Jeffrey S. Denis. The International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by James D. Wright. Second ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2015.

Cleveland, William L. and Martin Bunton. A History of the Modern Middle East. Boulder: Westview Press, 2013.

Dayan, Arie. “The Debate over Zionism and Racism: An Israeli View.” Journal of Palestine Studies, 22, no. 3 (Spring, 1993): 96-105. www.jstor.org/stable/2537573.

Fotiadis, Apostolis. ““occupiers cannot also be liberal”: An Interview with Ilan Pappe.” The Electronic Intifada. June 21, 2008. Accessed September 3, 2016. https://electronicintifada.net/content/occupiers-cannot-also-be-liberal-interview-ilan- pappe/7575.

Fredrickson, George M. White Supremacy: A Comparative Study of American and South African History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981.

Galnoor, Ithzak, Partition of Palestine, The: Decision Crossroads in the Zionist Movement. State University of New York Press, 2012.

Garner, Steve. Racisms: An Introduction. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2009.

Gelvin, James L. The Israel-Palestine Conflict One Hundred Years of War. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Glaser, Daryl. “Zionism and Apartheid: a moral comparison.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 26, no. 3 (May 2003): 403-321. Accessed September 3, 2016. http://www.tandfonline.com.proxy- ub.rug.nl/doi/pdf/10.1080/0141987032000067264?needAccess=true.

Hoyt Jr., Carlos. “The Pedagogy of the Meaning of Racism: Reconciling a Discordant Discourse.” Social Work 57, no. 3 (July 2012): 225-34. Accessed September 3, 2016. http://sw.oxfordjournals.org/content/57/3/225.abstract.

Human Rights Watch. “Israel/Palestine Events of 2015.” Human Rights Watch. 2015. Accessed September 3, 2016. https://www.hrw.org/middle-east/n-africa/israel/palestine.

Levitats, Isaac. “Pro-Palestine and Zionist Activities.” In American Jewish Year Book Vol. 45 1943-1944, edited by Harry Schneiderman and Morris t. Fine, 206-215. Philadelphia: the Jewish Publication Society Press, 1943-5704.

Mattar, Philip. Encyclopedia of the Palestinians. N.p: Infobase Publishing, 2005.

Neumann, Boaz. Land and Desire in Early Zionism. N.p: Brandeis University Press, 2011.

OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO The Jewish National Home in Palestine, Submitted to the Conference on Palestinian Problems. New York, 1924.

Oxford Learner's Dictionaries. “Definition of ideology noun from the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary.” Oxford Learner's Dictionary. Accessed September 4, 2016. http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/ideology.

Sahyoun, Rabee. “Why Zionism Is Racism Zionism is a racist and irredeemable movement, like Bolshevism, Nazism, and Apartheid.” Albalagh. July 3, 2001. Accessed September 4, 2016. http://www.albalagh.net/.

Segev, Tom. One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs under the British Mandate. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2011.

Shapira, Anita. Israel A History. London: Orion, 2015.

Shapira, Anita. Land and Power: The Zionist Resort to Force, 1881-1948. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992.

Shimoni, Gideon. The Zionist Ideology. Hanover, NH: Brandeis University Press, 1995.

Smith, Charles. Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents. Boston : Bedford/St. Martin's, 2012.

Stuart, Robert S. “Ideology, Theory, and Mentality: Some Issues in the Historical Study of Ideology.” Labour History 50 (May 1986): 63-71. Accessed September 3, 2016. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27508783?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents.

Teveth, Shabtai. Ben-Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs: From Peace to War. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985.

The United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine. “Declaration adopted by the Extraordinary Zionist Conference at the Biltmore Hotel of New York City, 11 May 1942.” Accessed November 2, 2016. https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/F86E0B8FC540DEDD85256CED0070C2A5.

United Nations. “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966 entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Ar.” The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. March 23, 1976. Accessed September 3, 2016. http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx.

UN General Assembly. “RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY DURING ITS THIRTIETH SESSION.” United Nations. November 10, 1975. Accessed September 3, 2016. https://documents-dds- ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/000/92/IMG/NR000092.pdf?OpenElement.

UN Watch. “UN confirms anti-Israeli prof for 6-year post investigating “Israel’s violations”.” UN Watch. March 23, 2016. Accessed September 3, 2016. http://www.unwatch.org/un- nominates-anti-israeli-professor-6-year-post-investigating-israels-violations/.

Van Dijk, Teun A. “Ideology and Discourse”. In The Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies, edited by Michael Freeden and Marc Stears., 177-204. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

Yale Law School Lillian Gold Library the Avalon Project: Documents in Law, History Diplomacy. “British White Paper of 1939.” Accessed November 2, 2016. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1939.asp.