The Right of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel American Zionist Youth Foundation, Inc. THE AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE & la ustein Library THE RIGHT OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL BACKGROUND PAPERS FOR AN EVALUATION (NO. 2) ZIONISM Background Papers for an Evaluation (No. 2) The Right of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel Whose is the Land. " Moshe Beilinson״ .1 Our Relations ־ Our Right to the Land" .2 A. D. Gordon with the Arabs. " Prof. Benzion Dinur 3. "Our Rights Over the Land of Israel. " 4. "ThTerritoriese Mitzvot. , " the Messiah and the MichaelRosenak 5. "The Five Roots of Israel - The Arab Case Answered. " Nissim Rejwan 6. "Who Has the Rights Over the Land of Israel. " A. Heller 7. "This Country Made Us a People, Our People Made This Country. " David Ben-Gurion 8. "The Rights of the Jewish People in Abba Eban the Land of Israel. " Yitzak Tabenkin ״ .Concerning Our Rights to the Land" .9 Arnold J. Toynbee 10. "Jewish Rights in Palestine. " Solomon Zeitlin 11. "Jewish Rights in Eretz Israel. " I A, 2 WHOSE IS THE LAND? by Moshe Beilinson To whom does the land belong? To the Jewish people and to the Arab community living there. This assumption must be the basis of Zionist and British policy. The first para- graph of the Balfour Declaration is based on it, and so is the Mandate. The latter charges the Government with concern for the Jewish people, establishing its national homeland in the country, and for the Arab population of the country, whose rights must not be ignored and whose development must be fostered. The first conclusion is to assist Jewish immigration, since the national home is not designed simply and only for Jewish settlers actually in the country but for the Jewish people. At the same time, there should be restriction of all other immigration, since the logic of the case demands concern solely for the Arabs who are in the coun- try. Additional non-Jewish immigration, which permits the entry of nomadic Beduin or of cheap Egyptian or Syrian labour, and perhaps from more distant countries, must necessarily frustrate all efforts to establish the national home and to bring about peace between the Jewish and Arab communities. Peace can be maintained with the hun- dred thousand Arabs living in the country, but not with the hundreds of thousands now living outside the country's borders and who are ready at any moment to burst into it. The situation that exists today - free immigration to non-Jews and restric- ted immigration for the Jews - is a mockery of the Mandate and its function. The second conclusion is: if the country has been bequeathed to these two commu- nities, it is inconceivable that such sharp differences in their standard of living, as now exist, should continue. A hard life and hard work, but also high material de- mands, sanitary services, Europeanization, schools, newspapers, books, labour organi- zation, European human and social concepts, equality of rights and roles for women, modern techniques in industry - all these we find among the Jewish community. And in contrast, in the same country, in adjacent neighbourhoods: an Oriental way of life, effendis and muftis ruling over undeveloped masses, illiteracy, filth, sickness, women treated as chattels, workers the slaves of employers, and abysmal poverty. On such soil no true partnership, no true understanding, can grow. This is scorched earth, burned by jealousies, social if not religious. This society, built up on such strong conflicts, on such profound contradictions, is liable to burst at any moment, and overnight become two hostile camps locked in combat. How can these two communities be even gradually directed to equality, however re- lative or approximate? Are we to deteriorate? But we are deteriorating. The life of a member of a moshav or kvutza is far removed from that of the German farmer. The life of the urban worker is far from the standard of the English or American labourer. We are deteriorating but we dare not fall below a certain level. It is hard to build the Jewish homeland on a volcano, but it cannot be built at all on the level of abys- mal poverty that prevails among the Arab population. Zionism can be a mass phenomenon, a movement of hundreds of thousands or even millions, but only on condition that it holds out prospects of a viable life that makes provision for the satisfaction of needs which the masses of Jews cannot forgo. This standard is lower than that of the German or Czech farmer, of the English or American labourer, but there is a tremen- dous gulf between it and the standard of living of the Arab masses in the country. The key to equality is not deterioration. Raising the standard of life of the Arab community must be the "Arab Programme" of the Zionist Movement. Can it be done? Can the country bear such a burden as this? The Jewish community has proved that it is possible. The very same soil supports us and the Arabs, but to us it yields other fruit, it enables us (or will - at any rate that is the basic assumption of our pioneering work) to satisfy our material and spiritual needs. Why is this impossible with regard to the Arab population? Jewish settlement has two advantages socially and economically (aside from per- sonal advantages: initiative, education, etc.). In the first place, it is being con- structed on a broad popular base. We have not achieved a classless society, but we have nothing even remotely resembling the feudalism among the Arabs, a system which constitutes a crucial obstacle to the development of the Arab community. The second advantage which the Jewish community has, is working capital, great and small, from Hovevei Zion ("Lovers of Zion"), Baron Rothschild, PICA, Keren Hayesod and the Jewish National Fund, and it is this working capital, this national capital, which provides the funds with which our settlers start working, and which directly or indirectly provides the wages for our workers which are higher than those of the Arab worker. These advantages must be granted to the Arab community. The first question is who will provide the working capital, the financial means that will enable the Arabs to "stand on their own feet" within a new social system. Not the Mandatory Government. To expect this would be a delusion. If only the Bri- tish Government would return to the country all that it is taking out of it. In any case, it will not pay large sums for the benefit of the Arab masses cut of its own pocket, or the pocket of the English taxpayer. Will the Jews provide it? It is doubt- ful. One wishes that what the Jews should and must give would be sufficient for their own people 1 So far it has not been enough. Maybe it will be sufficient in the future. One cannot hope for more. The means required to raise the standard of living of the Arab masses must be found within the Arab commrnity itself. The owners of the Arab estates must give them. Thus this advantage, which must be given to the Arab population, is bound up with another advantage: the collapse of feudalism. The two things consti- tute a single social process: a war against the upper classes of the Arab population for the sake of better conditions of life for the lower classes. Who will undertake this task? It is incumbent on both sides: the Mandatory Govern- ment and the Zionist Movement. The Mandatory Government must understand that through its customary administration, be it ever so exemplary and well-ordered, it will not be fulfilling the unique task it has assumed in this unique country. The Mandatory Government must understand that ־־without a certain orientation on its part, without fidelity to a bold process, it can not fulfil (in all seriousness, that is, not just as a gesture) either of the Mandate's fundamental tasks providing the national home for the Jewish people or developing the Arab community. The Zionist Movement must understand that it cannot carry out its work within a system df slavery, within a constant situation of national contradiction, and that the two paragraphs of the Balfour Declaration are bound up with one another not only formally and politically, but also intrinsically, socially, economically and humanly. And any trend towards peace - whether it comes from the Mandatory Government or from the Zionist Movement or even from the Arab community, in part or in whole - will always remain precarious, "political," or based on weak foundations, so long as the two communities are separated by such a gulf in their way of social, economic and cultural way of life. The two bodies interested in raising the standard of living of the Arab community, seeking fulfillment of their aims - the Mandate and the Zionist Movement - must unite in order to carry out this task. For this purpose wide-ranging reforms must be introduced into all areas of life, the administrative machinery must be adapted to a solution of the special problems facing the Mandatory Government. Large-scale public works, schools and vocational (especially agricultural) education, hospitals and sanitary services, labour laws ending the shameful exploitation that now prevails among the Arab population (exploi- tation that is in fact supported by the Government), protection of women and children, a limited work day, a minimum wage, workers' insurance, systematic support of coopera- tion in all its forms, must provide the specific viewpoint for the drafting of the Government Budget. This means war against feudalism, assistance for improving the stan- iard of living of the poverty-stricken, through both budgetary income and'expenditure m direct taxes and inheritance taxes, particularly on landowners.