LONDON – Quite some time before Adolph Hitler had decided to exterminate the Jews the British political establishment had sadly concluded, twenty years after the Balfour Declaration of 1917, that they had made a mistake in allowing the Zionist movement to drag them into the enterprise of re-making a Jewish homeland in what for 700 years, until the break up of the Ottoman empire in the wake of Turkey’s defeat in World War 1, had been Muslim territory. One certainly doesn’t have to be anti-Semitic to wonder, in retrospect, whether the founding of Israel on Palestinian soil was such a good idea.

The Jews had begun to settle in Palestine in the late nineteenth century at a time when “life proceeded slowly at a pace set by the stride of the camel”, to quote Tom Segev’s marvellous book, “One Palestine, Complete”. But it was only after the British foreign secretary Stanley Balfour, strongly backed by prime minister Lloyd George, a religious man who saw the Jewish cause as one that must be supported by Christian charity, issued his declaration that the government “views with favour” the aspiration for a Jewish “national home”, that the settlement of Arab land was begun in earnest. A Jewish Palestine for the British was never an economic investment, nor a strategic one. At best it was an emotional cause, at its worse an adventure. The next generation of British politicians and colonial administrators, faced with a bloody Arab revolt that they had to mercilessly repress, felt that Lloyd George and Balfour had made an awful faux pas.

In 1936, eleven years before the UN voted for the partition of Palestine, (with the U.S. and the Soviet Union for and Britain abstaining) the British had come up with their own plan for partition. Lord Peel, a former secretary of state for India, headed the commission of inquiry. It seemed that after 20 years of resistance London had given in to Arab pressure. By today’s standards it was a good deal. The Arabs would receive the west bank of the Jordan River, the mountainous region and the desert to the south. The Jews would receive Tel Aviv, the coastal plain, the northern valleys and part of Galilee. The British would retain Jerusalem.

But the Arabs didn’t want partition- they could not bear to see part of their country handed over to Jewish sovereignty and, besides, they never forgot that before the Balfour Declaration, during the fight against the Turks, the British had promised them Palestine. Neither did many of the Jews, although its leadership, in particular Chaim Weizmann and David Ben-Gurion, were mainly for it, since it would bring about a Jewish state. (The latter confided it would be only the first step to one day creating a “greater Israel” on both sides of the Jordan river.)

In the end, in a grave act of cowardice, the British shelved the Peel recommendations, partly because of the local opposition and partly because London couldn’t stomach the commission’s recommendation of “population transfers”, what today would be called “ethnic cleansing”.

But by refusing to bite on that bullet, the British had to face down even more Arab violence than before, then Jewish violence, all the while favouring the Zionist endeavour of settling increasing numbers of Jewish immigrants. When the British left it was inevitable the Arabs would fight. It was also inevitable that the Jews would win.

Fifty-five years later we wring our hands over the intractability of the Middle East. Yet in two very important ways we have come a long way. The Arabs- or at least an overwhelming majority of the leaders- now accept there should be partition and a Jewish state. A majority of Jewish Israelis- when the suicide bombers are taken out of the equation- accept there should be an independent and mainly contiguous Palestine. And, as the former French foreign minister, Hubert Vedrine, argued earlier this week in the Washington Post, if we look not at the Camp David negotiations but at the subsequent ones at Sharm el Sheikh and Taba we all but have a 100% agreement.

Today the Americans play the role of the British and are seemingly playing it not much better. Like the British, when in doubt, they support the Zionists. Like the British, they probably fear the damage that those on the right of the Zionist spectrum could cause if they feel thwarted- perhaps even an attempt at assassination of the American president. Yet the centre is rather strong: enough blood has gone under the bridge that a majority on both sides knows what the compromise solution has to be. Therefore, as Vedrine argues, President George Bush “should impose a peace settlement” and ride out the reaction of the extremists on the fringes of both sides.” Time is running out”, writes Vedrine. “What other solutions are there?”

It was unfortunate, to say the least, that the British twice-promised this piece of the Ottoman Empire. But now, despite the violence, we could be in sight of a “promised land” for both Arab and Jew. Today, not tomorrow, is the day to make it happen.

I can be reached by phone +44 7785 351172 and e-mail: JonatPower@aol.com

Copyright © 2002 By JONATHAN POWERFollow this link to read about – and order – Jonathan Power’s book written for the

40th Anniversary of Amnesty International

“Like Water on Stone – The Story of Amnesty International”