|
bZionism’s peaceful progress! A policy based on mutual con- btempt of the briber and bribee. . . . bNeither was it successful. Among the most extreme of the bZionist haters was Musa Kazim Al Hussini, president of the bArab Executive. The impossible Kalvarisky met him in 1922 in bLausanne, Switzerland, and at least hinted at the possibility of bfinancial reward if he would moderate his views. According to bKalvarisky, Musa Kazim replied that “his attitude toward us is bin our hands.” A generous sum of money passed, but within a bfew months Musa Kazim’s behavior reverted to its extreme anti- bZionism. Confronted, he proudly replied: “I am still a patriot band did not sell myself or my people to the Zionists.” So much bfor the lack of hostility of Uncle Ahmed. bConfusion, contradiction, and mass delusion were the char- bacteristics of official Zionist policy vis-à-vis the Arabs from the bbeginning. Moshe Beilinson gave voice to the prevalent theory bwithin the Achdut Avoda movement in a 1925 article, “On the bControversy Regarding Arab-Jewish Relations.” The gist of the btheory was that “Palestine” was not generally “of importance” bto the Arabs since they had had many other national centers and blands. The Jews, however, had only one land, and it was vital for btheir physical and spiritual survival. Since the Zionists would bthus be taking only a small part of the huge Arab territory, and balso guaranteeing a better life for the Arabs in Eretz Yisrael, bincluding equal rights, surely the Arabs would eventually realize bthat Zionism did not really conflict with Arab nationalism. bIt was that kind of thinking that could lead Laborite Yosef bSprinzak in 1919 to declare himself “one of the admirers of a bJewish-Arab alliance” and then to insist that “we must receive bPalestine without limitation or reservation. . . . There is room bfor half a million Arabs in a greater Jewish Palestine, but there bis not room here for an Arab kingdom.” Obviously, the Zionists btotally misread the Arab mind. The Arabs were not interested in ba large amount of the land. They wanted all of it, because they bbelieved that it was theirs. Most unreasonable, true. Eminently bselfish, beyond a doubt. But a fact. And a fact to this day, only bmore so. Whatever the feeling of the “Palestinian” about the bgreater “Arab nation” and “homeland,” he is first a “Palesti- bnian,” and he wants “his” land—all of it. The “Palestinians,” bwhether they were a national movement or people in 1880 or b
|
|