Zionist Historical Documents - Herzl "What is a State", Balfour Declaration, Faysal-Weizmann Agreement

Theodor Herzl – February 18, 1898

“What is a State?”

Theodore Herzl is accredited with being the father of political Zionism and his address to a German-Jewish audience in Berlin on February 18, 1898 is noteworthy of consideration on a few levels.  First, the address, and thus the origins of political Zionism, took place during a period of increasing nationalism on the international stage due to centuries of domestic oppression by European political and economic caste systems and, in cases of foreign territories that would eventually gain independence, European colonial imperialism.  The first thing in Herzl’s speech that draws attention is his declaration that “there is a Palestine; it is located on the Mediterranean”[1].  The argument from the modern Zionist and pro-Israeli views that there was not a Palestine until after the beginning of the British protectorate has been long increasing in utilization and volume, yet we read contrary to this argument from the speech by the father of political Zionism himself.  Apparently, Herzl viewed the national interests of the Jewish people as a hybrid form of justified colonialism, which to him reasoned as a “consequence of overpopulation” in Europe and a “policy which England” had “been pursuing for decades and which has been regarded as exemplary by many nations” [2].

While the man seemed to feel strongly concerning the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people, especially those in Europe who were assimilating into the various Christian gentile states at the end of the 19th century, his disregard for the native population who already occupied the Palestinian land, and other colonized lands, seems naïve in his statement “What is a state?  A big colony.  What is a colony?  A small state. “[3].

Perhaps, like many reformers throughout history, Herzl did not foresee the future international corruption that would become the international political movement of Zionism and the state of Israel.  Perhaps, in retrospect of the late 19^th century European Pogroms against Jews, the idea of a Jewish state, once it would become powerful, committing atrocities against another ethnic group, as was done to the Jewish people, never crossed his thoughts.   After all, when Herzl gave this speech in 1898 the Ottoman Empire still possessed Palestine.

Balfour Declaration

Arthur James Balfour was the Foreign Secretary for the United Kingdom in 1917 and accredited with the infamous Balfour Declaration sent to Baron Walter Rothschild, a member of one of the wealthiest banking families in Britain, and the Zionist Federation of Great Britain.   The Balfour Declaration certainly isn’t taught about in American schools prior to the private sector college level and then only if a student is specifically studying the Near East and Israel at a 300 or higher level.  For as much as Israel impacts United States foreign policy, this is a designed flaw.  What is most interesting about this Declaration, or political support agreement, is the fact that there were four drafts of the Balfour Declaration prior to the Final produced text in October 1917.  Obviously, the first chronological draft was written by the Zionist Federation of Great Britain.  Interestingly, as in any negotiation of wording, the Zionist draft states that “His Majesty’s Government” would “use its best endeavors to secure the achievement of this object”, which was “the principle that Palestine should be reconstituted as the national home of the Jewish People”[4].  Balfour’s draft from August 1917 rewords the statement to read “will be ready to consider any suggestions on the subject which the Zionist Organization may desire to lay before them” [5].  Apparently Lord Milner, who was a member of the British War Cabinet in 1916 and later was elevated to Minister of War, was the main author of the final Balfour Declaration.  In the final draft of the declaration, a protection for non-Jewish people was added under the statement that with the promise of British support that it be understood “that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities” [6],  This obvious commitment of respect was obviously thrown to the side after the establishment and international capital-military strengthening of the nation-state of Israel, and nowhere is the example of this blatant disregard more evident than the 1967 offensive and the modern illegal settlement building that is occurring today.

Faysal-Weizmann Agreement

Before Britain was even placed into a protectorate position over Palestine in 1920, a political agreement between Emir Faisal, brief ruler of Syria in 1920 and later king over the territory known as Iraq from 1921 until 1933, and Chaim Weizmann, who would later become President of the World Zionist Federation, emerged out of the 1919 Paris Peace Conference.  While there was no Palestinian voice present at the conference, the brief leader of Syria negotiated with aspiring Zionists interests and produced the Faysal-Weizmann Agreement.  Before we look at some of the articles that would impact the Palestinian population, a population poorly represented at the conference, Article IX must be noted: “Any matters of dispute which may arise between the two contracting parties shall be referred to the British Government for arbitration” [7].  Here it must be considered that almost 100 years after this agreement that Israel still turns to the United States for “arbitration”, which often bait the United States into launching economic sanctions (Iran), funding and arming rebels (Syria), and toppling and rebuilding governments (Iraq).  If there are any questions as to the nation-state of Israel’s influence in these examples, those questions can be put to rest by watching archive video footage of the annual AIPAC lobbyist conferences for those specific time frames.

Reading the Faysal-Weizmann agreement, it is obvious that the (brief) Syrian leader sold the native Arab population of Palestine down the river.  In article IV, Faysal agrees that “All necessary measures shall be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale” [8].  In article VII he agrees to allow the Zionist Organization into Palestine “to use its best efforts to assist the Arab State in providing the means for developing the natural resources and economic possibilities thereof” [9].  A true leader who cared for the national interests of his people (instead of being bought) should have recognized that the native Palestinian population did not have the capital or technology to compete with this foreign influx of both international capital and technology, and would eventually become bought out, closed out, owned, and at the political whim of new masters.  Either Faysal was either completely incompetent in understanding capitalism or one of the largest individual sell-outs in history. 

[1]  Smith, Charles  D.  2010.  Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents, 7th ed.  New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, p. 51.

Theodor Herzl.  Die Welt.  Who Fears a State?  February 18, 1898.  Public Domain.

[2]  Smith, Charles  D.  2010.  Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents, 7th ed.  New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, p. 51.

Theodor Herzl.  Die Welt.  Who Fears a State?  February 18, 1898.  Public Domain.

[3]  Smith, Charles  D.  2010.  Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents, 7th ed.  New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, p. 51.

Theodor Herzl.  Die Welt.  Who Fears a State?  February 18, 1898.  Public Domain.

[4]  Smith, Charles  D.  2010.  Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents, 7th ed.  New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, p. 97.

Balfour Declaration.  1917.  Public domain.

[5]  Smith, Charles  D.  2010.  Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents, 7th ed.  New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, p. 97.

Balfour Declaration.  1917.  Public domain.

[6]  Smith, Charles  D.  2010.  Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents, 7th ed.  New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, p. 97.

Balfour Declaration.  1917.  Public domain.

[7]  Smith, Charles  D.  2010.  Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents, 7th ed.  New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, p. 98-99.

The Faysal-Weizmann Agreement.  January 3, 1919.  Public Domain.

[8]  Smith, Charles  D.  2010.  Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents, 7th ed.  New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, p. 98-99.

The Faysal-Weizmann Agreement.  January 3, 1919.  Public Domain.

[9]  Smith, Charles  D.  2010.  Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents, 7th ed.  New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, p. 98-99.

The Faysal-Weizmann Agreement.  January 3, 1919.  Public Domain.

 

 

  
 

U.S. Bias to Israel - Evaluating Sources

The following sources will be utilized in establishing U.S. bias towards Israel and are evaluated in the following manner.

Book:

Smith, Charles D. 2010. Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St.Martin’s The source provides a complete historical break down on the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict from the height of Ottoman rule to modern times, and concentrates heavily on the creation of the modern nation-state of Israel. The book is based on historical events leading up to 2010 and therefore meets the criteria of currency. The relevance of U.S. bias to Israel is documented in several historical events contained in the book and I plan on citing from this source. The author is a professor of Middle East history in the Department of Near Eastern Studies at the University of Arizona. The book is compiled with actual historical documents from history and the historical events covered in the book have been cross referenced for historical accuracy. The purpose of the source is an objective review of history for educational and informational purposes.

Scholarly Journals:

Pierce, Jonathan J. 2011. Coalition Stability and Belief Change: Advocacy Coalitions in U.S. Foreign Policy and the Creation of Israel, 1922–44. The Policy Studies Journal 39(3): 411-432.

The source is pertinent to illustrating the bias of U.S. foreign policy to Israel and provides analysis of special interest groups and pro-Israeli advocacy groups (aka lobbyist organizations) inside the United States. The article, published in 2011, is current and will establish a solid authority for constructing an accurate confirmation on how the foreign lobby is able to manipulate foreign policy through representative democracy. Pierce is a political science professor at the University of Colorado and has co-authored over 16 journal publications since 2011. The accuracy of the journal article can be verified through the voting records of congressional resolutions and, more importantly, through AIPAC documentation and video footage from past annual AIPAC conferences. The main purpose for utilizing this source is to establish a foundation argument for lobbyist influence on U.S. representative democracy.

Guerlain, Pierre. 2011. The Israel lobby, American democracy and foreign perceptions of the USA. Journal of Public Affairs 11(4):372-381.

The selected article is a very strong source for citation concerning the foreign lobby and foreign influence methods on the U.S. Congress. The source surpasses the Pierce article in importance for demonstrating exactly how the foreign lobby is able to generate U.S. bias for Israel through influence on representative democracy. The article was published in 2011 and is current. The article has been published in a scholarly journal and the material analyzed concerning the lobby can be easily cross referenced and verified for accuracy. This source also reviews recent efforts of AIPAC and J-Street, the two largest pro-Israeli lobbyist organizations in Washington. The material is presented is objective in nature and presented for information and educational reasons.

Cohena Y., Haberfeldb, Y. and Kogan, I. 2011. Who went where? Jewish immigration from the Former Soviet Union to Israel, the USA and Germany, 1990–2000. Israel Affairs 17(1): 7-20.

The source discusses the historical immigration of Jewish immigrants to the United States after the collapse of the Soviet Union. While this will not be a major source utilized in the final project, it will present a source to illustrate the growing domestic support for Zionism within the United States and will build the opening argument for capital wealth crossing state borders (which can be linked to pro-Israeli political support). The article is published in a scholarly journal and co-written by professors from the Department of Sociology at Columbia University, the USA Department of Labour Studies in Tel Aviv University in Israel, and the University of Mannheim in Germany. The article is informational. An additional purpose for citation of this source will be to distinguish the economic differences between immigration to the United States and the nation-state of Israel. Many of the settlers immigrating into Israel over the past decades, especially after the conclusion of the Cold War, have often been lower economic Jews.

Smith, Robert O. 2012. Anglo-American Christian Zionism. Ecumenical Review 64(1): 27-35.

This source discusses the link between Jewish Zionism and Christian Zionism and will allow a connection to be made between the two, specifically on domestic political influence on foreign policy (U.S. bias to Israel). The article was published in 2012 and the information current, informational in content and analysis, and the author is the Continental Director for Europe and the Middle East in the Global Mission unit of the Evangelical Church in America. The purpose of citing this source is pertinent to solidifying an argument on Christian Zionist lobbyist influence in the U.S. Congress to advance Israeli interests, regardless of impact on domestic U.S. issues, and provides a strong insight into the religious biblical zealousness, counter to rational modern international or domestic policies, of Christian Zionists and Right-wing Evangelical leaders such as John Hagee.

Boer, Roland and Abraham, Ibrahim. 2009. God Doesn’t Care: The Contradictions of Christian Zionism. Journal of Religion & Theology 16(2): 90-110.

This source is a secondary source for linking the political bridge between Zionism and Christian Zionism. The author is affiliated with the School of Political & Social Inquiry and the Centre for Comparative Literature & Cultural Studies at Monash University in Australia. The reference, along with the Smith article, can be cross referenced with historical and current methods and movements to influence U.S. bias on behalf of Israel within the U.S. Congress. The source is informational.

Government Organization:

U.S. Department of State. 2013. FY2014 Executive Budget Summary – Function 150 and Other International Programs. On-line. Accessed from Internet, http://www.state.gov/s/d/rm/rls/ebs/2014/index.htm

This source is the annual government report on foreign aid proposal amounts for FY14 and provides a snapshot for the amount of U.S. funding provided to the nation-state of Israel despite a climbing national deficit and deep domestic budget cuts in the U.S. The source is informational, current and confirmable. Recently the foreign lobby placed very heavy efforts on influencing Congress not to cut foreign aid to Israel despite deep economic problems causing United States sequestration. This report alone is a strong source for citation which illustrates the vulnerability of representative democracy under the influences of a foreign entity (through domestic lobbyist groups).

Non-Government Organization.

Zunes, Stephen. 2012. The Strategic Functions of U.S. Aid to Israel. Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. On-line. Accessed from Internet, http://www.wrmea.org/congress-and-us-aid-to-israel/494-congress-a-us-aid-to-israel/9748-u-s-financial-aid-to-israel-figures-facts-and-impact.html

This source is produced by an NGO watch group on the Middle East and tracks foreign aid to Israel by dollar amounts and categories. The statistics presented can be cross-referenced to actual U.S. government U.S. foreign aid reports and will present the structural basis to present the conclusive argument of how the end results falls within the lobbyist established bias regardless of negative results to rational domestic American policies and interests.

Sample summary from web page: Benefits to Israel of U.S. Aid Since 1949 (As of November 1, 1997) Foreign Aid Grants and Loans $74,157,600,000 Other U.S. Aid (12.2% of Foreign Aid) $9,047,227,200 Interest to Israel from Advanced Payments $1,650,000,000 Grand Total $84,854,827,200 Total Benefits per Israeli $14,630 Cost to U.S. Taxpayers of U.S. Aid to Israel Grand Total $84,854,827,200 Interest Costs Borne by U.S. $49,936,680,000 Total Cost to U.S. Taxpayers $134,791,507,200 Total Taxpayer Cost per Israeli $23,240

Partition of Palestine and the Creation of Israel

When the modern nation-state of Israel was created under UN General Assembly Resolution 181 the former British protectorate of Palestine was partitioned, similar to the partitioning of India and the creation of Pakistan, which resulted in the creation of the modern nation-state of Israel. The difference between the events in India and the events in Palestine was that a foreign ethnic entity was implanted, in internationally recognized state form, into a predominantly Arab region which caused displacement of large segments of the indigenous population. The creation of the Jewish state, made possible by an international Zionist movement, was not an isolated result from the events of World War II. The international Zionist network had long planned to establish a Jewish state, specifically aimed at the so-called holy land of the Torah, using international capital to purchase land in Palestine under Ottoman rule and later under British control. In addition to using international capital to purchase up tracts of land, Jewish settlers also were able to utilize international capital to import agricultural technology that Arab farmers in the region did not possess and could not match.

After World War II and the establishment of the UN Security Council, two of the most powerful states, the United States and Britain, stood as staunch supporters of a homeland for the Jewish people. The Belfour declaration stands as one of the pre-Israel historical documents that show such support. Zionist networks had worked hard to maintain Christian political support in Britain and as Jewish and Zionist immigration into the United States began to heavily increase, American political and economic support for the new state of Israel also vastly increased. Constantly increasing American economic and military aid to Israel since 1950 can be easily verified and today Israel receives over 3 billion dollars each year from the United States government in the form of foreign aid. Today, through western economic and military support, the nation-state of Israel holds a military hegemon on the Middle East region and is viewed by many as a nation-state above international law. The treatment of the Palestinian people, from the blockade on Gaza to the apartheid wall to illegal land confiscation and settlements, has often instigated anti-American sentiments from the Arab world, due to American support, and leaves the U.S. in a bad political light. In addition, when Israel commits human rights violations and the international community brings forth resolutions of condemnation before the United Nations, the United States uses their UN Security Council veto to block any resolutions critical of Israel. Israel has so much sway over the American government that the U.S. often finds itself being lobbied into issuing international economic sanctions on nation-states with ambitions for nuclear energy, under false accusations of manufacturing weapons, while their ally Israel actually possesses nuclear weapons, but has never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (Iran signed the NPT in 1968.

How does the nation-state of Israel secure such blind international support from the West? There are a few reasons. First, the western nation-state powers are predominantly Christian. In addition, the masses of those nation-states are uneducated and many have difficulty differentiating between the biblical tribes of Israel and the modern nation-state government of Israel. In addition, the Christian states are capitalist in nature and the working masses have little time for researching facts or following Congressional procedures. Second, the Western state governments are representative democracies, which make government decision-making, foreign and domestic, relatively easy for manipulation. In the case of United States legislation on behalf of supporting Israel, this manipulation is achieved by the major Zionist and Christian Zionist lobbying powers such as AIPAC (American Israeli Public Affairs Committee) and CUFI (Christians United for Israel), and a plethora of other lobbyist organizations, which lobby both Republican and Democratic seats (votes). There is no other lobbyist network in Washington with such bi-partisan influence and power.

The Zionists have always been highly skilled at working within empires and states, from the Ottoman Empire through the British Empire and now the United States, to achieve their political means, the top objective being the creation and strengthening of the nation-state of Israel. There are many different views of the nation-state of Israel, from people viewing them as a staunch ally of the United States to the view that Israel is a regional tyrant and a regional instigator (protected by the United States). I personally view the one-way U.S.-Israeli relationship as a negative one that further damages the image of the United States on the international stage. Perhaps during the Cold War era Israel could have been considered a strategic investment for the U.S., but the validation period for this argument is long gone and the U.S. receives little to nothing in return from such sacrifices. The United States has submerged itself heavily in debt and is currently forced to make many domestic fiscal cuts, from budget cuts in the Department of Defense to education and law enforcement, yet the annual billions of economic and military welfare to Israel continues while Israel, a so-called U.S. ally, refuses to even stop building illegal settlements when the U.S. Secretary of State visits (one of many examples of Israel not listening to U.S. requests).

American Israel Public Affairs Committee. What is AIPAC?. AIPAC, 1989.

Hersh, Seymour M. The Samson option: Israel's nuclear arsenal and American foreign policy. Vintage Books, 1993.

Kuziemko, Ilyana, and Eric Werker. "How much is a seat on the Security Council worth? Foreign aid and bribery at the United Nations." Journal of Political Economy 114, no. 5 (2006): 905-930.

Lesch, Ann Mosely. "Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Territories, 1967-1977." Journal of Palestine Studies 7, no. 1 (1977): 26-47.

Mearsheimer, John J., and Stephen M. Walt. "The Israel lobby and US foreign policy." Middle East Policy 13, no. 3 (2006): 29-87.

Muhammad, Dedrick, and Farrah Hassen. "Christians United for Israel and Attacking Iran." Foreign Policy in Focus (2008).

Öke, Mim Kemal. "The Ottoman Empire, Zionism, and the Question of Palestine (1880–1908)." International Journal of Middle East Studies 14, no. 03 (1982): 329-341.

Usher, Graham. "Unmaking Palestine: On Israel, the Palestinians, and the Wall." Journal of Palestine Studies 35, no. 1 (2005): 25-43.

Vereté, Mayir. "The Balfour Declaration and its makers." Middle Eastern Studies 6, no. 1 (1970): 48-76.

Part II

I tend to view Zionism and Jewish networking, especially with the amount of capital flowing across nation-state borders to build the Jewish presence in Palestine from the decline of Ottoman control to the end of the British protectorate, as the main nationalist force even though the course textbook makes the statement that “the majority of the Jewish immigrants in the first wave following the pogroms of 1881-1884 were not technically Zionists” (Smith, 29). The reason I state this view is because if the Jewish religion is based on the concept of Jewish people being “chosen” and the promise (by God) of the Promised Land (which is no rational way to conduct international political decision making), how can this international ethnic network not be considered Zionist in nature? Not only was Theodor Herzl a leading voice and organizer for Jewish nationality, but wealthy Western Jews such as “Sir Moses Montefiore and particularly Baron Edmond de Rothschild of the great banking family, who between the 1883 and 1889 gave the settlers 1.6 million pounds sterling” funded land purchasing and the import of agricultural technology to ensure settler success (Smith, 29).

The nation that was created, even though the Jewish nation had always been a nation spanning across international borders, was coined by Herzl as “Der Judenstaat (The State of the Jews)” with a message directed toward “wealthy Jews in the West” with hopes “that those Jews would provide financial assistance” to the establishment of a Jewish state (Smith, 31). The message was well received. At the end of the 19th century, the World Zionist Organization created its own bank “and in 1901 the Jewish National Fund was established for the express purpose of purchasing and developing land for Jewish settlements in Palestine. The fund played a major role in the acquisition of land that became inalienably Jewish, never to be sold to or worked by non-Jews” (Smith, 32).

Smith, C. D. (2010). Palestine and the Arab-Israeli conflict: A history with documents, 7th ed. Palgrave Macmillan: New York.

Islamic World Since 1945: Imitation, Division and Economic Ownership

Causes for political-economic vulnerability in the Islamic World

The political and economic problems of the Islamic states in the era of globalization have their origins in international history prior to 1945, but have been concreted into an international caste since the end of World War II.  One of the largest pre-World War II historical factors for the political and economic vulnerability, which details technology and military power, of the states of the Islamic world, has resulted from the Sunni-Shi’ite division between the Ottoman and Safavid Empires.  Instead of a powerful collective empire advancing forward, the division and wars that between the two Islamic Empires allowed the consolidation, technological and economic growth, and expansion of the Judeo-Christian European Empire, precisely identifiable between the Holy Roman Empire and the emergence of the British Empire, to surpass the Islamic world in power and control of emerging global markets resulting from colonial imperialism.  In the age of consolidated power and treaties, resulting from the two European World Wars, international economic-military control mechanisms were established in the form of the United Nations (an alliance of WWII victor states with a collective military hegemon), the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (which set international currency exchange rates setting the stage for globalization), and the World Trade Organization (which initially allowed colonial powers to bring their colonial possessions into the WTO before setting up an independent puppet government set up at the time of independence for globalization purposes) .  On top of this consolidation of international power, much of the Islamic world was divided by national borders after the end of the Ottoman Empire, in addition, prior to and after the end of colonial exploitation by European powers, nation-states were left with domestic political voids, civil conflict and locked into a position on the international stage to subsist based off collective international economic crumbs.

End of Colonial Imperialism, Opening Stages of Globalization, and New States

In addition to colonial withdraw and so-called independence under global puppet governments, the Islamic world also suffered from several partitioning processes after the World War II by the international powers which created several new states: Kuwait, Pakistan, and in a unique situation based on a plethora of motives, Israel (where a native people were cleared out in order to establish a foreign people inside a completely new nation-state).  The Cold War was the last barrier, or temporary balance, for the establishment of a global Judeo-Christian capitalist market.  During this last international chess game, the Islamic nation-states would be used as game pieces. 

Using the newly established nation-state of Kuwait as our newly created state model, the economic motives for separating the area from the Iraqi peninsula are evident.  The southern tip of the peninsula is an avid trade port and Kuwait itself is rich in oil production.  Although the richness of Kuwaiti oil was known during Ottoman rule, technology dependency on oil vastly increased the economic value.  While the proponents, or muscle, of the private sector global market, mainly the United States and Britain, built up fears of aggressive Soviet threats in order to justify imperialism (quietly on behalf of private-sector capital) in newly created states such as Kuwait, the Soviets replied that “the United States and Britain with ridiculous fabrications about a "Soviet menace" to the countries of that area. Such inventions have nothing in common with reality, for it is a matter of record that the underlying basis of the Soviet Union's foreign policy is an unalterable desire to ensure peace among the peoples, a peace founded on observance of the principles of equality, non-interference in domestic affairs, and respect for national independence and state sovereignty”[1].

Even while colonialism ended and the international private sector capital powers behind the consolidated western nation-state military powers were able to get their footholds into newly partitioned states in the Islamic world, long term exploited nation-state tools were not relinquished.   Instead, the puppet regimes, often corrupted, left behind by colonial masters continued to volunteer for exploitation under global private sector incentives, regional foreign military presence and economic aid, and divided competition among the other states throughout the Islamic world.  Egypt had long been used, primarily due to the Nile and Suez Canal, as a territorial center piece by empires and global alliances.  In order to examine the sentiments of the Egyptian people and how the private sector arms of the Bretton Woods family infiltrated the post-colonial independent states for private sector exploitation through puppet regimes, we will examine the sentiments of the Egyptian writer, Taha Hussein,  from 1954 where he states “I think all Egyptians would agree with this...We want to be like the European nations in military power in order to repel the attack of any aggressor and to be able to say to our English friends: "Thank you, you may go; for we can now defend the Canal." Who wants the end must want the means”[2].  Despite these false hopes shared by individual states throughout the Islamic world after World War II, “the state of underdevelopment can be illustrated by looking at Egypt, the most modernized and populous country in the Arab world at the time” [3].  Just as the Ottoman Empire weakened itself by issuing the Tanzimat reforms, making concessions to European states, and attempting to integrate itself into the European market, the divided post World War II Islamic nation-states made the same mistake and, in an attempt to imitate or join the global market, opened the door for foreign private sector investments and loans (economic usury and exploitation of their natural resources) in the form of the Bretton Woods banks and manipulated by Foreign aid carrots.  During the post-World War II reforms in Egypt, similar to many other Islamic nation-states during this period, “international economic institutions typically made access to loans conditional on the preparation of economic plans by governments” [4].  Even though many domestic nationalization reforms were established in Islamic nation-states during the decades after World War II, the International banks owned the national deficits of these states and often placed conditions on international loans that required loan recipients to only liquidate funding through specific foreign international private sector corporations.

Long Story in the Short Version

In summary fashion, the two-empire Sunni-Shi’ite division between the Ottoman and Safivid Empires allowed technologic, military, colonial and economic advancements by European powers which through two World Wars solidified a global private sector capitalist market based off the extraction and exploitation of natural resources and labor.  Just as the Ottoman Empire scrambled, before demise, to incorporate into this system, Islamic nation-states were forced, in the aftermath of consolidated capital power, to submit to foreign ownership and become concreted into division (for national existence) from other Islamic nation-states: a true international rat race not exclusive to Islamic nation-states or domestic divisions in the ultra-consumer and ultra-capitalist United States and Britain.

Notes

[1] U.S.S.R. Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Security in the Near and Middle East, Soviet Reaction to the Baghdad Pact, April 16, 1955.  Public Domain.  Accessed on June 8, 2013 from  http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1955Soviet-baghdad1.asp

[2] Modern History Sourcebook, Tahâ Hussein, Future of Culture in Egypt (1954), Fordham Univeristy, Accessed on June 8, 2013 from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1954taha.asp

[3] Tarik M. Yousef, “Development, Growth and Policy Reform in the Middle East and North Africa since 1950”, Journal of Economic Perspectives 18(3), 2004, p. 91.

[4] Tarik M. Yousef, “Development, Growth and Policy Reform in the Middle East and North Africa since 1950”, Journal of Economic Perspectives 18(3), 2004, p. 94.

Partitioning of India - Creation of Pakistan in 1947

The creation of Pakistan is a direct result of the long history, and withdrawal, of British imperial colonialism in India. The ideologies concerning creating such a state were divided between those who “sympathized with the idea of a distinct Muslim identity and the need to protect and preserve it” and “those who either stood for a united India or did not see the need for a separate state for Muslims” [1] Another very important international event occurring at this period in history which shared similarities to, and added international support to the creation of a Pakistani-Muslim state, was the partitioning of Palestine and the creation of the modern nation-state of Israel.

While Pakistan was established as a religious state, based on a Muslim population, the creation of the nation-state of Israel was a state created for an ethnic group with a religion attached to it. Both partitions and state creations caused violence and displacement. Interesting enough, “Pakistan celebrated its independence on 14 August and India on 15 August 1947” [2].

One of the strongest individual proponents of the two-state solution was Muhammad Ali Jinnah, known in Muslim circles as Quaid-e-Azam or ‘great leader’, who “organized the campaign that compelled both the British and the Indian National Congress to concede to the demand for the state of Pakistan” [3]. After the partitioning and independence, after the British withdrawal, of India and Pakistan there was a wave of bloody violence which “was accompanied by the largest mass migration in human history of some 10 million. As many as one million civilians died in the accompanying riots and local-level fighting, particularly in the western region of Punjab which was cut in two by the border” [4].

One of the largest issues was the problem of heavy populations of Muslims left outside of the newly created Pakistani state borders after the partition. Many more Muslim people “were left behind in India than were incorporated into the new state of Pakistan - a state created in two halves, one in the east (formerly East Bengal, now Bangladesh) and the other 1,700 kilometres away on the western side of the subcontinent” [5]. The exact numbers of casualties caused by the mass violence that erupted in the aftermath of the partitions are debatable, but “Estimates range from around 200,000 to one-and-a-half million” with “at least 13 million refugees, out of which 10 million from Punjab alone, comprising four and half million non-Muslims and five and half million Muslims” [6]. The history books also show a great amount of rape and violence against woman during this time period: “Approximately 75,000 women have been raped and/or abducted across the two sides of the new border, placing them as the first victims of the Partition Massacres” [7].

While the history of Pakistan is one of the bloodiest examples, the emergence of violence in the political vacuum left by British colonial withdrawal was not a single phenomenon during the 20th century as Imperialism shifted from colonialism to globalization.

[1] Abdullah Adnan, “Pakistan: Creation and Genesis,” Muslim World 96, no. 2 (2006): 201.

[2] Crispen Bates, “”The Hidden Story of Partition and its Legacies”, BBC, March 3, 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/partition1947_01.shtml

[3] Abdullah Adnan, “Pakistan: Creation and Genesis,” Muslim World 96, no. 2 (2006): 204.

[4] Crispen Bates, “”The Hidden Story of Partition and its Legacies”, BBC, March 3, 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/partition1947_01.shtml

[5] Crispen Bates, “”The Hidden Story of Partition and its Legacies”, BBC, March 3, 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/partition1947_01.shtml

[6] Lionel Baixas, Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence, Chronological Index: Thematic Chronology of Mass Violence in Pakistan, 1947-200, Accessed on June 4, 2013 from http://www.massviolence.org/Thematic-Chronology-of-Mass-Violence-in-Pakistan-1947-2007

[7] Lionel Baixas, Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence, Chronological Index: Thematic Chronology of Mass Violence in Pakistan, 1947-200, Accessed on June 4, 2013 from http://www.massviolence.org/Thematic-Chronology-of-Mass-Violence-in-Pakistan-1947-2007

Propaganda and Patriotism: "Imperialism is Freedom!"

How are the views within nation-state populations shaped, especially consisting of an uneducated mass of working class people or a mass of people unfamiliar with history and current events around the globe? The history of propaganda in the form of inorganic popular culture has influenced the way domestic citizens (the masses) view imperialism. Many Americans make a solid comparison between the propaganda of the British Empire and the United States today. The main difference between the two forms of imperialism and how it has been consumed and digested by the people are distinguished by two technological stages of the two empires. During the zenith of the British Empire, the majority of propaganda was ingested through newspapers, theater, and literature (granted that beginning in the 20th century radio and screen began to appear). Of course, in the modern United States today, inorganic popular culture (to include inorganic patriotism and politically biased news reports) can be mass produced by the elite owners of capital and broadcast over thousands of cable television channels, radio stations, and the internet. A conscious person must be able to identify who is mass producing propaganda and what interests lay behind their mass production of propaganda. One must be able to research the corporation owners and alliances that are mass producing their popular culture (propaganda), mass producing their patriotism, and basically shaping their fears and hatreds. During the age of colonialism, and especially in today’s capitalist globalization structure, it would be hard to argue the point that the elite groups, who possess the most capital, produce the inorganic popular culture.

The examples are quite numerous, but I will post two examples, and follow it with a question.

Early Propaganda Networking: Zionism in the Ottoman Empire

During the early infiltration of Zionism into Palestine under the Ottoman Empire and the beginning waves of Zionist land purchases, which used inflowing capital not only to buy mass land but to import agricultural technology, we can note an early attempt to regulate the press by wealthy Zionists: “The formation of a press network aimed on one hand at the Ottoman intelligentsia and at middle officials, and on the other at different social strata of the Jewish community, was one of the first objectives of local Zionist activity. By the purchase of already existing periodicals or by the creation of new newspapers, an important press complex was organized. It was a question not only of making Zionist positions known, but also to neutralize those who were apt to thwart Zionism – Moslems as well as Jews.” [1]

World War II:

The Emergence of the 4th Arm

As technology advanced, so did the dissemination of visual and audio propaganda. What seemed to work well for Britain in World War I, was increased with new broadcasting technologies in World War II: “During the Second World War propaganda constituted an essential instrument of 'political' or 'psychological' warfare – the first term preferred in British usage, the second in American. Having tested it in the Great War with considerable success, the British government proclaimed this form of waging war in 1939-45 to be its 'fourth' or 'fifth fighting arm” [2]

Anyone can jump on Google today and type in ‘Hitler’ and select images in order to see some of the historical Western propaganda during World War II. You can also find propaganda, conscious and subconscious, concerning slavery and racial segregation in the United States during this time period.

I'm Glad the United States Doesn't Use Propaganda:

The previous two examples, and there are many others that can also be made since the inception of imperialism and increase of technology capable of mass-creating and mass-disseminating propaganda, bring is to the point of considering today’s United States. How do media outlets such as Fox News and CNN produce domestic propaganda that consciously or subconsciously promote patriotism, xenophobia, and the support of imperialism? Who owns these corporations and what are their economic, political, social, ethnic or religious affiliations? How do words such as ‘terrorist’ or ‘radical’, words that are constantly repeated used during heavily rotated reports, impact viewer consciousness? Are these news corporations selective about the news reports they cover? The pro-Israeli position of American media is certainly worth consideration. When a stray rocket is fired into Israel, the story gets hourly rotational coverage on the American news networks while illegal settlement activity on the part of Israel, house demolitions, or Palestinian civilian death counts are barely mentioned on these networks.

[1] Benbassa, Esther. “Zionism in the Ottoman Empire at the End of the 19th and the Beginning of the 20th Century” Studies in Zionism 11, no. 2 (1990): 134 http://www.estherbenbassa.net/SCANS/ZIONISM.PDF

[2] Stefanidis, Ioannes D. “The Fourth Arm” History Today 62, no. 9 (2012): 28-34

Liberal Policies of the Ottoman Empire Concerning Immigration and Foreign Land Purchaching

The greatest weakness of the Ottoman Empire, a weakness that greatly deteriorated the overall structural integrity of the empire, can be found in the liberal policies surrounding immigration and foreign infiltration. In the West, Islamic states are often portrayed as hardline dictatorships or caliphates by Zionist media sources which succeed in subconsciously influencing uneducated minds with the impression that all Islamic states and empires have operated throughout history in this manner. The Ottoman Empire was quite the opposite and actually contributed, through liberal foreign and immigration policies, to self-imposed interior sovereign fragmenting. Let’s look at some of these policies.

The first policy which began to open the door for foreign infiltration was the mistake of granting “European states privileges that permitted their agents to trade within Ottoman lands under the protection of legal immunity” [1]. Keep in mind that during the 17th and 18th century that the European states, especially the British empire, were making great advancements in technology, especially military technology, and economic leaps through colonial imperialism. The early stages of Capitalism were also a growing, and expanding, element on the international stage during this period. Treaties such as the Treaty of Karlowitz in 1699 and the Treaty of Kuchuk Kanarji in 1774, treaties aimed at commercial interests, allowed a flow of European Christian and Jewish immigrants, protected by foreign European states, into the Ottoman Empire which increased the amount of “dhimmis” communities afforded citizen rights through payment of taxation.

Another contributing entity that weakened the structure of Ottoman consolidated sovereignty came in the form of Muhammad Ali Pasha, viceroy of Egypt during the first half of the 19th century, and his son, Ibrahim Pasha, who governed Syrian territories and Palestine. These leaders, especially Ibrahim, “encouraged European trade and the influx of Christian missionaries” and “granted Christians and Jews effective political and religious equality with Muslims” [2]. In addition, Ottoman land reforms during this period, and during the reign of Ibrahim’s son Ismail, eased restrictions on foreign land purchases and absentee landowners. These liberal trade policies and land reforms were the beginning of Zionist infiltration and mass land purchasing within Palestine.

The land grab in Palestine, made possible by foreign capital and a combination of liberal Ottoman policies listed above, was eventually identified as a serious issue and the overall Ottoman policy was amended to reflect that “Jewish immigrants will be able to settle as scattered groups throughout the Ottoman Empire, excluding Palestine”[3]. This policy was often circumvented as Jewish immigrants, supported by international capital which could buy the corruption of local authorities and administrators, “entered the area as tourists or pilgrims; once there, they acquired the protection of foreign consuls as the European powers were eager to protect their own rights under capitulations laws”[4].

1. Smith, Charles D. Palestine and the Arab-Israel Conflict, 7th ed. (Boston-New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2010), 13.

2. Smith, Charles D. Palestine and the Arab-Israel Conflict, 7th ed. (Boston-New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2010), 17.

3. Smith, Charles D. Palestine and the Arab-Israel Conflict, 7th ed. (Boston-New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2010), 36.

4. Smith, Charles D. Palestine and the Arab-Israel Conflict, 7th ed. (Boston-New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2010), 36.