History Repeats, With Roles Reversed
Ben-Gurion's problem in '40s now haunts Palestinians.
By Tom Segev

June 20, 2003, the Los Angeles Times

JERUSALEM - In one of those extraordinary turnarounds of history,
the position of the Palestinians today mirrors the position the Jews were
in nearly 60 years ago, between the end of World War II and the
founding of the state of Israel.

In those years, there were two Jewish paramilitary organizations in
Palestine - the Haganah and the Palmach - affiliated with David
Ben-Gurion and the Jewish Agency, which represented the mainstream
of the Jewish community.

At the same time, there were two other, more militant organizations
- the IZL, commonly known as the Irgun, and LHI, which was also
known as the Stern Gang. Demanding free immigration for Jews and
national independence, the Irgun and the Sternists used tactics that
went far beyond those of the Haganah and the Palmach: They killed
British security personnel and government officials, but the explosives
they planted in urban centers also caused the deaths of numerous
civilians, both Arabs and Jews.

Just like Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas today, Ben-Gurion, who
was chairman of the Jewish Agency, was in a very tricky political
position because of the militants: In order to win the concessions he
wanted from the British authorities, Ben-Gurion could not openly
condone acts of terrorism. But in order to retain his influence as national
leader of the Jews, he could not afford to seem less patriotic than the
militants.

So, just as Arafat and Abbas have had to play a complex game with
Hamas and Islamic Jihad, Ben-Gurion too went back and forth
between supporting and then cracking down on the militant groups.

There were differences, of course. The Zionists mostly enjoyed the
support of the British in the 1940s, while the Palestinians get no such
support from Israel. And Hamas today targets civilians, while the
Irgun and Stern Gang at times sent prior warnings to avoid civilian
casualties.

Another important difference is that Ben-Gurion invested nearly 30
years developing national institutions and infrastructures before
declaring independence in 1948. Arafat, by contrast, declared
independence before he had prepared any infrastructure.

Yet in spite of these and other differences, the basic dynamics of
those days are strikingly similar to ours.

For a short while, Ben-Gurion authorized a united front of resistance
against the British, working with the Irgun and the Sternists. At other
times, he and the Jewish Agency tried to act against the militant groups.
At one point, the agency ordered Jewish parents to turn in members
of these groups, even their own children.

But most of the time Ben-Gurion was unable to control the militants.
And just as Israel has held Arafat and Abbas responsible for all
Palestinian terrorism, the British held Ben-Gurion responsible for
Jewish terrorism committed by the Irgun and Sternists and demanded
that he eliminate terrorism completely, which he could not do.

At one point, Ben-Gurion sent Golda Meyerson - later known as
Golda Meir - to convince the British high commissioner that more
permits for immigrants would increase the Jewish Agency's influence
and thereby weaken the militants. It's a very similar argument to the
one Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas is using in trying to extract
concessions from Israel.

Many Israelis take offense at the comparison between their country
and Britain. History, however, offers a number of clear lessons for
the present.

Drawing on their colonial experience elsewhere, the British
understood that there could be no military solution to the problem
of terrorism. The level of violence can be reduced, but it cannot be
wiped out. There will always be some uncontrollable group, or
perhaps only a single person, such as the 18-year-old member of
Hamas who blew himself up on a bus in downtown Jerusalem just a
few days ago, who will stand in the way of reason.

The question is whether such terrorists should be allowed to determine
the entire Middle East agenda. In the 1940s, the British concluded that
they should not. The British continued to cooperate with Ben-Gurion
and the Jewish Agency as if there was no terrorism from the Irgun and
the Stern Gang, and they fought Jewish terrorism as if there was no
cooperation.

The British presence in Palestine lasted 30 years; they left when they
finally concluded that the country was too costly to keep. More and
more Israelis are coming to a similar conclusion with regard to the
occupation of the Palestinian territories, which began 36 years ago,
in June 1967. But it is discouraging to note that even if the "road map"
ends the conflict by 2005, which is quite doubtful, Israel's occupation
of the Palestinian territories will have lasted much longer than the
British occupation did.

Tom Segev, a columnist for Haaretz in Israel, is the author of
"Elvis in Jerusalem, Post-Zionism and the Americanization of
Israel" (Owl Books, 2003).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
American Muslim Council
Tel: 202-543-0075 Fax: 202-543-0095
e-mail: [log in to unmask]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~