thezeppo
Posts: 441
Joined: 11/15/2012 Status: offline
|
Yes absolutely, Cham Weizmann was very much involved in the decision to broadcast the Balfour Declaration. I can't lay my hands on it to quote it directly, but I read a paper recently that claimed he was basically the reason that it was broadcast. Levene was the author, it was in the English Historical Review so I'm not sure whether people would be able to see it. He used empirical examples to show that the British genuinely believed that every Jew was united, pro-Zionist, and pro-German. Weizmann overstated the appeal of Zionism amongst world Jewry (at that time) and the British, desperate to end the war, believed him. Link here, but I don't think anyone will be able to access it; http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/content/CVII/CCCCXXII/54.citation Revisionism is a particularly useless accusation when it comes to history. There is a need in this area for some revising. Writers such Rashid Khalidi and Haim Gerber are changing perceptions all of the time as more and more contemporary Arabic source material becomes available. I think you will be familiar with Said and Orientalism, or maybe Beshari Doumani? I would recommend Salim Tamari's mountain against the sea to anyone. There has been a concerted effort to rewrite the Palestinians back into history, as they have been marginalised since the 19th Century ("A land without a people....") The whole point of history is that it isn't a line of truth running through to the present. There are the facts, and then there are interpretations of the facts. Interpretations change with time, with culture, and that isn't revisionism. Or if it is, then history is one great big pile of revisionism anyway. I am claiming the same as you anyway - in the 19th century the British acted in the interests of the Empire. I am not a Zionist, although I can appreciate why I may have come across as one. I genuinely think both sides of the debate have at least a reasonably legitimate claim to the territory itself. The point I have been making all along is that by 1948 the two sides are completely defined by their opposition to one another, there is no hope of finding any common ground if one locates the debate there or afterwords. However, there is common ground if one views World War 1 and the Mandate period as Britain screwing both sides into the ground to further her own interest. Maybe it is too late to change anything now, but at least it would be a positive step in a debate which hasn't budged an inch in years. To me, Britain is portrayed in an inconsistent way during the mandate period. Herbert Samuel was good enough at his job to become High Commissioner of Palestine yet is still viewed as weak. Britain formed an alliance with Zionists as well as betraying the Balfour agreement. Britain usually supported Zionism except for when it didn't, and that was due to antisemitic officers. Does it not sound more logical to say Britain said one thing sometimes, and another thing at different times, with the intention of maintaining her own interests?
|