Isra Vakıf, a foundation that has offices in Istanbul, Malaysia and the U.K., has issued a call for papers concerning the creation of Israel as a "buffer state" for Western nations in the Middle East. The conference, the 17th International Academic Islamicjerusalem conference, will be held in Istanbul, and in three languages: Turkish, Arabic and English. There are a number of themes on which papers are requested and these can be addressed from a variety of perspectives. (sempozyum@isravakfi.org - www.iravakfi.org)

There is no question that such a conference will be a landmark event, bringing together intellectual thought and trends from across the world. The conference cannot be anything but a landmark event, given that the establishment of Israel was, is and will continue to be controversial.

Zionist effort to establish an Israeli state

The Zionists, a group who took their name from Mt. Zion, where Masjid al Aqsa - Beth ha-Mikdas - had been erected by Prophet Solomon, had been trying to establish a Jewish state in Palestine from the late 19th century on. The Ottoman government, perceiving this threat to the integrity of the state, declared that 80 percent of Palestine was state property, and thus could not be sold or traded. In 1883, Sultan Abdülhamid II further restricted the sale of Palestinian lands. This action must not be misunderstood; it was not caused by any anti-Semitic feelings on the part of the Ottomans. Indeed, at this time, the Jewish population in the Ottoman Empire was larger than that anywhere else in the world.

The Zionists saw that no help would come from the Ottomans, and turned to the British Empire for help. They were offered land in British territories like Uganda, Cyprus or Siberia. But the Zionists had their eye on Palestine, the "promised land."

In 1901, the Zionists made another offer to Sultan Abdülhamid II; they offered to pay the Ottoman debt and to help lobby for the Ottomans in Europe. The sultan answered: "I will not sell anything; not even an inch of this territory. This country does not belong to me but to all Ottomans. My people gained this land with their blood."

And yet a few years later, in 1917 Balfour, the British foreign secretary stated that Zionists could establish their state in this same land, this land that belonged to all Ottomans. A land that was already occupied. In the intervening years, the British had been whipping up Arab nationalism, trying to break up the Ottoman State part by part. They made promises to the Arab residents of these lands that they would attain self-determination.

Those who profit from a Jewish state in Palestine lands

It seems contradictory that on the one hand there was a promise of self-determination for the Arabs and the promise of a "home" for the Jews in one and the same land. There is a very good reason why the British wanted the Jews to have a homeland in Palestine. It was hoped that the Jewish community would help the British interests in the area; there were Jews in both Europe and in the United States whom Britain wanted to pull over to their side during World War I. Moreover, the settlement of a pro-British Jewish community would help create a buffer for the Suez Canal in Europe, thus keeping the routes open to colonial India, as well as helping to maintain British economic and political influence in the region. However, such calculations proved to be unfounded, as many in the Jewish community were opposed to the establishment of a Jewish State.

To the West, a Jewish state would help them in the Middle East. It would act in the name of Western powers. Lord Palmerston first brought the idea to the attention of the British government when he was foreign secretary in 1840. As quoted in the call to papers for the 17th International Academic Islamicjerusalem conference, the London Colonial Conference, held in 1907 stated that the establishment of "a strong but alien human bridge in the land that links Europe with the Old World which would constitute, near the Suez Canal, a hostile power to the people of the area and a friendly power to Europe and its interests."

The Zionists wanted Palestine to be granted to them as the Jewish national home. But the Balfour Declaration stated that "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." For the large number of Jews who had settled in Palestine the declaration was confirmation of their desire to return to Jerusalem and take over the land from the local inhabitants. Moreover, the declaration gave them a sense of protection, something that the Jewish population, which had been oppressed and harassed in Europe for centuries, strongly desired. Now there was a document that clearly stated that the Jews had rights.

Non-Zionist Jews were not pleased with the document however. Although it seemed to defend their rights, there was consternation. Would all Jews now be tainted with the Zionist brush, i.e. would they be perceived as overtly or secretly desiring to live elsewhere? What many Jews wanted was not the assurance of protection against prosecution in some far away land, but rather to be afforded the same rights and freedoms as any other European or American citizen.

The Arab reaction to the Balfour declaration

The declaration was echoed in the Palestine Mandate Articles (1922), and the infant League of Nations recognized the rights and freedoms of the Jewish settlers in the Palestinian land.

One major issue for the Arab inhabitants of Palestine was that although the declaration seems to imply that the Arab residents of the land would be protected, guaranteeing their civil and religious rights, there was no mention of their political or national rights. The failure to secure the political and national rights of the people who originally inhabited the area created great problems, not only in the past, but also today.

Not only was there a failure to protect political and national claims of the Arabs in Palestine; as mentioned above, the Balfour Declaration directly contradicted a number of other promises that had been made to the Arabs by the British. None of these promises were realized in the Palestinian region. Many Arab residents of the area felt betrayed by the British. But the British plans to separate the Middle East from the Ottoman State succeeded; by 1917 there was full British control over Palestine, and a 30-year British mandate had been established. The British troops were withdrawn immediately prior to the establishment of the State of Israel.

In reaction to this duplicitous behavior by the British the Arab residents of Palestine refused to officially acknowledge the British mandate, and to refuse to cooperate, at least officially, with the British.

The faith of the Palestine lands after WWII

By May 1939 the British government had decided to change its policy regarding the region, placing a limit of 75,000 further immigrants with an end to immigration altogether by 1944. However, the outbreak of World War II changed everything; by 1947 more than half the population of Palestine was now Jewish, with much of the land belonging to the newcomers.

The mention of a "national home" in the Balfour declaration was not the same as the establishment of a national state. There were no borders to this home; rather it just opened the door for Jews to come and try to settle this land which was already occupied. After the Declaration there was no en masse movement to Palestine by Jewish settlers. It was only after World War II that an influx of settlers started to flow into the land in serious numbers. And in 1948 the "national home" became the State of Israel. Throughout history lands have been conquered and "settled," be they America, South Africa or Australia. Centuries ago settlers would have little regard for the indigenous people, claiming a moral and cultural superiority. Much the same thing happened in Palestine; once again a nation state grabbed land that did not belong to it and invited a third party to go and settle that land, promising to recognize the invading people's rights over and above the original residents. The fact that such an action started 100 years ago, gaining momentum just over half a century ago is disheartening. Such a callous, inhuman action towards an indigenous people does not seem to be something that goes hand in hand with the efforts to make reparations for the cruelties inflicted by Hitler and the Axis during World War II.

The settlement of Palestine by the Jews is not a situation that can be easily resolved. As long as the local indigenous population is seen as unwelcome, as a threat, as a danger, there can be no peace in the land. Not all Jews in the 1900s were Zionists; not all Jews are Zionists today. There is a large proportion that does not support Israel or its existence. The Jews who were in Palestine at the turn of the 19th century were not unwelcome. But the establishment of a state that oppresses and marginalizes the indigenous Arabs has always been and will always be unwelcome. It can only be hoped that someone somewhere will listen to the wisdom that will emanate from 17th International Academic Islamic Jerusalem conference.