Not all good historians are necessarily good writers. In the blurb
of this book, we read that Tom Segev's work is "considered the
cornerstone of Israel's so-called 'new historiography'". The
advantage of Segev's book One Palestine, Complete is not only that
it sheds new light on the history of the British Mandate in
Palestine but that it is an example of how good history can also
make good reading. Though it is not without its faults, this book
is recommended for anyone who appreciates an original and
thought-provoking treatment of an important subject by a talented
writer.
The Mandate was ratified by the League of Nations in April 25, 1920
and ended with the lowering of the Union Jack in Jerusalem on May
14, 1948. Segev's account of nearly thirty years of turbulent
relations between British, Arabs and Jews, culminating in the
establishment of the state of Israel, ends there. But as he so
often does, he adds what can be called "the human element",
quoting, as he puts it, "a somewhat absurd postscript" from the
diary of British mandatory official Captain James Pollock, who
writes: "A very sad day...the Jews have proclaimed their
independent state."
Tabor in Jerusalem
In his distinctive style as a historian, Tom Segev writes no less
about people, be they British, Arab or Jewish from all walks of
life, than about the large local, regional and international themes
which dominated the period. In this he is well served by a number
of contemporary diaries, like Pollock's. So who was Pollock? He
arrived in Palestine in the winter of 1917, shortly after General
Allenby captured Jerusalem. The Captain was wont to have his photo
taken, like Lawrence of Arabia, wearing an Arab headdress. Segev
enjoys describing the idiosyncracies of the British colonial
service where Pollock served as assistant military governor of
Ramallah, living in Jerusalem in a large stone house in the Street
of the Prophets.
The house "was named Tabor, after the mountain in the Galilee.
James Pollock and his wife, Margaret, had the name printed on their
stationery, as if the house was their family estate." The Pollock
home had a cook, a valet, a housemaid and a nurse for their child,
prompting the Captain to write home to his mother that "it was very
similar to any English home", what with the dinner parties for
other members of the small British community and their going out
horse riding in the afternoon. Tom Segev thinks that "the British
colonial service did well by them: They often lived far better in
Jerusalem than they ever could have lived at home." Some may
dismiss this as inessential gossip, others will take note of it as
relevant social history: As this reviewer sees it, the reader of
Segev-style history only stands to gain from the frequent addition
of the human dimension to the chronological discourse.
Pollock aside, the serious question arising from a study of the
Mandate is; to whom was the mandatory administration more
favorable, the Arabs or the Jews? Segev's answer is clear - the
Jews. It must be remembered that the preamble of the Mandate stated
that its purpose was to put into effect the Balfour Declaration of
November 2, 1917 which referred, among other things, to the
establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine while
safeguarding the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish
communities. The Mandate also spoke (vaguely and perhaps
deliberately so) of the development of self-governing institutions.
Tom Segev believes that after World War I, "the mandatory system
was designed to give colonialism a cleaner more modern look. The
Allied powers refrained from dividing up the conqueror's spoils as
in the past; rather, they invited themselves to serve as "trustees"
for backward peoples, with the ostensible purpose of preparing
themselves for independence." In reality this was "merely a
reworking of colonial rule."
Jews and "International Power"
Concerning Britain's reasons for issuing the Balfour Declaration,
which the Mandate was meant to implement, one should note Segev's
conviction that, in general, the Gentile world believed that "the
Jewish race" exercised something that Lloyd George referred to in
his memoirs as "world-wide influence and capability." Lord Robert
Cecil, British undersecretary at the Foreign Office in the last
years of World War I said: "I do not think it is easy to exaggerate
the international power of the Jews." As for Balfour himself, Segev
considers that "always in the background was his evaluation of
Jewish power" and he quotes Balfour's statement in Parliament in
1922 that "Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is of far
profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000
Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land." Chaim Weizmann, the
veteran Zionist leader who was to become Israel's first President
tended to encourage such thinking for his own purposes. (This had
some odd ramifications, for example, in the widespread anti-Semitic
accusation that "the Jews" were behind the Bolshevik
revolution).
Chaim Weizmann, with whom the Balfour Declaration is often
personally associated, and rightly so, was an outright Anglophile.
However, support for his pro-British stance by the Jews in
Palestine progressively decreased in the 1920s, 1930s and
1940s.
Norman Rose, in his "Chaim Weizmann - a Biography" (Weidenfeld and
Nicolson, London 1986), writes that, "one cynic noted that the
process of whittling down the Balfour Declaration (November 2)
began on November 3, 1917. Weizmann, in his darker moments would
have concurred." This is in the spirit of Zionist-oriented
historians who claim that, between the two World Wars, British
support for the Balfour Declaration was gradually eroded,
culminating in the 1939 White Paper that was seen as finally
surrendering to "Arab pressure."
Subsequently, the statement by General Barker, commander of the
British forces in Palestine following the blowing up in the summer
of 1946 of a wing of Jerusalem's prestigious King David Hotel by
Jewish terrorist groups Etzel and Lechi, was widely quoted. Barker
wrote to his troops that they should avoid mixing with the Jewish
population and "the Jews had to learn just how much the British
despised them and the best way to punish them was by striking at
their pockets, which the race particularly disliked." Segev goes on
to quote from a later letter by Barker to his lover in which he
spoke of the Jews as "damned race" and "loathsome people." This is
said to show the existence of an alliance between anti-Zionists and
anti-Semites.
The Mentality of the Rulers
Nevertheless, Tom Segev is at pains to point out that even when
facing the terrorism of the Jewish Etzel and Lechi groups, the
British "never acted against the Jews with the determination and
harshness that characterized their suppression of the (1936-39)
Arab rebellion." He attributes this to "a powerful (British) sense
of moral limitation on harsh behavior toward Jews" and refers to
the sympathy with which many British soldiers viewed Jewish
suffering at the hands of the Nazis. In his overall evaluation of
the Mandate period, Tom Segev appears to me to have little in
common with those historians who would have us believe that the
State of Israel arose in 1948 in spite of the Mandate.
Contrary to such perceptions, Segev thinks that in their colonial
heyday, the British did much for the country, and particularly for
the Jews, while getting little in return. Even if, as a colonial
power, their reasons for coming cannot have been only
philanthropic, Segev quotes one British official as saying that, in
the early days of British rule "Palestine for most of us was an
emotion rather than a reality." By 1947, Britain was no longer
Great and their waning strength forced them to leave India, which
was of course the jewel in the empire's crown, never mind
Palestine. Segev records, for example, that even at the last
moment, before finally leaving Palestine in the summer of 1948, the
British evacuation plan "left responsibility for Jewish population
centers in British hands almost to the last minute, thus impeding
Arab war plans." Segev thinks that their mentality as rulers, and
not sympathy with the Zionist movement, moved the British officials
to take into account that after they left, somebody had to continue
running the courts and the trains. The author closes this section
of his book with the remark that, "How the administration would
have acted had the Arabs also had a government-in-waiting remains
an open question."
Incomplete
This brings us to what is incomplete in One Palestine, Complete.
While the book is sub-titled "Jews and Arabs under the British
Mandate", unfortunately the Arab part of the story is a relatively
minor theme compared to the Jewish part. A 1922 British census
recorded a population of 661,000 Arabs and 64,000 Jews in Palestine
(more than 10 to one); Segev himself writes that "at the beginning
of the 1930s, Jews were about 17 percent of the population; by the
mid-1940s, they were 30 percent - almost half a million." In other
words, Palestine under the Mandate always had an Arab majority,
overwhelming in the 1920s and still considerable in the 1940s. This
is not reflected in the book, as one can see from a superficial
glance at the Index, where there are over 200 Jewish names compared
to less than 50 Arabs (with the number of British being somewhere
between the two).
It is often said, and truly so, that history is usually written by
the victors, but one feels that in his historical approach, this
can in no way apply to Tom Segev or to his book. Perhaps the
reasons for the glaring lack of symmetry have something to do with
the historical sources available to the writer. Whatever the
explanation, the fact remains that in this work the
Arab-Palestinian narrative is far weaker than the Jewish-Israeli
narrative and this must be regarded as a regrettable flaw in an
otherwise worthwhile book. Another prominent "new historian", Ilan
Pappe, quoted Lord Acton writing in the 1906 edition of the
Cambridge Modern History that, "our Waterloo must be one that
satisfies French and English." It seems that we in Israel/Palestine
aren't yet able to heed such good advice.