Home » International Law » Is Israel a Colonial State? The Political Psychology of Palestinian Nomenclature

by Irwin J. MansdorfPublished March 2010

The Jerusalem Viewpoints series is published by the Institute for Contemporary Affairs, founded jointly with theWechsler Family Foundation.

No. 576 March-April 2010

Is Israel a Colonial State?

The Political Psychology of Palestinian Nomenclature

Irwin J. Mansdorf

Israel's creation, far from being a foreign colonial transplant, can actually be seen as the vanguard of andimpetus for decolonialization of the entire Middle East, including a significant part of the Arab world,following the fall of the Ottoman Empire.What is not popularly recognized is how the Arab world benefited from the Balfour Declaration and how itserved the Arab world in their nationalist goals and helped advance their own independence from thecolonial powers of England and France.Despite the essentially parallel processes of independence from colonial and protectorate influence overthe first half of the twentieth century, only one of the national movements at the time and only one of theresulting states, namely Israel, is accused of being "colonial," with the term "settler-colonialist" applied tothe Zionist enterpriseThis term, however, can assume validity only if it is assumed that the "settlers" have no indigenous rootsand rights in the area. As such, this is yet another example of psychological manipulation for politicalpurposes. The notion of "settler" dismisses any historical or biblical connection of Jews to the area.Hence, the importance of denial of Jewish rights, history, and claims to the area.Lest there be any confusion about what a "settler" is, those who use the terminology "settler-colonialist"against Israel clearly mean the entire Zionist enterprise, including the original territory of the State of Israelin 1948. The "colonial Israel" charge is thus rooted in an ideological denial of any Jewish connection to theancient Land of Israel.

Psychological factors often play a role in the development of political views. In the Israel-Arab conflict, one ofthe ways in which psychological factors operate is in the formation of "mantras" that do not necessarily reflecteither the historical record or applicable international law.1 Examples include the use of descriptions ofoccupation as "illegal"2 and the determination that there is a "right" of resistance3 or a "right" of return.4 Whenused over and over again, these descriptions, despite their questionable legitimacy, can alter perceptions. Onceperceptions change, attitudes and behavior change as well, leading to partial and ultimately biased views ofhistorical and political reality.

Language thus becomes an important psychological tool both in correctly describing events and in perpetuatingbeliefs based on narratives that do not accurately reflect history. Columbia University Professor Joseph Massadis among those that have portrayed Israel as a colonial entity based on an illegitimate and racist movement,namely Zionism.5 In the eyes of many, it is a foreign element implanted into the Middle East where organizationssuch as the United Nations6 and political activists such as Chomsky7 describe Arabs as "indigenous" and Jewsas "immigrants." The charge of colonialism has become a major theme in criticizing Israel throughout theacademic world and is part of the language of the discourse.8 The language of "colonialism" and its related terms(e.g., ethnic cleansing) have been incorporated into academic coursework even in Israel.9 An examination of the

actual history and events related to the Middle East, in general, and Palestine, in particular, however, fails to

actual history and events related to the Middle East, in general, and Palestine, in particular, however, fails toconfirm the reality behind the "colonial Israel" moniker. Israel's creation, far from being a foreign colonialtransplant, can actually be seen as the vanguard of and impetus for decolonialization of the entire area, includinga significant part of the Arab world, following the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

The Beginning of the End of Colonialism in the Middle East: The Balfour Declaration

The Balfour Declaration is historically viewed as the document that first recognized the rights of Jews to anational home and independence in Palestine. Accordingly, it is perceived in the Arab world as a document thatbegan what was seen as an illegitimate process of dispossessing Arabs from their lands. What is not popularlyrecognized, however, is how the Arab world benefited from the Balfour Declaration and how it helped advancetheir own independence from the colonial powers of England and France. Nowhere is this made clearer than inthe Peel Commission Report of 1937, which stated:

The fact that the Balfour Declaration was issued in order to enlist Jewish support for the Allies and the fact thatthis support was forthcoming are not sufficiently appreciated in Palestine. The Arabs do not appear to realize inthe first place that the present position of the Arab world as a whole is mainly due to the great sacrifices madeby the Allied and Associated Powers in the War and, secondly, that, insofar as the Balfour Declaration helped tobring about the Allies' victory, it helped to bring about the emancipation of all the Arab countries from Turkishrule. If the Turks and their German allies had won the War, it is improbable that all the Arab countries, exceptPalestine, would now have become or be about to become independent states.10

The Balfour Declaration, thus, not only served as the stimulus for Jewish independence, but, curiously enough,served the Arab world in their nationalist goals as well. This was largely seen outside of Palestine, but insofar asPalestine is concerned, there was initially an absence of nationalism with a distinct "Palestinian" identity. ThePeel Report notes, "The Arabs had always regarded Palestine as included in Syria."11 The plan, under anagreement between Emir Feisal and Chaim Weizmann (the Feisal-Weizmann agreement), was that the Arabswould recognize Jewish rights and independence over Western Palestine as called for in the Balfour Declaration,while Feisal's family would retain control of Syria and the area known as Trans-Jordan. The failure of thisagreement, and the resultant conflict that ensued, was a result of the French refusal to relinquish their colonialcontrol and recognize the rights of Emir Feisal in Syria.12

Arab Denial of Jewish Rights and History in Palestine

The breakdown of the Feisal-Weizmann agreement and the reversal on Arab acceptance of the BalfourDeclaration launched a period of Arab nationalism accompanied by violence between Jews and Arabs. Today,despite the documented history of the Jewish people in the area that was known as Palestine and Feisal'sacceptance of the Jewish presence there, the Arab world continues to deny this history, both in official policyand in popular media. The U.S. State Department International Religious Freedom Report of 2009 notes thatPalestinian Authority textbooks "often ignored historical Jewish connections to Israel and Jerusalem."13

This thinking is reflected in the charters of both leading Palestinian movements. The Palestinian National Charterof 1968 declared the Balfour Declaration null and void and said: "Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews withPalestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood."14 Theissue of recognizing Jewish as opposed to Israeli rights remains a sticking point between Israel and thePalestinian Authority.15 The Hamas Covenant makes several statements expressing Islamic hegemony over thearea known as Palestine, along with several references to the Jews usurping Palestine and challenging Islam.16

Academic circles in Palestinian Arab society also subscribe to these notions. Al-Quds University posts a"History of Jerusalem"17 that repeatedly implies that the Jewish "narrative" is a "myth"; that King David, whosevery existence is questioned, was probably part of an "idealized" community of "Israelites" that had noconnection to Jerusalem; that those "Israelites" never experienced an exodus from Egypt (Al-Quds claims this"story" was "appropriated" from a Canaanite legend); that Joshua's conquest never took place; that Solomon'sTemple was actually a center of pagan worship; and that the Western Wall was probably just part of a Romanfortress. In the Al-Quds rendition of the "conquests" of Palestine, Jews are not even mentioned, although ancientEgyptians, Hittites, Philistines, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Romans, Muslim Arabs, Mamlukes,Ottomans and British are. Jews are nowhere to be found in the history of the land and have nothing to do with itspast.

In popular Palestinian media, the notion of lack of historical connection between the Jews and Palestine has alsobeen promoted, such as with television broadcasts denying any Jewish connection to the Western Wall.18 This

been promoted, such as with television broadcasts denying any Jewish connection to the Western Wall.18 Thisbelief is so pervasive that even Israeli-funded institutions have been exposed to it. In Jerusalem, the Tower ofDavid Museum's head Arabic-speaking guide was dismissed19 after implying that there were no Jewish roots inJerusalem, stating, in a Palestinian television interview, that the museum's documentary film was "full ofhistorical lies and historical deceptions."20

The Connection between the Charge of Colonial Israel and Denial of Rights

The concerted effort in Arab circles to deny Jewish roots in Palestine/Israel is critical to claims of Jewishcolonialism in Palestine. Palestinian spokespersons claim that since Jews are members of a religion and not anation, any nationalistic aspirations based on a specific territory are invalid.21 The notion of Jews as a foreignentity in Palestine was advanced and popularized through the work of the late Edward Said in his seminal work,Orientalism,22 which continues to be seen as a foundation for post-colonial thinking in academia today.

The historical reality is quite different from what the Arab narrative, which has been adopted by many inacademic and intellectual circles, presents.

The Colonial Background of the Entire Middle East

As a result of their colonial conquests, much of the Middle East area was under the control of the Ottoman Turksfrom 1516 through 1917. British colonial history includes their gaining control of the Gulf area between 1861 and1899, turning the area into what one source called "a British lake."23 British officials would decide which of theprominent tribal families in the Gulf region would eventually become the rulers of the states that would eventuallyemerge. French colonialists took over Algeria in 1830, conquered Tunisia in 1881, and took control of Morocco in1912.

Neither Jews nor Arabs enjoyed any modern independence in the area, which, by the end of World War I, hadbeen under colonial control for many years. As a result of the mandate system that developed after the war andthe secret Sykes-Picot agreement in 1916, British and French colonial interests were drawn and defined.

Decolonialization Following the Ottoman Defeat

Starting around the period of World War I, the entire Middle East underwent a process of decolonialization withthe emergence of national movements. Jewish nationalism was consistent with the Balfour Declaration, which,after being incorporated into the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, uniquely called for settlement of Jewsin Palestine as part of the Jewish National Home, without reference to their place of origin. Just as the Britishsupported the Jewish national claims to Palestine, a number of source documents show that they alsoencouraged Arab nationalism as a tool in their own conflict against the Ottomans.24

The mechanism for the transformation from colonial independence for the majority of new states was themandate system. Both the British and French mandates eventually yielded sovereignty to the populations of theMiddle East as multiple independent states came into being. With Israel, the Jewish state was reconstituted,while the various tribal Arab populations that stemmed from the invasion of the seventh century25 now begancarving out areas of influence and sovereignty. The Jews, far from being colonialists, were the beneficiaries of anational movement that aimed to renew Jewish sovereignty, but also which, along with Arab nationalmovements, ended colonial control by forces that had no historical or indigenous roots in the region.

Indeed, it is an error to assume that Britain, as the mandatory power, gave the Jewish people their rights to claimPalestine. The 1922 Palestine Mandate specifically refers to the "historical connection of the Jewish people withPalestine." Rather than creating a new right, the Mandate recognized a pre-existing right that clearly pre-datedthe colonial powers.

The Mandate also calls for the Jewish people to begin "reconstituting of their national home," essentially statingthat they were going to rebuild a national home that had been there before. Many of the Arab states, in contrast,were modern fabrications of the British and the French.

The Process of Independence

A look at a map of the Middle East will show that national movements eventually became national entities, withtribal factors largely accounting for the division of the area into independent countries. North Yemen became

tribal factors largely accounting for the division of the area into independent countries. North Yemen becameindependent from the Ottoman Empire in 1918. The Hashemite monarchy in Iraq was granted independence in1932 from England. Saudi Arabia (originally Hejaz and Nejd), although never colonized after World War I, becamean independent kingdom in 1932 as well. Egypt, occupied by England since 1882, gained full independence in1952. Lebanon and Syria became independent from the French Mandate in 1943 and 1946, respectively. AnotherHashemite family in Jordan was granted independence in 1946 in territory originally a part of the PalestineMandate. Independence also was eventually achieved by the British protectorates of Oman (1951), Kuwait(1961), South Yemen (1967), the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Qatar (1971).

In addition to the formation of the various Arab states noted above, Jewish national self-determination wasobtained in Palestine with the independence of Israel in 1948. While the dispute with the Arab residents ofPalestine continues, the colonial entity, namely Britain, relinquished control in 1948. Prior to Israel's legaloccupation of the West Bank and Gaza following the hostilities of 1967, Jordan illegally occupied the West Bank,while Gaza was administered by Egypt.

The fact of the matter was that in 1948, during its war of independence, Israel acted as an anti-colonial force.The troops of the Arab Legion of Transjordan fought under a British commander, and had British as well as Arabofficers.26 The British, clearly a colonial power, had treaty obligations to both Egypt and Jordan. At one pointHector McNeil, British Minister of State, threatened to "defend Aqaba if necessary."27 British units werestationed in Egypt near the Suez Canal, the British were suspected of supplying sensitive intelligenceinformation to Egypt, and the Israeli Air Force even clashed with a RAF squadron based in Egypt, downing fiveplanes in 1949.28 While Israeli weapons came mostly by way of Czechoslovakia, the Arab states were equippedwith weapons from the old colonial powers, Britain and France.29

Indeed, at the United Nations in 1949, when Britain and Italy submitted a draft resolution to put Libya under UNtrusteeship, and deny it independence, Israel refused to go along with the colonial powers. By Israel abstaining,the British-Italian resolution did not get the required two-thirds support and was defeated.30 In short, bothmilitarily and diplomatically, Israel served as an anti-colonial force during its early years.

Language and Perception: "Settler-Colonialism"

Despite the essentially parallel processes of independence from colonial and protectorate influence over the firsthalf of the twentieth century, only one of the national movements at the time and only one of the resulting states,namely Israel, is accused of being "colonial." The accusation of colonialism against Israel is not withoutdifficulty. Since the traditional definition of colonialists exploiting the native population and resources does notbroadly apply to Jews and Zionism, how then, to continue the narrative of Israeli colonialism? The answer wasthe application of another type of colonialism, that of the "settler-colonialist," to the Zionist enterprise.31

This term, however, can assume validity only if it is assumed that the "settlers" have no indigenous roots andrights in the area. As such, this is yet another use of language to shape perceptions and another example ofpsychological manipulation for political purposes. Unlike any other "settler-colonial" state in history, Israel standsalone in that there is no identifiable foreign power that can be identified as the colonial entity. It goes withoutsaying that the notion of "settler" also dismisses any historical or biblical connection of Jews to the area. Hence,the importance of denial of Jewish rights, history, and claims to the area.

The notion of Israeli colonialism, however, is so established in certain academic and political circles that itscolonial identity is never questioned, and "settlers" are automatically considered agents of a colonial effort.32

Lest there be any confusion about what a "settler" is, despite the impression of some that the term applies onlyto those Israelis who have established communities in disputed territory after 1967, those who use theterminology "settler-colonialist" against Israel clearly mean the entire Zionist enterprise, including the originalterritory of the State of Israel in 1948.33 In fact, many contemporary Palestinian activists blithely and routinelyassume, in their writing, that all Israelis are colonialists and all of "historic" Palestine has been occupied (e.g.,Qumsiyeh,34 Abunimah35).

Reestablishing Accuracy: Cognitive Dissonance and Confirmation Bias

The "colonial Israel" charge is thus rooted in an ideological and cognitive denial of any Jewish connection toPalestine and the ancient Land of Israel. This can be either through a belief that the connection is weak because

of the passage of time,36 or, as has been the case in Arab circles and in some revisionist Israeli ones,37 by

of the passage of time,36 or, as has been the case in Arab circles and in some revisionist Israeli ones,37 byflatly denying Jewish roots in the area.

Cognitive dissonance is the phenomenon whereby established beliefs are challenged by new, conflictinginformation that arouses a challenge to those core beliefs. Confirmation bias, on the other hand, is the termapplied to seeking evidence that validates prior attitudes and beliefs. When confronted with dissonance, somemay alter their beliefs to conform to the new information, but many, especially those that are ideologicallyinvested with and committed to a particular view, continue in their established attitudes by adding justifications orinterpretations that support or "confirm" the original cognition.

Just as committed Zionists would not accept a colonial narrative, presenting facts and arguments in response toaccusations against Israel would not change attitudes for anti-Zionists, even when their core beliefs or attitudesfeeding that position are challenged. In practice, ideologues seem to respond to challenges through "confirmationbias," seeking information consistent with their ideology that supports their core beliefs when dissonance isaroused.38 Attempting to change attitudes, thus, would appear to have a chance for success only when theseattempts target those who are not predispositioned or biased towards particular political ideologies and when theinformation is accurate, not tendentious, and based on solid data.

The mechanism of dissonance reduction that is most central to the "settler-colonialist" argument is the notionthat Jews do not constitute a national entity and thus cannot possibly have legitimate rights to what was knownas Palestine. For those who are familiar with Jewish history and traditions, such as the specifics of the Jewishlegal system applicable only in Israel or the role of the "Land of Israel" in Jewish liturgy, the speciousness ofthese notions is self-evident. For many others, however, this is either not recognized or not relevant.39

Challenging these beliefs involves two overlapping mechanisms: First, a firm recognition of the reality of Jewishroots and historical sovereignty in the area, and second, an acknowledgment that the modern reconstitution ofJewish nationalism was achieved through a legitimate process consistent with international law and the right toself-determination. Both tenets are taboo and are not even subject to discussion for many anti-Zionistideologues.

Ideology, when unyielding and unbending, will be resistant to any cognitive dissonance.40 That is why, despitethe historical record, the core notion of Israel as a "settler-colonialist" nation will continue to resonate in circleswhere nationalism is frowned upon, where religious history is irrelevant, where post-modern ideologies areentrenched and philosophically embraced, and where the notion of Jews as a people is not recognized.

* * *

Notes

1. I.J. Mansdorf, "The Political Psychology of Postcolonial Ideology in the Arab World: An Analysis of‘Occupation' and the ‘Right of Return'," Israel Studies, vol. 13, no. 4 (October 2007):899-915.

2. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/21/opinion/annan-s-careless-language.html?scp=5&sq=George%20P%20Fletcher&st=cse

3. http://www.nysun.com/editorials/right-of-resistance/10510/

4. R. Lapidoth, "Legal Aspects of the Palestinian Refugee Question, Jerusalem Letter/Viewpoints, no. 485,September 1, 2002.

5. http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6679.shtml

6. Minority Rights Group International, World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples - Israel: Overview,2007, http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4954ce50c.html

7. http://www.chomsky.info/books/dissent01.htm

8. R. Aharonson, "Settlement in Eretz Israel - A Colonialist Enterprise? ‘Critical' Scholarship and HistoricalGeography," Israel Studies, 1(2) (Fall 1996):214-229.

9. http://hsf.bgu.ac.il/mapmes/uploadDocs/Syllabus-_Yftachel_-_Cohen_2008-9.doc

10. http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/Cmd5479.pdf (ch. II, para. 19, p. 24).

11. Op. cit., para. 23, p. 2.5

11. Op. cit., para. 23, p. 2.5

12. Op. cit., para. 25-28, pp. 26-28.

13. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2009/127349.htm

14. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/plocov.asp

15. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1099520.html

16. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

17. http://www.alquds.edu/gen_info/index.php?page=jerusalem_history

18. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wVJviDcVBc

19. P. Cidor, "Obliterated in Translation," Jerusalem Post, January 7, 2010.

20. PA TV (Fatah), November 13, 2009.

21. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2007-11-16/news/0711160197_1_islamic-erekat-jewish-state

22. Edward Said, Orientalism (New York: Vintage Books, 1979).

23. Y. Tareq, J.S. Ismael, and K.A.J. Ismael, Politics and Government in the Middle East and North Africa(University Press of Florida, 1991), p. 453.

24. "British Imperial Connexions to the Arab National Movement," in G.P. Gooch and Harold Temperley, eds.,The Last Years of Peace - British Documents on the Origins of the War, 1898-1914, Vol. X, Part II (1938), pp.824-838.

25. W.I. Saadeh, "The Three Phases of Arab History, Excerpt from ‘History of Arab Thought'," Arab-AmericanAffairs, vol. 32, no. 211 (June-July 2004), http://www.arab-american-affairs.net/archives/arab-history.htm

26. T.N. Dupuy, Elusive Victory: The Arab-Israeli Wars, 1947-1974 (New York: Harper Collins, 1978), p. 121.

27. N. Aridan, Britain, Israel and Anglo-Jewry 1949-1957 (London: Taylor and Francis, 2004), p. 8.

28. Z. Tzahor, "The 1949 Air Clash between the Israeli Air Force and the RAF," Journal of Contemporary History,28 (1)(1993):75-101.

29. Zach Levey, "Arms and Armaments in the Middle East," Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and NorthAfrica, 2004, http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3424600327.html.

30. Gideon Rafael, Destination Peace: Three Decades of Israeli Foreign Policy (New York: Stein and Day, 1981),pp. 21-22.

31. M. Rodinson, Israel: A Colonial-Settler State? (Pathfinder Press, 1973).http://www.alternativenews.org/michael-warschawski/2187-israel-colonial-states-and-racism-.html

32. http://www.borderlands.net.au/vol6no2_2007/veracini_settler.htm

33. Op. cit., 20, 21.

34. http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/projo_20050821_21gaza.31eacd0.html

35. http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article7012.shtml

36. http://www.jewishpress.com/pageroute.do/41215

37. S. Sand, The Invention of the Jewish People (Verso, 2009).

38. C.S. Taber and M. Lodge, "Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs," American Journal ofPolitical Science, 50(3) (2006):755-769.

39. F.M. Perko, "Contemporary American Christian Attitudes to Israel Based on the Scriptures," Israel Studies,vol. 8, no. 2, (Summer 2003):1-17, http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/israel_studies/v008/8.2perko.html

40. B. Nyhan and J. Reifler, "When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions, in Political

40. B. Nyhan and J. Reifler, "When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions, in PoliticalBehavior, in press. J. Bullock, "The Enduring Importance of False Political Beliefs," paper presented at theannual meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Albuquerque, New Mexico, March 17, 2006.

* * *

Irwin J. (Yitzchak) Mansdorf, PhD, is an Israeli psychologist who has published widely on the subject of politicalpsychology as it relates to the Israel-Arab conflict. He also directs the SWU leadership program in Israel-Arabstudies at Midreshet Lindenbaum in Jerusalem.

| Privacy Policy | Site Map | Home |JCPA, Beit Milken, 13 Tel Hai St., Jerusalem 92107, Israel, Tel: 972-2-5619281 Fax: 972-2-5619112, jcpa@netvision.net.il

Copyright © 2011 JCPA. All Rights Reserved. Created by Catom web design