This twentieth century movement sought to unite the Arabs living in Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan and Palestine into a single political community (e.g. Antonius 1979[1946]; Farah 1987; Khalidi et al. 1991). The Palestinian response to the King-Crane Commission best exemplifies the extent to which the community in Palestine supported Arab Unity. This post-World War I American-led initiative, operating under the auspices of Wilson’s Fourteen Points Speech, sought to determine the will of the local inhabitants vis-à-vis their political future.
The Palestinian elite indeed opted for unity with Syria. This issue was discussed at the first Muslim-Christian Association (MCA) meeting (also known as the First Palestinian Congress) in January-February 1919 (discussed subsequently). The Congress produced the following resolution: “We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria as it has never been separated from it at any time...we are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds…in view of the above we desire that our district Southern Syria or Palestine should be not separated from the Independent Arab Syrian Government and be free from all foreign influence and protection…” (cited in Porath 1974: 81-82). While the Congress would eventually abandon the pan-Syria idea, it dominated the discourse of organized Palestinian politics for its first few years and remained central for many younger Palestinian intellectuals throughout much of the Mandate period. Despite the strength of these familial, local, religious and regional identity markers, however, the Arabs of Palestine would eventually define themselves as Palestinian and demand independence for Palestinians.
Further analysis:
...These January-February meetings, despite their outcome, were characterized by divisions between the older notables representing the MCA, and the predominantly younger nationalists of al-Adabi (Literary Club) and the al-Nadi al-Arabi (Arab Club). Four of the twenty-nine participating delegates opposed the proposal adopted by the Congress, which considered Palestine part of Arab Syria (Porath 1974: 81).
And
...Many of these dissenters were Jerusalemites, who indeed wrote a strong condemnation of the resolution to the Military Governor of Jerusalem after the dissolution of the Congress. In a public meeting in Jerusalem on 8 February 1919, one of the proponents of unity, Mumuh Aziz al-Khalidi spoke out against the “faint-hearted old men” who refused to support the resolution (Porath 1974: 84). The notables of Jerusalem and the older members of the influential families would, unsurprisingly, benefit the most from the establishment of a separate government for Palestine. Under these circumstances, they would likely obtain the administrative positions, ministry posts and political power from the British. Conversely, the youthful pan-Arab partisans would most likely gain political power if Palestine opted for unity with Damascus. In fact, many of the pan-Syrian nationalists had already played a role in Faysal’s incipient government. A countrywide gathering on 27 November 1919 was the first official attempt to unite all the political associations in Palestine. The Jerusalem and Jaffa branches of the MCA, however, failed to attend the meeting (Porath 1974: 94). This was again a result of ideological differences over the political future of Palestine. The younger nationalists envisaged Arab Unity with a political center in Damascus whereas the older notables preferred a nexus in Jerusalem, not unlike the Jerusalem administrative unit during the Ottoman era (Muslih 158-74).
To conclude:
...The first occasion on which the Palestinian Arabs demanded a national government was at the Third Palestinian Arab Congress convened in Haifa on 13 December 1920 (Muslih 205-7)...the delegates gathered from the cities of Haifa, Jerusalem, Lydda, Ramla, Tiberias, Safad, Nazareth, Acre, Jenin, Tulkarm, Nablus...the group agreed to three foundational principles: the establishment of a national government, the rejection of the idea of a Jewish National Home, and the organization of the Palestinian Arab nationalist movement...As Muslih argues, “the absence of reference to pan-Syrian unity in the resolution of the Third Palestinian Arab Congress, as well as the focus of the delegates on local Palestinian issues, indicates that the Palestinian Arab nationalist movement for the first time defined its objectives, from both an ideological and organization perspective, in distinct Palestinian terms” (209). Already in 1920, then, the Arab elite in Palestine considered the Arabs of Palestine part of a distinct political unit...
But remember:
While the Congress would eventually abandon the pan-Syria idea, it dominated the discourse of organized Palestinian politics for its first few years and remained central for many younger Palestinian intellectuals throughout much of the Mandate period.
^
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment