In 1921, four
years after the Balfour Declaration
promised to establish a “national home for the Jewish people” in the Holy Land,
Yosef Castel, a well-known public figure in Jerusalem, prepared an alternative
version of the declaration. It also centered on establishing a national home,
but for two peoples, Jewish and Arab, rather than one.
“Both sides are
fighting each other over a single land, and they must, as a matter of
historical necessity, live in it together and peacefully develop their national
homes in the same land, which is destined to be one state,” he wrote. Or in
today’s terminology, one state for two peoples.
Ahead of the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration,
which was issued on November 2, 1917 and paved the way for a United Nations
resolution 30 years later to establish a Jewish state, historian Hillel Cohen
and sociologist Yuval Evri dug Castel’s plan out of the archives. They sought
to shed light on those whose views were not reflected in the declaration –
excluded, silenced or simply unheard, and still gathering dust a century later.
Primarily, these
were Sephardi Jews living in pre-state Palestine. They didn’t support a
“national home for the Jewish people,” but rather something that would satisfy
the desires and aspirations of their Arab neighbors as well.
Castel, whose
ancestors were expelled from Spain in 1492, was one of the most prominent
figures in this group. In an article scheduled for publication in an upcoming
edition of “Theory and Criticism,” a journal published by the Van Leer
Jerusalem Institute, Cohen and Evri wrote that Castel “broke the taboo on what
was accepted in Zionist discourse” by presenting the land as the national home
of two peoples.
Castel saw the
Balfour Declaration as “the principal obstacle” to cooperation between Jews and
Arabs, since it “terrified” the Arabs. He therefore urged Lord Balfour to
change his declaration. Whereas Balfour merely insisted that nothing be done to
“prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities,”
Castel wanted a provision saying that Jews would “develop the other
inhabitants’ current national home ... and uphold their legal rights over the
land.” In other words, unlike the Zionist movement, he thought Arabs also had
national rights to the land.
Reading Castel’s
plan raises a troubling question: Would an “amended” version of the Balfour
Declaration, which also recognized Arab national rights, have changed the Arab
response to it, and thereby the bloody history of the Middle East?
“Possibly, but
that’s just speculation,” Cohen said in an interview with Haaretz this week.
“It’s possible that, absent the Zionist movement’s involvement, a different
Balfour Declaration would have been issued” — one that would have helped Jews
already in Palestine and permitted immigration, but wouldn’t have promised “a
national home for Jews only.”
Just as this
question will forever remain unanswered, Castel’s plan went unanswered back
then. Cohen and Evri couldn’t find any responses to it in the archives.
Zionist leaders
ignored not only Arabs, but also Jews who had lived alongside them in the Land
of Israel, and in particular Sephardi Jews like Castel who disagreed with the
Balfour Declaration. Local Jews weren’t even involved in preparing the
declaration; it was drafted following negotiations between British officials
and Zionist movement representatives in London.
“This wasn’t
deliberate exclusion, but natural exclusion, which in practice was even more
[absolute],” said Cohen, a Hebrew University professor who will lecture on the
topic at a conference at the university’s Truman Center on November 1. “It
never occurred to people like Chaim Weizmann and Nahum Sokolow to talk to
representatives of the Chelouche family, for instance, and brief them on the
negotiations with the British,” he added, referring to two Zionist leaders and
a Sephardi family that helped found Tel Aviv.
When the
declaration was published, in the twilight of Ottoman rule over the land, the
local Jews had civic equality, Cohen said. “This doesn’t mean there weren’t
tensions here and there, but the Jews got what they wanted.”
Thus the Balfour
Declaration and Britain’s subsequent conquest of the land made some local Jews
fear that European Zionists “were sacrificing what they had managed to build
and imposing themselves,” Cohen said. “There were Jews here who felt that they,
too, like the Arabs, were being trampled on and pushed to the sidelines.”
Another vehement
opponent of the Balfour Declaration was Haim Ben Kiki, the scion of a
well-known Sephardi rabbinic family from Tiberias. In 1920, he criticized what
he viewed as local Jews’ overenthusiastic reaction to the declaration.
“Many
celebrations shouldn’t have taken place and many articles shouldn’t have been
written,” he wrote in the newspaper Doar Hayom. “Boisterous celebrations and
articles, which are out of place and poorly timed, merely disrupt the leaders’
activities and confuse their ‘perspective.’”
Ben Kiki viewed
the declaration as a colonialist project that sought to impose European
interests and culture — which he viewed as alien and detrimental to local Jews
and Arabs alike — on the Middle East. He felt the Sephardi community was at
home in Arab culture and the Arab world, whereas Ashkenazi Jewish immigrants
from Europe brought an alien Western culture.
In another
article, a year later, he was even blunter. “The Sephardi community, which came
from eastern lands to an eastern land, whose soul has been intertwined for
generations with the Arab people, felt that something unpleasant was happening
here, that this whole movement wasn’t being done properly,” he wrote, adding
that local Arabs should addressed “not from a standpoint of Western
superiority, but out of an understanding that the Land of Israel is in the
East, and its inhabitants are part of Eastern culture.”
Castel and Ben
Kiki represented a tiny minority of Jews. Most Zionists were thrilled by the
Balfour Declaration and the prospect of establishing a Jewish state. November 2
was even declared a national holiday. Even the local Sephardi community’s
official leadership supported the declaration, though compared to the Zionist
leadership in Europe, it was “more attentive and sensitive to Palestinian
opposition to the declaration,” Cohen said.
The Sephardi
community, he added, grappled with conflicting identities and loyalties. On one
hand, it wanted to connect with European Zionism. On the other hand, there were
efforts to establish a shared homeland for Jews and Arabs based on cooperation
and equality.
Another document
Cohen and Evri found in the archives shows that some British officials had
views similar to the Sephardi community.
On March 12,
1916, the British Foreign Office prepared an early draft of what later became
the Balfour Declaration. It made no mention of a Jewish national home, but
merely called for Jews to have the same political, civil and religious rights
as Arabs, along with “such municipal privileges as may be essential in towns
and colonies inhabitant by Jews” and “reasonable facilities for colonization
and emigration.”
It was written,
at the Foreign Office’s request, by a non-Zionist Jewish journalist, Lucien
Wolf. But like Castel’s plan, it is just another footnote to history.