“A land without a people for a people without a land”
It is almost impossible to acquaint yourself with scholarship on Palestine, or be involved in Palestinian activism to any extent without coming across a variation of the above. Sadly, despite all the meticulous scholarship of Palestinians and others on the topic, variations of this talking point remain a prominent feature of Israeli propaganda. But how could such a ridiculous and thoroughly debunked claim still exist to this day? Wouldn’t disproving it be as simple as a quick internet search?
Indeed, all it takes is a glance at the Nüfus (Ottoman population registry) or the much later British mandate census data to see that the land has never been empty. Additionally, inspecting these numbers tells quite a clear tale of a minority settler population growing next to a large native majority. I will not be going into the details of population numbers, but if you are at all interested in the minutiae of census and population information in Palestine, then I would recommend obtaining a copy of Justin McCarthy’s The population of Palestine: Population history and statistics of the late Ottoman period and the Mandate.
Even the earliest of proto-Zionists knew this was not a factual statement. Some of the earliest Zionist ‘pioneers’ that settled Palestine before Zionism even had its first conference wrote condescendingly about their experiences with the natives. I imagine it would be quite difficult to document your interactions with a people who do not exist.
So why does this slogan persist?
This slogan persists to this day because it was never meant to be literal, but colonial and ideological. This phrase is yet another formulation of the concept of Terra Nullius meaning “nobody’s land”. In one form or the other, this concept played a significant role in legitimizing the erasure of the native population in virtually every settler colony, and laying down the ‘legal’ and ‘moral’ basis for seizing native land. According to this principle, any lands not managed in a ‘modern’ fashion were considered empty by the colonists, and therefore up for grabs. Essentially, yes there are people there but no people that mattered or were worth considering.
There is no doubt that Zionism is a settler colonial movement intent on replacing the natives. As a matter of fact, this was a point of pride for the early Zionists, as they saw the inhabitants of the land as backwards and barbaric, and that a positive aspect of Zionism would be the establishment of a modern nation state there to act as a bulwark against these ‘regressive’ forces in the east [You can read more about this here].
A characteristic feature of early Zionist political discourse is pretending that Palestinians exist only as individuals or sometimes communities, but never as constituting a people or a nation. This was accompanied by the typical arrogance and condescension towards the natives seen in virtually every settler colonial movement.
That the early settlers interacted with the natives while simultaneously claiming the land was empty was not seen as contradictory to them. According to these colonists, even if some scattered, disorganized people did exist, they were not worthy of the land they inhabited. They were unable to transform the land into a modern functioning nation state, extract resources efficiently and contribute to ‘civilization’ through the free market, unlike the settlers. Patrick Wolfe’s scholarship on Australia illustrates this dynamic and how it was exploited to establish the settler colony.
This becomes exceedingly clear when reading the discussions of early Zionists, such as Chaim Weizmann, who when asked about the inhabitants of Palestine responded with:
“The British told us that there are there some hundred thousands negroes [Kushim] and for those there is no value.”.
You can clearly see the influence and internalization of racist European colonial rhetoric. This attitude would become a cornerstone of Zionism as a political and colonial movement. This is why there is an emphasis in the Zionist narrative on how supposedly desolate and backwards Palestine was before their arrival. This same logic animates the ‘making the desert bloom’ myth that remains central to Israeli Hasbara efforts [You can read more about this here]. The underlying message being: We deserve the land more than its natives, they have done nothing with it, and we can bring it into modernity.
Perhaps one of the most widely quoted texts used to support this argument is Mark Twain’s The Innocents Abroad (1869) in which he chronicled his travels through Europe and the Middle East. Naturally, his unflattering descriptions of the ‘Holy land’, both people and land, are what draw attention, as he found Palestine to be a “..hopeless, dreary, heart-broken land“. He then concludes that ‘Palestine is desolate and unlovely.’
Twain’s account is taken as definitive proof that Palestine was a lifeless, empty husk before the arrival of the Zionist colonists. But as usual, in order to present and sustain this talking point, context must be completely ignored and any evidence to the opposite omitted. Even if we are to take Twain’s commentary at face value, one would be remiss not to investigate the circumstances of his visit.
Indeed, once some very basic research is done it becomes clear that Twain visited Palestine in September, which meant that it was at the end of the summer season and the land had not seen any rain for months. In addition to this, his visit happened to coincide with a drought, meaning that this was an exceptional case of dryness even for September. And finally, his visit also coincided with the American civil war, which disrupted the cotton trade the region depended upon. That meant that the whole area, not only Palestine, was undergoing a significant economic downturn and increase in poverty, which pushed many a peasant to abandon their farms.
But let us say you are unconvinced by this, what have others who visited Palestine had to say?
Twain is far from the only traveler to visit Palestine in the 19th century. Another such traveler is David Roberts, a Scottish painter who visited Palestine in 1839. He wrote describing his travels that the way from Jaffa to Jerusalem lay..
“..across the plain of Sharon, through a richly-cultivated country. The ground is carpeted with flowers—the plain is studded with small villages and groups of palm-trees, and, independent of its interesting associations, the country is the loveliest I ever beheld.“
Siegfried Sassoon also visited Palestine during the first world war and chronicled his journey:
“March 11, reached Railhead (Ludd) at 2.30 pm. Olive trees and almond orchards. Fine hills inland, not unlike Scotland. Last night we went through flat sandy places. About daybreak the country began to be green. Tents among crops and trees all the way up from Gaza. Weather warm and pleasant, with clouds. A few Old Testament pictures of people and villages. Inhabitants seem to live by selling enormous oranges to the troops on the train.”
On page 94 of his digitized journal, which you can access fully (here), he wrote describing the flowers growing in Palestine:
“Came back through a tangle of huge golden daisies -knee deep solid gold, as if Midas had been walking here among the almond trees and cantaloupes.”
So, what is the truth? Was Palestine a desolate, backwater wasteland, or a paradise with golden daisies and green hills akin to those in Scotland?
Both Roberts and Sassoon visited Palestine in the spring, at the end of the rainy season in years with no droughts. It makes sense, then, that the land would be green and the trees and flowers would be blooming.
So why only focus on the Twain paragraph to the exclusion of others? Is it not intellectually dishonest to present The Innocents Abroad as the definitive description of Palestine when other accounts contradict it? Is this not an irresponsible and deceptive selection of information?
Sadly, this is par for the course, as more often than not these arguments are made in bad faith. Because once again, conveying historical or factual accuracy is not the intended goal of these claims. These claims serve mainly as propaganda to legitimize the colonization of Palestine and to prove that the Zionist movement was more entitled to the land than its natives. This speaks to the insecurity of the settler, as such efforts to justify themselves would not be needed if they did not believe -even if on a subconscious level- that they do not belong.
This is hardly the only example of such discourse, Joan Peters’ From Time Immemorial is one of the more shameless propaganda publications masquerading as a history book, full of cherry-picked data and absurd claims regarding the origins of Palestinians [You can read more about this here]. Even though this book has been utterly debunked by a large number of scholars, it remains incredibly popular among Zionists as the definitive version of history. The endurance of this book as a source of information shows that much discourse on the question of Palestine is anything but fact based.
These cases illustrate a central point about Israeli and Zionist propaganda: It is full of selectively chosen data, dubious framing and omissions of inconvenient information. To succeed, it primarily relies on the ignorance of the listener. These talking points do not stand up to scrutiny, and wither away once countered with actual historic literacy. We should strive to challenge these claims wherever they arise, and do our best to set the record straight.
But for argument’s sake, even if Palestine had been truly “desolate” or “unlovely”, does this provide a moral cover for settler colonialism, ethnic cleansing and erecting a reactionary ethnocracy at the expense of the people living there? Of course not. It’s a fruitless argument which only aims to discredit the natives.
END
‘Settler colonialism differs from classic colonialism, in that settler colonialism only initially and temporarily relies on an empire for their existence. In many situations, the colonists aren’t even from the empire supporting them, and end up fighting the very sponsor that ensured their survival in the first place. Another difference is that settlers are not merely interested in the resources of these new lands, but also in the lands themselves, and to carve out a new homeland for themselves in the area.”
MYTH: ZIONISM IS NOT COLONIALISM, JUST JEWISH SELF DETERMINATION
https://decolonizepalestine.
Since the 1990s, the Oslo accords attempted to relegate the Palestinian revolution to a quest for statehood on Israel’s table scraps. With the failure of this paradigm to produce any solution, there has been a renewed interest in returning to the anti-colonial understanding of the question of Palestine which formed the core of international solidarity for decades. This is not to say that this camp was non-existent since the Oslo years, but rather that the charade of the peace process has shown without a doubt that negotiations and appeasement are a failed strategy. Naturally, with this return comes the inevitable and necessary re-discussion of Zionism, the ideology responsible for the establishment of Israel and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.
Facing increased criticism, advocates of Zionism adapted to the sensibilities of today and began to claim that it was merely Jewish self-determination, nothing more and nothing less. It just means that the Jewish people deserve to take control of their own destiny through a state. Not only that, but suggesting that Zionism is colonialism is in itself antisemitic, because it denies the Jewish people the right to self-determination. As a matter of fact, some even argue that Zionism is decolonization, and is an indigenous rights movement.
The recent rise to prominence of a distorted and shallow understanding of identity politics in the US has been a boon to this kind of argument. Suddenly we see Zionism being detached from its material history and presented as an integral part of an identity. This is especially popular in the West, where young Zionists who are raised on propaganda and myths of this “amazing” Zionist project come to treat it as inseparable from themselves. Here, we see the cynical twisting of social justice language to declare that only Zionists may define what Zionism is -As if it was a subjective phenomenon, with no material reality, founders, history or effects- and that it was an attack on the Jewish people to describe it as colonial.
This is rather humorous because the original Zionists legitimized their claim to Palestine exactly because they were colonists and superior to the natives. While I understand how it can be difficult to escape a worldview that was planted in you at a young age, there is a mountain of easily available resources and historic documents available to anyone who is even a little bit critical or intellectually curious.
When we speak of Israel as a settler colony, we refer to a very specific phenomenon. Settler colonialism differs from classic colonialism, in that settler colonialism only initially and temporarily relies on an empire for their existence. In many situations, the colonists aren’t even from the empire supporting them, and end up fighting the very sponsor that ensured their survival in the first place. Another difference is that settlers are not merely interested in the resources of these new lands, but also in the lands themselves, and to carve out a new homeland for themselves in the area.
The obvious issue here is that these lands were already inhabited by other people before their arrival.
This is when the settler “logic of elimination” comes into play. Coined by scholar Patrick Wolfe, this means that the settlers needed to develop not only moral justifications for the removal of the natives, but also the practical means to ensure its success. This could take the form of ethnic cleansing, genocide or other gruesome tools of ethnocide.
If you’re at all familiar with Zionist talking points, you can see this logic of elimination in motion. “A land without a people for a people without a land“, “there is no such thing as a Palestinian“, “Israel made the desert bloom” and many other talking points illustrate this perfectly. For example, you can immediately see how denying the existence of Palestinians resembles the Terra Nullius argument used by colonists all over the world [You can read more about this here]. All of these talking points are aimed at justifying the dispossession of the Palestinians and legitimizing Zionist claims to the land they wished to colonize. As for the practical means to remove the natives, the Nakba remains a testimony to such crimes.
The claim that Zionism is merely Jewish self-determination also conflates the Jewish people with Zionism, an ideology finding its origins in Europe in the late 1800s. At the time, the Jewish people were largely uninterested in Zionism. As a matter of fact many Jewish groups were fiercely anti-Zionist. The attempt to conflate the two is an attempt to give legitimacy to self-professed settlers from Europe, and portray any criticism of the Zionist project as inherently antisemitic.
Yet in the early days, the Zionist movement was astonishingly honest about its existence as a form of colonialism. For example, Herzl, one of the founders of political Zionism wrote in 1902 to infamous colonizer Cecil Rhodes, arguing that Britain recognized the importance of “colonial expansion”:
“You are being invited to help make history,” he wrote, “It doesn’t involve Africa, but a piece of Asia Minor ; not Englishmen, but Jews . How, then, do I happen to turn to you since this is an out-of-the-way matter for you? How indeed? Because it is something colonial.”
Nordau, Herzl’s right hand man, even rightfully called Zionist settlements in Palestine “colonies”:
“Zionism rejects on principle all colonization on a small scale, and the idea of “sneaking” into Palestine. The Zionists have therefore devoted themselves preeminently to a zealous and tireless advocacy of the uniting of the already existing Jewish colonies in Palestine with those who until now have given them their aid and who of late have inclined towards the withdrawal of their support from them.”
Menachem Usishkin, chairman of the Jewish National Fund, was known for his calls to rid Palestine of its natives:
“What we can demand today is that all Transjordan be included in the Land of Israel. . . on condition that Transjordan would be either be made available for Jewish colonization or for the resettlement of those [Palestinian] Arabs, whose lands [in Palestine] we would purchase. Against this, the most conscientious person could not argue . . . For the [Palestinian] Arabs of the Galilee, Transjordan is a province . . . this will be for the resettlement of Palestine’s Arabs. This the land problem. . . . Now the [Palestinian] Arabs do not want us because we want to be the rulers. I will fight for this. I will make sure that we will be the landlords of this land . . . . because this country belongs to us not to them . . . “
Revisionist Zionist Vladimir Jabotinsky, in an essay titled The Iron Law (1925) wrote that:
“A voluntary reconciliation with the Arabs is out of the question either now or in the future. If you wish to colonize a land in which people are already living, you must provide a garrison for the land, or find some rich man or benefactor who will provide a garrison on your behalf. Or else-or else, give up your colonization, for without an armed force which will render physically impossible any attempt to destroy or prevent this colonization, colonization is impossible, not difficult, not dangerous, but IMPOSSIBLE!… Zionism is a colonization adventure and therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed force. It is important… to speak Hebrew, but, unfortunately, it is even more important to be able to shoot – or else I am through with playing at colonizing.”
These quotations are merely the tip of the iceberg, but lest you think I am cherry-picking and choosing out of context passages, I invite you to read their original writings. There are only so many mental gymnastics you can perform to try and find a different meaning to “Zionism is a colonization adventure.” One of them is the claim that the Zionists adopted this kind of language only to convince the great imperial powers. It must have been a pretty convincing act, then, as its practice is still ongoing after over 100 years.
This, of course, is nonsense. It was not a question of rhetoric, but also execution. The first Zionist bank established was named the ‘Jewish Colonial Trust’ and the whole endeavor was supported by the ‘Palestine Jewish Colonization Association’ and the ‘Jewish Agency Colonization Department’. Such an association was yet to become unpopular or taboo as it is today.
A further problem with the claim that Zionism is merely Jewish self-determination is that it is an intellectually dishonest claim. It is a claim so rife with critical omissions that it cannot but be classified as a lie when the full context is explored.
Let’s try and apply this argument to another prominent settler colonial context: The colonization of Turtle Island.
When somebody today describes American “Manifest destiny” as settlers seeking a better life for themselves, or claims that the United States was founded on liberty, equality and justice for all, you instantly know that something is amiss. How could they leave out details such as the genocide of the indigenous nations or slavery from the story?
When they say liberty, equality and justice for all, you ask, liberty for whom? Equality for whom? Justice for whom?
In the American case, the answer was white, male land-owners. Everybody else’s oppression -to different degrees- was necessary to build the privileges and power of this class. But you absolutely cannot glean an accurate understanding of American history without mentioning this foundational and continuing oppression.
So, when Zionists claim that Zionism is just Jewish self-determination, what are they leaving out of their story?
At what cost was Israel established?
What happened to the society that already existed when the first Zionist settlers arrived?
Is the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and the colonization of their lands not worth mentioning in this context?
Furthermore, is it intellectually honest to frame objection to these atrocities as objection to Jewish self-determination as a concept?
Once again, we return to the logic of elimination where this destruction is justified.
When it came to Palestinians, the issue was never with an abstract Jewish self-determination. Everybody should be able to determine their own destiny, but not at the expense of the oppression of others. As a matter of fact, there is ample evidence -recorded by the Zionist pioneers themselves- that the native Palestinian population was welcoming of the first Zionist settlers. They worked side by side, they taught them how to work the land, even when they showed arrogance and saw the natives as inferior. Only after it became clear that these settlers did not come merely to live in Palestine, but to become its landlords as Usishkin said, did resistance to Zionism begin.
Palestine has always been home to countless refugee populations, the idea that the Jewish people fleeing persecution could find a safe home in Palestine was never the issue. The issue is that these ideals of coexistence were never reciprocated by the Zionist movement, who showed disdain towards Palestinians from the very beginning and sought to take over the land. For example, it sanctioned settlers working with Palestinians, even calling Arab labor an “illness” and formed a segregated trade union that banned non-Jewish members.
In 1928, the Palestinian leadership even voted to allow Zionist settlers equal representation in the future bodies of the state, despite them being a minority who had barely just arrived. The Zionist leadership rejected this, of course. Even after this, in 1947 the Palestinians suggested the formation of a unitary state for all those living between the river and the sea to replace the mandate to no avail. There were many attempts at co-existence, but this simply would not have benefited the Zionist leadership who never intended to come to Palestine to live as equals.
It is due to this long history that Zionism is facing a legitimacy crisis. It has nothing to do with denying Jewish self-determination, and everything to do with attempting to right historical wrongs. You cannot hope to find solutions if you refuse to even entertain thinking about the root causes.
After all, could it ever be righteous to end a diaspora by causing another one?
END