Jewish Colonies in Palestine
The United States Consul at Beirut, in a report which has lately been issued by the Department of State in Washington, (on) the condition of the numerous Jewish colonies in Palestine.... The Consul thinks that, whether the Zionist movement succeeds in its special aim or not, the agitation aids in the development of Palestine—a country “which will generously respond to modern influences....” The Zionist movement, also, is said to be bringing out new qualities in the Jews inhabiting the country; they are ... beginning to act on the principle that “to till the ground is to worship God.”... On the whole, the Consul thinks “the prospects are brighter than ever for the Jews in Palestine and for Palestine itself. European influence has obtained a foothold in the country, and the tide of modern ideas cannot be long debarred.”
It may be added that during the Parliamentary Elections of 1900 the English Zionist Federation addressed to all candidates a letter asking for an expression of sympathy with Zionism, and between ninety and a hundred replies were received, the great majority of an exceedingly favourable nature; and that in 1906 Lord Robert Cecil wrote: “The central idea underlying the Zionist movement seems to me worthy of all support. Apart from all other considerations, it appears to me that the restoration of the Jewish nation offers a satisfactory solution, if it can be accomplished, of those problems raised by Jewish emigration, which are otherwise very difficult of adjustment.”
Naturally, the Palestine Exploration Fund had done a great deal to keep alive interest in Palestine among Englishmen; and some at least of those who worked for it were outspoken supporters of the Jewish national idea. Prominent among these is Colonel C. R. Conder, who devoted practically the whole of his life to the exploration of the Holy Land, part of which he surveyed as far back as 1875. He not only wrote a series of valuable books on Palestine from the standpoint of the investigator; he did not fail when opportunity offered to identify himself with Zionist views as to the future of the land. He saw in the Zionists the natural leaders to whom the destitute and oppressed Jews turn for counsel and guidance, and recognized that “a nation without a country must be content with toleration as all that it can expect.” Englishmen, he said, should be “only too glad to see Palestine increasing in civilization and prosperity as an outpost in the neighbourhood of Egypt” (Appendix lxxxv).
Finally, something must be said as to the views put forward by Lord Gwydyr (1841–1915) with regard to the relations between Jews and Arabs (Appendix lxxxvi). In suggesting that Palestine can become Jewish without any disadvantage to the Arabs, and that in fact the Jews, being themselves a combination of East and West, are alone capable of helping the Arabs to take their old place in civilization, Lord Gwydyr is expressing precisely the sentiments of Zionists themselves. Zionism has never desired to use its influence to the disadvantage of non-Jews in Palestine. Its hope is that there will come a day when even the Chauvinists among the Arabs, whose number is, happily, quite insignificant compared with the noise that they sometimes cause, will change their unfriendly policy, and that Jews and Arabs will work together for the civilization of the East.
It is true that some English authorities are rather pessimistic as to the possibilities of an Arab administration. One of the best-qualified students of the Eastern question says:—
“Bad as Turkish government is according to our standards, native Arab government, when not in tutelage to Europeans, has generally proved itself worse, when tried in the Ottoman area in modern times. Where it is of a purely Bedouin barbaric type, as in the countries of Central Arabia, it does well enough; but if the population be contaminated ever so little with non-Arab elements, practices or ideas, Arab administration seems incapable of producing effective government. It has had trials in the Holy Cities at intervals, and for longer periods in the Yemen. But a European, long resident in the latter country, who has groaned under Turkish administration, where it has always been the most oppressive, bore witness that the rule of the native Imam only served to replace oppressive government by oppressive anarchy.”
The same author writes concerning the Arab movement:—
“The peoples of the Arab part of the Ottoman Empire are a congeries of differing races, creeds, sects and social systems, with no common bond except language. The physical character of their land compels a good third of them to be nomadic, predatory barbarians, feared by the other two-thirds. The settled folk are divided into Moslem and Christian, the cleavage being more abrupt than in Western Turkey, and the traditions and actual spirit of mutual enmity more separative. Further, each of these main divisions is subdivided. Even Islam in this region includes a number of incompatible sects, such as the Ansariyeh, the Matavcle and the Druses in the Syrian mountains; Shiite Arabs on the Gulf Coast and the Persian border.... The ‘Arab Movement’ up to the present has consisted of little more than talk and journalistic comment.”
But we do not take this pessimistic view. We are inclined to give much more credit to Arab capacity, and while we admit that the Arab problem is a serious one, we believe that it can and will be solved.