Empat Kuasa Besar itu komited kepada Zionisme. Dan Zionisme, sama ada betul atau salah, baik atau buruk, berakar pada tradisi yang telah berlangsung sejak zaman berzaman, pada keperluan semasa, dan pada harapan masa depan, yang jauh lebih penting daripada kehendak dan prasangka 700,000 orang Arab [Palestin] yang kini mendiami tanah purba itu. (Arthur James Balfour, dipetik dalam Nutting 2013)

The four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far greater import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 [Palestine] Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land. (Arthur James Balfour, cited in Nutting 2013)

Kolonialisme peneroka Zionis berada di pusat konflik di Palestin; kolonialisme peneroka ialah satu struktur, bukan episod (Wolfe 2006). Kolonialisme peneroka Zionis berakar umbi dalam kolonialisme Eropah. Dengan mengabaikan kewujudan dan hak penduduk peribumi, penjajah British sering memandang sebahagian besar bumi sebagai terra nullius, ‘tanah milik tiada siapa’. Ungkapan ini (berasal daripada undang-undang Rom) digunakan untuk menerangkan wilayah yang tidak tertakluk kepada kedaulatan mana-mana negara Eropah; kedaulatan ke atas wilayah yang merupakan terra nullius boleh diperoleh melalui pendudukan dan/atau penjajahan peneroka.

Zionist settler-colonialism is at the heart of the conflict in Palestine; settler-colonialism is a structure not an episode (Wolfe 2006). Zionist settler-colonialism is deeply rooted in European colonialism. Ignoring the existence and rights of indigenous peoples, British colonialists often saw large parts of the earth as terra nullius, ‘nobody’s land’. This (originally Roman legal) expression was used to describe territory which was not subject to the sovereignty of any European state – sovereignty over territory which is terra nullius may be acquired through occupation and/ or settler-colonisation.

Pada akhir abad ke-19, apabila nasionalisme "Zionisme" Eropah muncul sebagai kuasa politik yang menyeru kepada penjajahan peneroka ke atas Palestin dan "pengumpulan semua orang Yahudi", sedikit perhatian diberikan kepada hakikat bahawa Palestin sudah didiami. Malah, Program Basel yang diterima pakai pada Kongres Zionis Pertama, yang melancarkan Zionisme politik pada tahun 1897, tidak menyebut langsung tentang penduduk peribumi Palestin apabila menggariskan objektif gerakan itu: "penubuhan sebuah tanah air yang terjamin secara awam dan sah bagi bangsa Yahudi di Palestin".

When in the late 19th century European ‘Zionism nationalism’ arose as a political force calling for the settler-colonisation of Palestine and the ‘gathering of all Jews’, little attention was paid to the fact that Palestine was already populated. Indeed, the Basel Programme adopted at the First Zionist Congress, which launched political Zionism in 1897, made no mention of a Palestinian indigenous population when it spelled out the movement’s objective: ‘the establishment of a publicly and legally secured home in Palestine for the Jewish people’.

Lebih-lebih lagi, pada tahun-tahun awal usaha mereka untuk mendapatkan sokongan bagi perusahaan mereka, golongan Zionis menyebarkan di Barat mitos perkauman "tanah tanpa rakyat untuk rakyat tanpa tanah", satu slogan yang dipopularkan oleh Israel Zangwill, seorang penulis Anglo-Yahudi yang terkemuka, yang sering dipetik dalam akhbar British sebagai jurucakap Zionisme dan salah seorang penganjur terawal gerakan Zionis di Britain. Walaupun pada tahun 1914, Chaim Weizmann, yang kemudiannya menjadi Presiden pertama Israel dan yang, bersama Theodor Herzl dan David Ben-Gurion, merupakan antara tiga tokoh yang paling bertanggungjawab menjadikan impian Zionis sebagai kenyataan, menyatakan:

Moreover, in the early years of their efforts to secure support for their enterprise, the Zionists propagated in the West the racist myth of ‘a land without a people for a people without a land’, a slogan popularised by Israel Zangwill, a prominent Anglo-Jewish writer often quoted in the British press as a spokesman for Zionism and one of the earliest organisers of the Zionist movement in Britain. Even as late as 1914, Chaim Weizmann, who was to become the first President of Israel and who, along with Theodor Herzl and David Ben-Gurion, was one of the three men most responsible for turning the Zionist dream into reality, stated:

Pada peringkat awal, Zionisme dicipta oleh para perintisnya sebagai gerakan yang bergantung sepenuhnya kepada faktor-faktor mekanikal: terdapat sebuah negara yang kebetulan dinamakan Palestin, sebuah negara tanpa rakyat, dan di sisi lain wujud bangsa Yahudi, yang tidak mempunyai negara. Maka apa lagi yang diperlukan selain memasukkan permata ke dalam cincin, menyatukan bangsa ini dengan negara ini? Pemilik negara itu [orang Turki] oleh itu mesti dipujuk dan diyakinkan bahawa perkahwinan ini menguntungkan, bukan sahaja bagi [bangsa Yahudi] dan bagi negara itu, tetapi juga bagi diri mereka sendiri.1

In its initial stage, Zionism was conceived by its pioneers as a movement wholly depending on mechanical factors: there is a country which happens to be called Palestine, a country without a people, and, on the other hand, there exists the Jewish people, and it has no country. What else is necessary, then, than to fit the gem into the ring, to unite this people with this country? The owners of the country [the Turks] must, therefore, be persuaded and convinced that this marriage is advantageous, not only for the [Jewish] people and for the country, but also for themselves.1

Baik Zangwill mahupun Weizmann tidak memaksudkan anggaran demografi ini secara harfiah. Mereka tidak bermaksud bahawa tiada penduduk di Palestin, tetapi bahawa tiada penduduk yang layak dipertimbangkan dalam kerangka tanggapan supremasi Eropah yang berunsur perkauman, yang ketika itu berleluasa. Dalam hal ini, satu kenyataan Weizmann kepada Arthur Ruppin, ketua jabatan penempatan di Agensi Yahudi, amat mendedahkan.

Neither Zangwill nor Weizmann intended these demographic assessments in a literal fashion. They did not mean that there were no people in Palestine, but that there were no people worth considering within the framework of the notions of racist European supremacy that then held sway. In this connection, a comment by Weizmann to Arthur Ruppin, the head of the colonisation department of the Jewish Agency, is particularly revealing.

Apabila ditanya oleh Ruppin tentang orang Arab Palestin pribumi, Weizmann menjawab: ‘Orang Inggeris memberitahu kami bahawa di sana terdapat kira-kira seratus ribu orang negro [Ibrani: kushim, orang kulit hitam] dan bagi mereka tidak ada nilai.’2

When asked by Ruppin about the indigenous Palestinian Arabs, Weizmann replied: ‘The British told us that there are there some hundred thousand niggers [Hebrew: kushim, negroes] and for those there is no value.’2

Dalam bahasa Inggeris, perkataan nigger ialah istilah hinaan kaum putih yang ditujukan kepada orang Hitam dan Afrika. Konotasi merendahkannya menggemakan satu lagi perkataan cacian dalam bahasa Inggeris, philistine, yang dipinjam oleh Britain kulit putih daripada prasangka Bible dan dipopularkan dalam pertuturan harian. Namun, dalam budaya kolonial kulit putih yang rasis tempat Weizmann dan rakan-rakannya beroperasi, rujukan kepada penduduk asli Palestin sebagai nigger akan dianggap sebagai sesuatu yang spontan dan wajar. Menggemakan rasisme demografi Weizmann dan Orientalisme Bible Shaftesbury, Zangwill sendiri menjelaskan maksud sebenar slogannya dengan begitu jelas pada tahun 1920.

In the English language, the word nigger is a White racist slur directed at Black and African people. Its derogatory connotations echo another pejorative English word, philistine, which White Britain borrowed from biblical prejudices and popularised in daily parlance. However, in the White racist colonial culture within which Weizmann and co. operated, the reference to the indigenous people of Palestine as nigger would have been instinctive and natural. Echoing Weizmann’s demographic racism and Shaftesbury’s biblical Orientalism, Zangwill himself spelled out the actual meaning of his slogan with admirable clarity in 1920:

Jika Lord Shaftesbury secara harfiah tidak tepat ketika menggambarkan Palestin sebagai negara tanpa rakyat, maka pada hakikatnya beliau benar, kerana tiada rakyat Arab yang hidup dalam gabungan erat dengan negara itu, memanfaatkan sumber-sumbernya dan memberikannya ciri tersendiri: yang ada paling tepat hanyalah sebuah perkemahan Arab. (Zangwill 1920: 104; lihat juga Kamel 2015)

If Lord Shaftesbury was literally inexact in describing Palestine as a country without a people, he was essentially correct, for there is no Arab people living in intimate fusion with the country, utilising its resources and stamping it with a characteristic impress: there is at best an Arab encampment. (Zangwill 1920: 104; see also Kamel 2015)

Gabungan antara pertimbangan domestik dan imperialis British, para pelobi Zionis Yahudi (khususnya Chaim Weizmann, 1874‒1952) dan politik kenabian Zionis Kristian membawa kepada Perisytiharan Balfour tahun 1917, yang menjanjikan sebuah 'tanah air Yahudi' di Palestin (Anderson, I. 2005: 1, 57‒58). Maka, sebuah kuasa dunia imperialis, Britain untuk pertama kalinya memberikan persetujuan kepada kempen Zionis untuk memiliki Palestin. Dokumen yang sangat kontroversi ini, bertarikh 2 November, dikeluarkan oleh Setiausaha Luar Arthur James Balfour (kemudiannya Lord Balfour), dalam bentuk surat kepada seorang penyokong Yahudi British yang terkemuka bagi gerakan Zionis, Lionel Walter (Lord) Rothschild, yang mengisytiharkan sokongan British terhadap Zionisme politik:

The interplay between British domestic and imperial considerations, Jewish Zionist lobbyists (especially Chaim Weizmann, 1874‒1952) and Christian Zionist prophetic politics would lead to the Balfour Declaration of 1917 which promised a ‘Jewish homeland’ in Palestine (Anderson, I. 2005: 1, 57‒58). Then an imperial world power, Britain gave sanction for the first time to the Zionist campaign for possession of Palestine. This highly controversial document, dated 2 November, was issued by Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour (later Lord Balfour), in the form of a letter to a prominent British Jewish supporter of the Zionist movement, Lionel Walter (Lord) Rothschild, declaring British support for political Zionism:

Kerajaan Baginda Her Majesty menganggap baik penubuhan di Palestin sebuah tanah air kebangsaan bagi bangsa Yahudi, dan akan menggunakan segala usaha terbaik untuk memudahkan pencapaian tujuan ini, dengan kefahaman yang jelas bahawa tiada apa-apa tindakan akan diambil yang menjejaskan hak sivil dan agama komuniti bukan Yahudi yang sedia ada di Palestin, atau hak dan status politik yang dinikmati oleh orang Yahudi di mana-mana negara lain. (Dipetik daripada Said 1980: 3)

Her Majesty’s Government views with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done to prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. (Quoted in Said 1980: 3)

Walaupun gerakan Zionis Yahudi telah memulakan satu siri kongres antarabangsa dan menubuhkan koloni-koloni Yahudi yang kecil di Palestin pada awal abad ke-20, sokongan kuasa empayar terkemuka pada zaman itu terhadap Zionisme yang akhirnya mengubah projek Zionis menjadi satu projek penjajahan peneroka Eropah yang besar di Palestin.

Although the Zionist Jewish movement had already initiated a series of international congresses and established small Jewish colonies in the early 20th century Palestine, it was the sponsorship of Zionism by the leading imperial power of the age that would transform the Zionist project into a major European settler-colonial project in Palestine.

Legasi Balfour menjadi tidak dapat dipisahkan daripada Perisytiharan pro-Zionis yang dikeluarkannya pada tahun 1917. Sebab-sebab di sebalik perisytiharan itu adalah kompleks. Fahaman Zionis Kristian Balfour didorong oleh banyak sikap anti-Yahudi, persepsi yang dibesar-besarkan tentang "kuasa Yahudi Zionis", serta ketakutan terhadap kemasukan besar-besaran orang Yahudi dari Eropah Timur ke Britain. Sebagai Perdana Menteri, Balfour telah meluluskan Akta Orang Asing 1905, yang objektif utamanya ialah menyekat kemasukan orang Yahudi dari Eropah Timur ke Britain. Brian Klug mengungkapkannya dengan agak skeptikal: "Menghalang orang Yahudi daripada memasuki Britain dan menghantar mereka ke Palestin hanyalah dua sisi bagi syiling antisemitik yang sama". Di sini, sejarawan Zionis sering memilih untuk mengabaikan perbezaan antara pemacu/motif dengan justifikasi, dan berpegang pada retorik Zionis Kristian Balfour selepas perang bagi membenarkan Perisytiharannya. Namun, motif dan kebimbangan strategik serta nasionalis Balfour di dalam negeri, terutamanya usaha dan dasar beliau yang didokumenkan dengan baik untuk menghentikan kemasukan Yahudi Eropah Timur ke UK, mesti diambil kira dalam sebarang percubaan untuk menilai motif di sebalik Perisytiharan tersebut, serta akibat buruk jangka panjang bagi Palestin daripada komitmen Balfour itu.

Balfour’s legacy became inseparable from the pro-Zionist Declaration he issued in 1917. The reasons for the declaration were complex. Balfour’s brand of Christian Zionism was driven by a great deal of Judeophobia, hyped perceptions of ‘Zionist Jewish power’ and of fears of mass immigration of Jews from Eastern Europe to Britain. As Prime Minister, Balfour had passed the 1905 Aliens Act, the main object of which was to restrict the entry into Britain of Jews from Eastern Europe. Brian Klug put it rather sceptically: ‘Keeping Jews out of Britain and packing them off to Palestine were just two sides of the same antisemitic coin’.3 Here Zionist historians often chose to ignore the distinction between drivers/motives and justification and seize upon Balfour’s own post-war Christian Zionist rhetoric to justify his Declaration. Yet Balfour’s strategic and nationalist domestic motives and concerns, especially his well-documented efforts and policies to stop the influx of Eastern European Jewry into the UK, must be taken into consideration in any attempt to assess the motives behind the Declaration as well as the long-term catastrophic consequences for Palestine of that Balfour commitment.

Akar politik dan agama bagi komitmen pro-Zionis Britain ini dapat ditelusuri jauh ke belakang, sehingga sampai kepada lobi Zionis Kristian Protestan yang ditubuhkan di London pada 1830-an oleh Lord Shaftesbury (Anthony Ashley Cooper; 1801‒1885). Shaftesbury berasal daripada golongan elit pemerintah aristokrat Britain dan selama beberapa dekad berada di tengah-tengah establishment Victoria. Beliau juga terkenal kerana menyokong dasar reformis sosial pada kemuncak era Victoria. Shaftesbury ialah ahli Tory di Dewan Rakyat, dan kemudiannya ahli Dewan Lords, dewan atas Parlimen di United Kingdom. Beliau ialah ipar-anak saudara kepada Lord Melbourne (Perdana Menteri bagi sebahagian besar tempoh 1834 hingga 1841), dan menantu tiri kepada Lord Palmerston (Menteri Luar bagi sebahagian besar tahun 1840-an dan awal 1850-an, kemudian Perdana Menteri bagi sebahagian besar tempoh 1855‒1865) (Merkley 1998:

The religio-political roots of this British pro-Zionist commitment go all the way back to the Protestant Christian Zionist lobby which was established in London in the 1830s by Lord Shaftesbury (Anthony Ashley Cooper; 1801‒1885). Shaftesbury came from the British aristocratic ruling elite and was for decades at the heart of the Victorian establishment. He also became well known for advocating socially reformist policies at the height of the Victorian era. Shaftesbury was a Tory member of the Commons, and later a member of the Lords, the upper house of Parliament in the United Kingdom. He was the nephew-in-law of Lord Melbourne (Prime Minister through most of the period from 1834 to 1841), and the stepson-in-law of Lord Palmerston (Foreign Minister for most of the 1840s and early 1850s, and then Prime Minister for most of the period 1855‒1865) (Merkley 1998:

13). Palmerston (1784–1865) berkhidmat dua kali sebagai Perdana Menteri pada pertengahan abad ke-19. Selama hampir keseluruhan tempoh 1830 hingga 1865 beliau mendominasi dasar luar British ketika Britain berada di kemuncak kuasa imperialisnya. Shaftesbury ditawarkan jawatan berkuasa oleh kerajaan British yang silih berganti, Palmerston pula menggalakkan dan membiayai beliau, dan kedua-dua lelaki ini memainkan peranan utama dalam penubuhan Konsulat British di Baitulmaqdis pada tahun 1838 – sebuah Konsulat yang pada abad ke-19 dikuasai oleh Zionis Kristian dan berada di tengah-tengah skim imperialis British yang membawa kepada dasar Balfour di Palestin (Schölch 1992).

13). Palmerston (1784–1865) served twice as Prime Minister in the mid-19th century. For most of 1830 to 1865 he dominated British foreign policy when Britain was at the height of its imperialist power. Shaftesbury was offered positions of power by successive British governments, Palmerston encouraged and financially supported him and both men were instrumental in the establishment of the British Consulate in Jerusalem in 1838 – a Consulate which in the 19th century was dominated by Christian Zionists and was at the centre of British imperial schemes which led to the Balfour policy in Palestine (Schölch 1992).

Khususnya, Shaftesbury, seorang Zionis Kristian Protestan yang agresif dan berjuang, merupakan penyebar dan pelobi paling bersemangat bagi pemulihan 'bangsa purba Tuhan', sebagaimana dia menggelarkan orang Yahudi (Tuchman 1982). Dia dan kalangan berpengaruh yang didominasinya berada di bawah pengaruh politik 'Akhir Zaman' yang bersifat kenabian, iaitu politik penginjilan yang berdasarkan Kitab Daniel dalam Perjanjian Lama, yang mereka yakini akan digenapi melalui 'kepulangan secara harfiah' dan 'Pemulihan' orang Yahudi ke Palestin. Ketika kejatuhan Empayar Uthmaniyah dilihat semakin hampir, advokasi Protestan terhadap 'pemulihan Yahudi' dan penjajahan-peneroka Palestin meningkat di United Kingdom dan dilihat amat menguntungkan bagi Empayar British yang sedang berkembang di Timur Tengah. Pada pertengahan hingga akhir abad ke-19, Shaftesbury mengetuai lobi Zionis Kristian British yang turut menyertakan tokoh-tokoh establishment seperti Lord Lindsay (Crawford 1847: 71), Lord Manchester, George Eliot, Holman Hunt dan Hall Caine.

In particular, crusading Protestant Christian Zionist Shaftesbury was the most ardent propagator and lobbyist of the restoration of ‘God’s ancient people’, as he styled the Jews (Tuchman 1982). He and the influential circle he dominated were under the influence of the ‘End of Times’ prophetic politics – evangelising politics based on the Old Testament’s Book of Daniel – which they believed would be fulfilled by the ‘literal return’ and ‘Restoration’ of the Jews to Palestine. As the demise of the Ottoman Empire appeared to be approaching, the Protestant advocacy of ‘Jewish restorationism’ and settler-colonisation of Palestine increased in the UK and was seen as highly beneficial to the expanding British Empire in the Middle East. In the mid-to-late 19th century Shaftesbury led the British Christian Zionist lobby which included establishment figures such as Lord Lindsay (Crawford 1847: 71), Lord Manchester, George Eliot, Holman Hunt and Hall Caine.

Sebagai lambang imperialisme Protestan Victoria, Shaftesbury yang suka menyerang Bible juga seorang pencipta mitos. Dia dengan bersungguh-sungguh menyebarkan mitos bahawa diaspora Yahudi di mana-mana dan sepanjang zaman mendambakan untuk 'kembali', dan pada 4 November 1840

Epitomising Victorian Protestant imperialism, Bible-bashing Shaftesbury was also a myth-maker. He pushed zealously the myth of ubiquitous and perennial Jewish diaspora longing to ‘return’, and on 4 November 1840

Beliau memasang iklan dalam akhbar Times (London):

he placed an advertisement in the Times (London):

PEMULIHAN BANGSA YAHUDI: Sebuah memorandum telah dikemukakan kepada raja-raja Protestan di Eropah mengenai soal pemulihan bangsa Yahudi ke tanah Palestin. Dokumen yang dimaksudkan itu, yang diilhamkan oleh gabungan keadaan yang luar biasa di Timur serta tanda-tanda "zaman" lain yang menonjol, kembali kepada perjanjian asal yang menjamin tanah tersebut kepada keturunan Ibrahim [Yahudi]. (Dipetik dalam Wagner 1995: 91)

RESTORATION OF THE JEWS: A memorandum has been addressed to the Protestant monarchs of Europe on the subject of the restoration of the Jewish people to the land of Palestine. The document in question, dictated by a peculiar conjunction of affairs in the East, and other striking ‘signs of the times’, reverts to the original covenant which secures that land to the [Jewish] descendant of Abraham. (Quoted in Wagner 1995: 91)

Shaftesbury secara langsung bertanggungjawab ke atas slogan propaganda ‘Sebuah negara tanpa bangsa untuk bangsa tanpa negara’,4 yang kemudiannya menjadi mitos Yahudi Zionis yang utama: ‘Sebuah tanah tanpa rakyat untuk rakyat tanpa tanah’ (Masalha 1997; Hyamson 1950: 10, 12; Kamel 2015).

Shaftesbury was directly responsible for the propagandistic slogan ‘A country without a nation for a nation without a country’,4 later to be become a key Zionist Jewish myth: ‘A land without a people for a people without a land’ (Masalha 1997; Hyamson 1950: 10, 12; Kamel 2015).

Menilai kepentingan usaha lobinya terhadap nasib gerakan Zionis Protestan di Britain, Donald Wagner menulis:

Assessing the significance of his lobbying efforts on the fortunes of the Protestant Zionist movement in Britain, Donald Wagner writes:

Lord Shaftesbury tidak dapat dilebih-lebihkan pengaruhnya terhadap golongan elit politik British, pemimpin gereja, dan orang Kristian awam biasa. Usaha beliau serta pemikiran politik agamanya mungkin telah menetapkan corak pendekatan kolonial England terhadap Timur Dekat, dan khususnya Tanah Suci, sepanjang seratus tahun berikutnya. Beliau secara unik menterjemahkan pendirian teologi Brightman, Henry Finch, dan John Nelson Darby [bapa dispensasionalisme premilenial moden]:5 lihat di bawah]5 kepada satu strategi politik. Hubungan politik beliau yang tinggi, dipadankan dengan naluri beliau yang luar biasa, bergabung untuk memajukan visi Zionis Kristian. (Wagner 1995: 92)

One cannot overstate the influence of Lord Shaftesbury on the British political elites, church leaders, and the average Christian layperson. His efforts and religious political thought may have set the tone for England’s colonial approach to the Near East and in particular the holy land during the next one hundred years. He singularly translated the theological positions of Brightman, Henry Finch, and John Nelson Darby [the father of modern premillennial dispensationalism]:5 see below]5 into a political strategy. His high political connections, matched by his uncanny instincts, combined to advance the Christian Zionist vision. (Wagner 1995: 92)

Pada tahun 1880 F. Laurence Oliphant (1829‒1888), ahli parlimen, novelis dan penganut Kristian evangelis, pengikut Shaftesbury, menerbitkan sebuah buku bertajuk The Land of Gilead (dinamakan sempena 'tanah Gilead' dalam Bible),6 yang di dalamnya beliau mengemukakan rancangan 'pemulihan Yahudi' dan projek terperinci untuk penempatan Yahudi di timur Sungai Jordan. Beliau mendesak parlimen British untuk membantu penghijrahan Yahudi dari Rusia dan Eropah Timur ke Palestin. Tidak menghairankan, beliau juga menganjurkan agar penduduk Arab Palestin yang asli dipindahkan ke kawasan simpanan seperti kawasan penduduk asli Amerika Utara.7

In 1880 F. Laurence Oliphant (1829‒1888), MP, novelist and evangelical Christian, a follower of Shaftesbury, published a book entitled The Land of Gilead (named after the biblical ‘land of Gilead’),6 in which he presented a plan of ‘Jewish restoration’ and a detailed project for Jewish settlement east of the River Jordan. He urged the British parliament to assist Jewish immigration from Russia and Eastern Europe to Palestine. Not surprisingly he also advocated that indigenous Palestinian Arabs be removed to reservations like those of the indigenous inhabitants of North America7

(Sharif 1983: 68), atau mengisyaratkan ideologi Bantustan yang kemudian dikembangkan oleh Afrika Selatan (Sharif 1983: 68; Wagner 1995: 93).

(Sharif 1983: 68), or hinting at the Bantustan ideology later developed by South Africa (Sharif 1983: 68; Wagner 1995: 93).

Gabungan pertimbangan Protestan dan imperialis mendorong sebahagian rakyat Britain untuk menghasilkan novel-novel Zionis Kristian, menubuhkan persatuan-persatuan penjelajahan, dan menganjurkan 'pemulihan orang Yahudi ke Palestin' secara terbuka dan secara peribadi.8 Tambahan pula, satu siri penemuan arkeologi di Timur Dekat, pengembaraan ketenteraan dan bilangan catatan perjalanan yang semakin bertambah telah membakar imaginasi mubaligh Protestan, pegawai-pegawai Eropah dan para sarjana Arabis, serta membawa kepada penglibatan langsung kuasa-kuasa Eropah di Tanah Suci. Obsesi Eropah terhadap masa silam arkeologi ini ditandai dengan penghinaan yang jelas terhadap penduduk asli Palestin dan kehidupan di kampung dan bandar Palestin moden. Pada kemuncak Empayar Britain dan zaman Victoria, politik kenabian 'pemulihan Bible' seiring dengan penglibatan kolonial Britain yang semakin meningkat di 'Timur'. Tanah Suci pada abad ke-19 menjadi sasaran menarik bagi beberapa negara Eropah yang sedang menunjukkan kekuatan kolonial mereka di seluruh dunia. Wilayah itu sudah bersedia untuk penembusan Barat, terutamanya ketika Empayar Uthmaniyyah menunjukkan tanda-tanda keruntuhan politik dan ekonomi. Perlumbaan untuk kehadiran nasional Eropah dan kepentingan perdagangan kolonial di Timur, dan di Tanah Suci khususnya, disembunyikan di sebalik aktiviti keilmuan dan Pengajian Oriental (Said 1978). Seiring dengan 'perebutan Palestin' oleh Eropah, pelbagai sektor akademik Barat, dan kebanyakan gereja Kristian Barat, memperlihatkan minat yang semakin meningkat terhadap Palestin. Kepentingan asing hampir selalu mengambil bentuk penubuhan institusi Kristian. Pembaharuan Uthmaniyyah selepas Perang Crimea (1853–1856) memberikan hak yang sama, termasuk hak harta, kepada bukan Muslim, sekali gus menyatukan usaha mubaligh Kristian dengan pengaruh nasional. Kepentingan Tuhan dan negara berjalan seiring. Britain bergerak awal,9 dan tidak lama kemudian diikuti oleh Rusia,10

A combination of Protestant religious and imperialist considerations drove some Britons to produce Christian Zionist novels, to set up exploration societies and to advocate the ‘restoration of the Jews to Palestine’ in public and in private.8 Furthermore, a succession of archaeological discoveries in the Near East, military adventurism and the growing number of travelogues fired the imagination of Protestant missionaries, European officials and Arabist scholars and led to the direct involvement European powers in the Holy Land (Shepherd 1987; Osband 1989). This European obsession with the archaeological past was marked by a decided contempt for the indigenous people of Palestine and life in modern Palestinian villages and towns At the height of the British Empire and the Victorian era prophetic politics of ‘biblical restorationism’ went hand in hand with increasing British colonial involvement in the ‘Orient’. The Holy Land in the 19th century was an attractive target for several European nations which were flexing their colonial muscles around the globe. The region was ready for Western penetration, particularly while the Ottoman Empire was showing signs of political and economic disintegration. The race for a European national presence and colonial commercial interests in the East, and in the Holy Land in particular, was masked by scholarly activities and Oriental Studies (Said 1978). Coinciding with the European ‘scramble for Palestine’, various sectors of the Western academy, and most of the Western Christian churches, displayed an increasing interest in Palestine. Invariably foreign interest took the form of establishing Christian institutions – the Ottoman reforms after the Crimean War (1853‒1856) granted equal rights, including property rights, to non-Muslims – thereby uniting Christian missionary endeavour with national influence. The interests of God and country ran in parallel. The British moved early,9 and were soon emulated by the Russians,10

Jerman,11 Austria (Wrba 1996) dan yang lain-lain, menandakan permulaan pengaruh Barat yang meluas di Palestin, satu pengaruh yang dikhuatiri oleh Uthmaniyah mungkin menjadi pendahuluan kepada percubaan untuk merampas semula Palestin sebagai sebuah negara Kristian.12 Begitulah tahap penembusan Barat sehingga konsul Austria, Count de Caboga, melaporkan pada tahun 1880 bahawa Baitulmaqdis telah menjadi sebuah bandar Eropah, dan Kapten (kemudiannya Jeneral Sir) Charles Warren (1840‒1927) dari Royal Engineers British, salah seorang pegawai utama British Palestine Exploration Fund, yang dihantar untuk memetakan topografi Perjanjian Lama Baitulmaqdis dan menyiasat ‘tapak kuil’, mencatatkan: ‘[Konsul] Raja British [James Finn] memerintah dengan kuasa mutlak, bukan ke atas penduduk asal bandar itu, tetapi ke atas orang asing; namun orang asing ini sebahagian besarnya adalah pemilik yang sah, manakala penduduk asal, sebahagian besarnya, adalah perampas’ (Shepherd 1987: 127‒128).

Germans,11 Austrians (Wrba 1996) and others, marking the beginning of extensive Western influence in Palestine, an influence which the Ottomans feared might be a prelude to attempting to recover Palestine as a Christian state.12 Such was the degree of Western penetration that the Austrian consul, the Count de Caboga, reported in 1880 that Jerusalem had become a European city, and Captain (later General Sir) Charles Warren (1840‒1927) of the British Royal Engineers and one of the key officers of the British Palestine Exploration Fund, who was sent to map the Old Testament topography of Jerusalem and investigate ‘the site of the temple’, noted: ‘[British] King Consul [James Finn] rules supreme, not over the natives of the city, but over strangers; but yet these strangers for the most part are the rightful owners, the natives, for the most part, are usurpers’ (Shepherd 1987: 127‒128).

Zionis Protestan dan imperialis British percaya bahawa sebuah 'Palestin Yahudi' akan memudahkan penubuhan protektorat British di sana di sepanjang laluan utama ke India. Dari akhir abad ke-19 hingga pertengahan abad ke-20, tiga orang perdana menteri British yang terkenal mempunyai hubungan rapat dengan 'Zionisme Gentile' di Britain: Benjamin Disraeli (1804‒1881), yang berjaya memastikan Britain imperial menguasai Terusan Suez; David Lloyd George (1863‒1945), yang kerajaannya mengeluarkan Perisytiharan Balfour pada 1917; dan Sir Winston Churchill, yang selama hampir setengah abad, sama ada sedang memegang jawatan atau tidak, menumpukan dirinya kepada Zionisme politik dan Empayar British (Sykes 1973: 45, 52, 207). Kedua-dua Disraeli dan Lloyd George tertarik dengan teori-teori penggabungan atau pertalian antara Kristian dan Yahudi (Anderson, I.

Protestant Zionists and British imperialists believed that a ‘Jewish Palestine’ would be convenient for a British protectorate there along the main route to India. From the late 19th century to the middle of the 20th century three famous British prime ministers were closely associated with ‘Gentile Zionism’ in Britain: Benjamin Disraeli (1804‒1881), who was successful in securing for imperial Britain control of the Suez Canal, David Lloyd George (1863‒1945), whose government issued the Balfour Declaration of 1917, and Sir Winston Churchill, who for nearly half a century in and out of office was devoted to political Zionism and the British Empire (Sykes 1973: 45, 52, 207). Both Disraeli and Lloyd George were fascinated by the theories of amalgamation or affinity between Christianity and Judaism (Anderson, I.

2005: 60). Lloyd George, seorang Zionis Protestan, pernah dipetik sebagai berkata:

2005: 60). Lloyd George, a Protestant Zionist, was once quoted as saying:

‘Saya diajar jauh lebih banyak sejarah tentang orang Yahudi daripada sejarah bangsa saya sendiri’ (dipetik oleh Stein 1961: 142); dan Disraeli dibaptiskan sebagai penganut Protestan, namun beliau tetap kagum dengan latar belakang Yahudinya. Dengan menggambarkan Kristian Protestan sebagai ‘Yahudisme yang disempurnakan’, beliau – seperti ramai penganut Kristian Zionis – gemar menggambarkan dirinya sebagai ‘halaman yang hilang’ di antara Perjanjian Lama dan Perjanjian Baru (Johnson, P. 1993: 324). Imperialisme Kristian yang bersifat memberadabkan oleh Disraeli menggabungkan sikap memandang rendah terhadap orang Yahudi dengan dasar luar imperialis terhadap Timur Tengah, dasar yang beliau justifikasikan dengan menggunakan teori paternalistik dan berunsur perkauman yang memandang imperialisme sebagai manifestasi daripada apa yang disebut oleh penyair imperial Britain, Rudyard Kipling, sebagai ‘beban orang kulit putih’.13

‘I was taught far more history about the Jews than about the history of my own people’ (quoted by Stein 1961: 142); and Disraeli was baptised a Protestant, but he remained fascinated by his Jewish background. Describing Protestant Christianity as ‘completed Judaism’, he – like many Christian Zionists – delighted in describing himself as the ‘missing page’ between the Old and New Testaments (Johnson, P. 1993: 324). Disraeli’s civilising Christian imperialism combined patronising attitudes towards the Jews with imperialist foreign policies towards the Middle East, policies which he justified by invoking paternalistic and racist theories which saw imperialism as a manifestation of what Britain’s imperial poet, Rudyard Kipling, would refer to as ‘the white man’s burden’.13

Selama berabad-abad, dan selama lebih dari lapan puluh tahun Zionisme politik, orang Arab Palestin merupakan majoriti mutlak di Palestin. Balfour sedar sepenuhnya akan hakikat ini ketika, pada 11 Ogos 1919, beliau dengan terus terang menyatakan pandangan kolonialisnya yang khas dan menulis:

For centuries, and for more than eighty years of political Zionism, the Palestinian Arabs were an absolute majority in Palestine. Balfour was fully aware of this fact when, on 11 August 1919, he frankly expressed his typically colonialist views and wrote:

Zionisme, sama ada betul atau salah, baik atau buruk, berakar pada tradisi yang telah berabad lamanya, pada keperluan semasa, pada harapan masa depan, yang jauh lebih mendalam maknanya daripada kehendak dan prasangka 700,000 orang Arab yang kini mendiami tanah purba itu … Idea untuk menempatkan minoriti [Eropah] yang terdiri daripada orang luar di atas penduduk majoriti peribumi, tanpa berunding dengan mereka, tidaklah dirancang untuk mengejutkan orang-orang yang pernah bekerja dengan Cecil Rhodes atau mempromosikan penempatan Eropah di Kenya. (Dipetik dalam Talmon 1965: 248, 250)

Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land … The idea of planting a [European] minority of outsiders upon an indigenous majority population, without consulting it, was not calculated to horrify men who had worked with Cecil Rhodes or promoted European settlement in Kenya. (Quoted in Talmon 1965: 248, 250)

Pada tahun 1925 Balfour melawat Palestin dan menjadi tetamu kehormat utama pada perasmian Universiti Ibrani Jerusalem. Beliau disambut dengan penuh semangat oleh pimpinan Yishuv (penempatan) Zionis Eropah yang kecil.

In 1925 Balfour visited Palestine and was a key guest of honour at the opening of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He was greeted enthusiastically by the leadership of the small European Zionist Yishuv (settlement)

di Palestin, sedangkan majoriti penduduk asli Palestin menyambutnya dengan bendera hitam.

in Palestine, while the majority of indigenous inhabitants of Palestine welcomed him with black flags.

Kunci untuk memahami sumbangan Britain terhadap Nakba (malapetaka) Palestin pada pertengahan abad ke-20 terletak pada betapa bersungguh-sungguhnya sebahagian penganut restorasionisme Kristian British menerima projek "tanah air Yahudi" di Palestin; cara Bible dan "hak ilahi dan janji ilahi" dilihat oleh tokoh-tokoh seperti Perdana Menteri British Lloyd George dan Setiausaha Luar Negerinya Arthur James Balfour (yang mengeluarkan Pengisytiharan Balfour); dan secara umumnya daya tarikan luar biasa yang dimiliki Zionisme politik di Barat. Walaupun Pengisytiharan Balfour sebahagiannya didorong oleh pertimbangan semasa Perang Dunia Pertama, ia tidak dikeluarkan dalam kekosongan ideologi. Kandungannya mencerminkan politik kenabian Zionis Kristian yang berakar umbi dalam Britain Protestan yang imperialis pada abad ke-19 (Verete 1970).14 Semua ini bermakna bahawa, sejak awal lagi, realiti Palestin dan rakyat Palestin berada di luar gambaran Barat dan Zionis tentang "tanah air Yahudi" di Palestin.

The key to understanding the contribution of Britain to the Palestinian Nakba (catastrophe) of the mid-20th century lies in the intensity with which some British Christian restorationists embraced the project of a ‘Jewish homeland’in Palestine; the way in which the Bible and ‘divine rights and divine promises’ were seen by the likes of British Prime Minister Lloyd George and his Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour (who issued the Balfour Declaration); and generally the extraordinary appeal political Zionism had in the West. Although the Balfour Declaration was partly motivated by First World War calculations, it was not issued in an ideological vacuum. Its content reflected the Christian Zionist prophetic politics which became deeply rooted in 19th century imperialist Protestant Britain (Verete 1970).14 This all meant that, from the beginning, the reality of Palestine and the Palestinians lay outside Western and Zionist representations of the ‘Jewish homeland’ in Palestine.

Selain itu, sebagaimana yang dihujahkan oleh Edward Said, "tapak perjuangan Zionis hanya sebahagiannya berada di Palestin"; tapak perjuangan yang penting bagi Zionis kekal sehingga 1948 di ibu kota-ibu kota di Barat, manakala realiti Palestin dan "tentangan penduduk asli terhadap Zionis sama ada dipandang ringan atau diabaikan di Barat" (Said 1980: 22‒23). Dengan memindahkan perjuangan itu dari Timur Tengah, rakyat Palestin (dan orang Arab) dihalang daripada mewakili diri mereka sendiri, dan dianggap tidak mampu berbuat demikian: "[M]ereka tidak boleh mewakili diri mereka sendiri; mereka mesti diwakili" (dipetik dalam Said 1980).15 Dalam usaha menjadikan gerakan Zionis menarik di mata khalayak Barat, para pemimpinnya bukan sahaja menafikan kewujudan penduduk Palestin yang berbahasa Arab; mereka turut menggambarkan orang Arab kepada Barat sebagai sesuatu yang boleh difahami dan diurus dengan cara-cara tertentu. Antara Zionisme dan Barat wujud, dan masih wujud, satu komuniti bahasa serta ideologi; orang Arab bukan sebahagian daripada komuniti ini. Sejauh yang besar, komuniti ini bergantung pada tradisi di Barat yang memusuhi Islam khususnya dan Timur secara amnya (Said 1979: 25‒26). Satu kejayaan besar bagi Zionis Kristian dan Yahudi ialah keupayaan mereka menguasai ruang dari mana mereka semua akan mewakili dan menjelaskan orang Arab kepada Barat:

Furthermore, as Edward Said argued, the ‘site of the Zionist struggle was only partially in Palestine’; the crucial site of the Zionist struggle remained until 1948 in the capital cities in the West, while the reality of Palestine and ‘the native resistance to the Zionists was either played down or ignored in the West’ (Said 1980: 22‒23). By removing the struggle from the Middle East, the Palestinians (and Arabs) were prevented from representing themselves, and were deemed incapable of doing so: ‘[T]hey cannot represent themselves; they must be represented’ (quoted in Said 1980).15 In making the Zionist movement attractive to Western audiences, its leaders not only denied the existence of the Arabic-speaking people of Palestine; they represented the Arabs to the West as something that could be understood and managed in specific ways. Between Zionism and the West there was and still is a community of language and of ideology; Arabs were not part of this community. To a very great extent this community depends on a tradition in the West of enmity towards Islam in particular and the Orient in general (Said 1979: 25‒26). A major success of the Christian and Jewish Zionists has been their ability to occupy the space from which they were all to represent and explain the Arabs to the West:

[Orang] Zionis menganggap diri mereka sebagai bangsa yang sebahagiannya 'Timur', yang telah membebaskan diri daripada keterlaluan Timur yang paling teruk, untuk menerangkan kepada Barat tentang orang Arab Timur, untuk mengambil tanggungjawab menyatakan bagaimana sebenarnya orang Arab dan tentang mereka, serta tidak sekali-kali membiarkan orang Arab kelihatan setara dengan mereka sebagai wujud di Palestin. Kaedah ini membolehkan Zionisme sentiasa kelihatan sama ada terlibat dalam realiti tempatan kewujudan Timur Tengah sekaligus lebih unggul daripadanya. (Said 1980: 26)

[The] Zionists took it upon themselves as a partially ‘Eastern’ people who had emancipated themselves from the worst Eastern excesses, to explain the Oriental Arabs to the West, to assume responsibility for expressing what the Arabs were really like and about, never to let the Arabs appear equally with them as existing in Palestine. This method allowed Zionism always to seem both involved in and superior to the native realties of Middle Eastern existence. (Said 1980: 26)

Walaupun begitu, terdapat kenyataan-kenyataan Kristian dan Zionis Yahudi sedemikian, pemimpin-pemimpin Zionis sejak awal lagi sedar bahawa bukan sahaja terdapat penduduk di tanah itu, tetapi penduduknya ramai. Zangwill, yang telah melawat Palestin pada tahun 1897 dan berhadapan dengan realiti demografi, mengakui pada tahun 1905 dalam satu ucapan kepada kumpulan Zionis di Manchester bahawa ‘Palestin sebenar sudah pun mempunyai penduduknya. Pashalik Baitulmaqdis sudah pun dua kali ganda lebih padat penduduknya berbanding Amerika Syarikat, dengan lima puluh dua jiwa bagi setiap batu persegi, dan tidak sampai 25 peratus daripada mereka adalah Yahudi’ (Zangwill 1937: 210). Rujukan yang banyak mengenai penduduk Palestin dalam teks-teks Zionis awal menunjukkan dengan jelas bahawa sejak permulaan penempatan Zionis di Palestin, yang dicatatkan oleh sejarahwan Zionis sebagai ketibaan ahli-ahli Persatuan Bilu Rusia pada tahun 1882, rakyat Arab Palestin jauh daripada menjadi kehadiran yang ‘tidak kelihatan’ atau ‘tersembunyi’. Tambahan pula, kajian terkini telah menunjukkan bahawa pemimpin-pemimpin Zionis mengambil berat tentang apa yang mereka namakan ‘masalah Arab’ (Ibrani: Habe’ayah Ha’arvit) atau ‘Persoalan Arab’ (Ibrani:

Despite such Christian and Jewish Zionist statements, however, the Zionist leaders from the outset were well aware that not only were there people on the land, but that people were there in large numbers. Zangwill, who had visited Palestine in 1897 and come face to face with the demographic reality, acknowledged in 1905 in a speech to a Zionist group in Manchester that ‘Palestine proper has already its inhabitants. The pashalik of Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United States, having fifty-two souls to the square mile, and not 25 percent of them Jews’ (Zangwill 1937: 210). Abundant references to the Palestinian population in early Zionist texts show clearly that from the beginning of Zionist settlement in Palestine, which Zionist historiography dates to the arrival of the members of the Russian Bilu Society in 1882, the Palestinian Arabs were far from being an ‘unseen’ or ‘hidden’ presence. Moreover, recent studies have shown that Zionist leaders were concerned with what they termed the ‘Arab problem’ (Hebrew: Habe’ayah Ha’arvit) or the ‘Arab Question’ (Hebrew:

Hashelah Ha'arvit). Seperti yang dapat dilihat dalam tulisan mereka, sikap yang lazim di kalangan majoriti kumpulan dan peneroka Zionis terhadap penduduk Palestin peribumi berkisar daripada sikap acuh tak acuh dan memandang remeh hingga sikap angkuh yang merendahkan. Contoh tipikal dapat ditemui dalam karya Moshe Smilansky, seorang penulis Zionis dan pemimpin Buruh yang berhijrah ke Palestin pada tahun 1890:

Hashelah Ha’arvit). As seen in their writings, the attitudes prevailing among the majority of the Zionist groups and settlers concerning the indigenous Palestinian population ranged from indifference and disregard to patronising superiority. A typical example can be found in the works of Moshe Smilansky, a Zionist writer and Labour leader who immigrated to Palestine in 1890:

Janganlah kita terlalu akrab dengan fellahin Arab, supaya anak-anak kita tidak meniru cara hidup mereka dan belajar daripada perbuatan buruk mereka. Hendaklah semua orang yang setia kepada Taurat menjauhi keburukan dan apa yang menyerupainya, serta menjaga jarak daripada fellahin dan sifat-sifat rendah mereka.

Let us not be too familiar with the Arab fellahin lest our children adopt their ways and learn from their ugly deeds. Let all those who are loyal to the Torah avoid ugliness and that which resembles it and keep their distance from the fellahin and their base attributes.

Memang, ada sebahagian orang yang tidak bersetuju dengan sikap-sikap sedemikian.

There were, certainly, those who took exception to such attitudes.

Ahad Ha'Am (Asher Zvi Ginzberg), seorang pemikir Yahudi Rusia yang liberal, melawat Palestin pada tahun 1891 dan menerbitkan satu siri artikel dalam majalah Ibrani Hamelitz. Artikel-artikel tersebut mengkritik dengan tajam sifat berpusatkan etnik (ethnocentricity) dalam Zionisme politik, serta eksploitasi petani Palestin oleh peneroka kolonial Zionis.

Ahad Ha’Am (Asher Zvi Ginzberg), a liberal Russian Jewish thinker who visited Palestine in 1891, published a series of articles in the Hebrew periodical Hamelitz that were sharply critical of the ethnocentricity of political Zionism as well as the exploitation of Palestinian peasantry by Zionist settlercolonists.

Ahad Ha'Am, yang berusaha menarik perhatian kepada hakikat bahawa Palestin bukanlah wilayah yang kosong dan bahawa kehadiran bangsa lain di tanah itu menimbulkan masalah, memerhatikan bahawa "perintis" Zionis percaya bahawa satu-satunya bahasa yang difahami oleh orang Arab ialah bahasa kekerasan ... [Mereka] bersikap memusuhi dan kejam terhadap orang Arab, menceroboh sempadan mereka secara zalim, memukul mereka dengan memalukan tanpa sebab dan bahkan membanggakannya, dan tiada seorang pun yang bangkit untuk memeriksa kecenderungan yang hina dan berbahaya ini. (Dipetik dalam Masalha 1992: 7)

Ahad Ha’Am, who sought to draw attention to the fact that Palestine was not an empty territory and that the presence of another people on the land posed problems, observed that the Zionist ‘pioneers’ believed that the only language that the Arabs understand is that of force ... [They] behave towards the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly upon their boundaries, beat them shamefully without reason and even brag about it, and nobody stands to check this contemptible and dangerous tendency. (Cited in Masalha 1992: 7)

Beliau menyentuh inti persoalan apabila mengemukakan pandangan bahawa sikap agresif para penjajah terhadap petani peribumi berpunca daripada kemarahan mereka "terhadap mereka yang mengingatkan mereka bahawa masih ada satu lagi kaum di tanah Israel yang telah lama tinggal di sana dan tidak berniat untuk meninggalkannya".

He cut to the heart of the matter when he ventured that the colonists’ aggressive attitude towards the native peasants stemmed from their anger ‘towards those who reminded them that there is still another people in the land of Israel that have been living there and does not intend to leave’.

Seorang lagi peneroka awal, Yitzhak Epstein, yang tiba di Palestin dari Rusia pada tahun 1886, memberi amaran bukan sahaja tentang implikasi moral penjajahan Zionis, tetapi juga tentang bahaya politik yang wujud dalam usaha itu. Pada tahun 1907, ketika pembelian tanah Zionis di Galilee sedang mencetuskan tentangan dalam kalangan petani Palestin yang dihalau dari tanah yang dijual oleh tuan tanah yang tidak tinggal di situ, Epstein menulis sebuah artikel yang kontroversi bertajuk ‘The Hidden Question’, di mana beliau dengan tegas mengkritik cara-cara yang digunakan oleh kaum Zionis untuk membeli tanah Arab. Menurut pandangannya, cara-cara ini, yang melibatkan perampasan hak petani Arab, pasti akan menimbulkan konfrontasi politik pada masa hadapan.

Another early settler, Yitzhak Epstein, who arrived in Palestine from Russia in 1886, warned not only of the moral implications of Zionist colonisation but also of the political dangers inherent in the enterprise. In 1907, at a time when Zionist land purchases in the Galilee were stirring opposition among Palestinian peasants forced off land sold by absentee landlords, Epstein wrote a controversial article entitled ‘The Hidden Question’, in which he strongly criticised the methods by which Zionists had purchased Arab land. In his view, these methods entailing dispossession of Arab farmers were bound to cause political confrontation in the future.

Tercermin dalam tindak balas marah establishmen Zionis terhadap artikel Epstein ialah dua ciri utama pemikiran Zionis arus perdana: kepercayaan bahawa pemerolehan tanah oleh orang Yahudi didahulukan daripada pertimbangan moral, dan penyokongan terhadap Yishuv (koloni) di Palestin yang bersifat pemisahan dan eksklusif.

Reflected in the Zionist establishment’s angry response to Epstein’s article are two principal features of mainstream Zionist thought: the belief that Jewish acquisition of land took precedence over moral considerations, and the advocacy of a separatist and exclusionist Yishuv (colony) in Palestine.

Mengikuti jejak penjajah-peneroka Eropah, sebelum Perang Dunia Pertama sebahagian pemimpin Zionis (terutamanya Theodor Herzl dalam novel Zionisnya Altneuland) menganggap realiti Palestin, dan manfaat material yang akan dibawa oleh penjajahan Yahudi Eropah ke Palestin, serupa dengan ideologi supremasi "beban orang kulit putih" (white man's burden). Namun pada zaman Mandat, menjadi jelas bagi kepimpinan Zionis bahawa pengusiran sistematik dan "pemindahan" penduduk asli Palestin ialah conditio sine qua non (syarat mutlak) bagi projek Zionis (Wiemer 1983: 26; Masalha 1992).

Following in the footsteps of European settler-colonialists, before the First World War some Zionist leaders (notably Theodor Herzl in his Zionist novel Altneuland), conceived the reality of Palestine, and the material benefits European Jewish colonisation would bring to Palestine, to be similar to the supremacist ideology of the ‘white man’s burden’. During the Mandatory period, however, it became clear to the Zionist leadership that a systematic dislocation and ‘transfer’ of the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine was the conditio sine qua non of the Zionist enterprise (Wiemer 1983: 26; Masalha 1992).

Dalam karya termasyhurnya, Orientalism (1978), Edward W. Said mengkritik secara tajam kajian "Oriental" Barat dan menyingkap anggapan-anggapan asas yang mendasari disiplin tersebut. Beliau turut membuat kesimpulan bahawa Kajian Bible merupakan sebahagian daripada, dan lanjutan kepada, wacana Orientalis Barat, yang telah dibina tanpa mengambil kira pembaca "Oriental"/Arab/Muslim. Bagi Said, dalam wacana Orientalis Bible ini, penduduk asli Palestin digambarkan sebagai tidak mampu bertindak secara bersatu dan tidak mempunyai kesedaran nasional. Para sarjana Bible, mengikuti jejak Orientalis Barat, memberi tumpuan kepada persoalan sejarah dan arkeologi. Dalam The Question of Palestine, yang diterbitkan dua tahun selepas Orientalism, Said juga cuba menerangkan pemadaman rakyat Palestin daripada sejarah. Bagi beliau, penghapusan realiti Palestin berpusat pada tiga isu utama: pertama, memahami gambaran Palestin, rakyat Palestin dan Islam di Barat: buku Said, Covering Islam (1981), patut dilihat sebagai sebahagian daripada triloji yang merangkumi Orientalism (1978) dan The Question of Palestine (Said 1980; Ashcroft dan Ahluwalia 2001: 125). Bagi Said, gambaran Islam di Barat merupakan bahagian penting dalam persoalan Palestin kerana ia digunakan untuk membungkam rakyat Palestin, yang kebanyakannya beragama Islam (Said 1980; Ashcroft dan Ahluwalia 2001: 128); kedua, memahami "pertarungan antara pengesahan dan penafian"; ketiga, memahami sikap Orientalis Barat terhadap orang Arab dan Islam; prasangka perkauman Barat, dan terutamanya naratif Barat tentang pertarungan antara kuasa "bbertamadun" peneroka Zionis Eropah dengan orang Arab Oriental yang "tidak bertamadun", "khianat" dan merosot (Said 1980: 25‒28). Wacana berbingkai Bible ini merangkumi (a) pembentukan sejarah, 'supaya sejarah ini kini kelihatan mengesahkan kesahihan tuntutan Zionis ke atas Palestin, sekali gus memperkecil tuntutan rakyat Palestin' (Said 1980: 8), dan (b) pengesahan Zionis terhadap penjajahan-peneroka Zionis di Palestin, satu proses yang tidak berakhir dengan penubuhan Israel pada 1948.

In his seminal work, Orientalism (1978), Edward W. Said subjected Western ‘Oriental Studies’ to a devastating critique and exposed the underlying presumptions of the discipline. He also concluded that Biblical Studies were part of and an extension of the Western Orientalist discourse, which had been constructed without any ‘Oriental’/Arab/Muslim reader in view. For Said, in this biblical Orientalist discourse the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine were presented as incapable of unified action and national consciousness. The biblical scholars, following in the footsteps of the Western Orientalists, concentrated on historical and archaeological questions. In The Question of Palestine, which came out two years after Orientalism, Said also tried to explain the erasure of Palestinians from history. For him, the deletion of the reality of Palestine centred on three key issues: first, understanding the representation of Palestine, the Palestinians and Islam in the West: Said’s book Covering Islam (1981) should be treated as part of a trilogy which includes Orientalism (1978) and The Question of Palestine (Said 1980; Ashcroft and Ahluwalia 2001: 125). For Said, the representations of Islam in the West are an important part of the question of Palestine because they are used to silence the Palestinians, the majority of whom are Muslims (Said 1980; Ashcroft and Ahluwalia 2001: 128); second, understanding the ‘contest between an affirmation and a denial’; third, understanding Western Orientalist attitudes towards Arabs and Islam; Western racial prejudices, and especially the Western narrative of a contest between the ‘civilising’ forces of the Zionist European settlers and the ‘uncivilised’, ‘treacherous’ and degenerate Oriental Arabs (Said 1980: 25‒28). This biblically framed discourse entails (a) the shaping of history, ‘so that this history now appears to confirm the validity of Zionist claims to Palestine, thereby denigrating Palestinians claims’ (Said 1980: 8), and (b) the Zionist legitimisation of Zionist settler-colonisation in Palestine, a process that did not end with the creation of Israel in 1948.