Madola manne makubwa manne yamejitolea kwa Uzayuni. Na Uzayuni, iwe ni sahihi au si sahihi, mzuri au mbaya, umejikita katika mila za karne nyingi, katika mahitaji ya sasa, katika matumaini ya baadaye, na una umuhimu mkubwa zaidi kuliko matakwa na upendeleo wa Waarabu 700,000 [wa Palestina] wanaoishi sasa katika nchi hiyo ya kale. (Arthur James Balfour, alivyonukuliwa katika 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)

Ukoloni wa walowezi wa Kizayuni ndio chanzo kikuu cha mzozo huko Palestina; ukoloni wa walowezi ni muundo, si tukio la kupita (Wolfe 2006). Ukoloni wa walowezi wa Kizayuni umejikita sana katika ukoloni wa Kiulaya. Wakipuuza uwepo na haki za watu wa asili, wakoloni wa Kiingereza mara nyingi waliona sehemu kubwa za dunia kama terra nullius, yaani 'ardhi ya hakuna mtu'. Usemi huu (ulioanzia katika sheria ya Kirumi) ulitumika kuelezea eneo ambalo halikuwa chini ya mamlaka ya dola yoyote ya Kiulaya. Mamlaka juu ya eneo ambalo ni terra nullius yanaweza kupatikana kupitia uvamizi na/au ukoloni wa walowezi.

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.

Wakati, mwishoni mwa karne ya kumi na tisa, "utaifa wa Kizayuni" wa Ulaya ulipoibuka kama nguvu ya kisiasa inayodai ukoloni wa walowezi nchini Palestina na "kukusanywa kwa Wayahudi wote," kidogo sana kilizingatiwa kwamba Palestina ilikuwa tayari na watu wanaoishi humo. Kwa hakika, Programu ya Basel iliyopitishwa katika Kongamano la Kwanza la Kizayuni, lililozindua Uzayuni wa kisiasa mwaka 1897, haikutaja wakazi wa asili wa Kipalestina walipoeleza lengo la harakati hiyo: "kuanzishwa kwa nyumba iliyolindwa kwa umma na kisheria nchini Palestina kwa ajili ya watu wa Kiyahudi."

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’.

Zaidi ya hayo, katika miaka ya mwanzo ya juhudi zao za kupata uungwaji mkono kwa mradi wao, Wazayuni walieneza Magharibi hadithi ya kibaguzi ya ‘nchi isiyo na watu kwa watu wasio na nchi’, kauli mbiu iliyopata umaarufu kupitia Israel Zangwill, mwandishi mashuhuri wa Kiingereza-Kiyahudi aliyenukuliwa mara nyingi katika vyombo vya habari vya Uingereza kama msemaji wa Uzayuni, na mmoja wa waandaaji wa mwanzo kabisa wa harakati ya Uzayuni nchini Uingereza. Hata mwaka 1914, Chaim Weizmann, ambaye baadaye alikuwa Rais wa kwanza wa Israeli na ambaye, pamoja na Theodor Herzl na David Ben-Gurion, alikuwa mmoja wa watu watatu waliohusika zaidi katika kugeuza ndoto ya Uzayuni kuwa uhalisia, alisema:

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:

Katika hatua yake ya awali, Uzayuni ulibuniwa na waanzilishi wake kama harakati iliyotegemea kabisa mambo ya kimitambo: kuna nchi inayoitwa Palestina, nchi isiyo na watu, na, kwa upande mwingine, kuna watu wa Kiyahudi, nao hawana nchi. Basi, kipi kingine kinachohitajika zaidi ya kuweka jiwe ndani ya pete, kuunganisha watu hawa na nchi hii? Wamiliki wa nchi hiyo [Waturuki] ni lazima, basi, washawishiwe na kushawishika kwamba ndoa hii ina manufaa, si kwa [watu wa Kiyahudi] na kwa nchi peke yake, bali pia kwa wao wenyewe.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

Zangwill wala Weizmann hawakukusudia tathmini hizi za idadi ya watu kwa maana ya moja kwa moja. Hawakumaanisha kwamba hakukuwa na watu huko Palestina, bali kwamba hakukuwa na watu waliostahili kuzingatiwa ndani ya mfumo wa mawazo ya ubaguzi wa rangi na ukuu wa Ulaya uliokuwa ukitawala wakati huo. Katika muktadha huu, maoni ya Weizmann kwa Arthur Ruppin, mkuu wa idara ya ukoloni ya Wakala wa Kiyahudi, yanafichua sana.

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.

Alipoulizwa na Ruppin kuhusu Waarabu wa asili wa Palestina, Weizmann alijibu: "Waingereza walituambia kwamba kuna Wanegro [Kiebrania: kushim, watu weusi] laki moja hivi huko, na kwao hakuna thamani yoyote."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

Neno "nigger" kwa Kiingereza ni tusi la kibaguzi la Wazungu linaloelekezwa kwa watu weusi na Waafrika. Maana yake ya kudharau inakumbusha neno lingine la kudharau la Kiingereza, "philistine", ambalo Uingereza wa Kizungu uliazima kutoka kwa chuki za kibiblia na kulieneza katika lugha ya kila siku. Hata hivyo, katika utamaduni wa ukoloni wa kibaguzi wa Wazungu ambamo Weizmann na wenzake walifanya kazi, kumwita watu wa asili wa Palestina "nigger" kungeonekana kuwa jambo la kawaida na la asili. Kuakisi ubaguzi wa kidemografia wa Weizmann na Orientalism ya kibiblia ya Shaftesbury, Zangwill mwenyewe alieleza kwa uwazi wa ajabu maana halisi ya kauli mbiu yake mnamo mwaka 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:

Ikiwa Lord Shaftesbury alikuwa si sahihi kwa maana halisi alipoelezea Palestina kuwa nchi isiyo na watu, basi kimsingi alikuwa sahihi, kwa kuwa hakuna watu wa Kiarabu wanaoishi kwa ushirikiano wa karibu na nchi hiyo, wakitumia rasilimali zake na kuipa alama yake ya kipekee: kwa kiwango cha juu kabisa kuna kambi ya Waarabu tu. (Zangwill 1920: 104; angalia pia 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)

Mwingiliano kati ya mambo ya ndani ya Uingereza na masuala ya kifalme, pamoja na wanaharakati wa Kiyahudi wa Kizayuni (hasa Chaim Weizmann, 1874‒1952) na siasa za kinabii za Wakristo Wazayuni, ulisababisha Azimio la Balfour la mwaka 1917, lililoahidi "nchi ya Wayahudi" huko Palestina (Anderson, I. 2005: 1, 57‒58). Hapo ndipo Uingereza, kama mamlaka kubwa ya kifalme duniani, ilitoa idhini kwa mara ya kwanza kwa kampeni ya Kizayuni ya kumiliki Palestina. Waraka huu wenye utata mkubwa, wenye tarehe 2 Novemba, ulitolewa na Waziri wa Mambo ya Nje Arthur James Balfour (baadaye Lord Balfour), kwa namna ya barua kwa mfuasi mashuhuri Myahudi wa Uingereza wa harakati ya Kizayuni, Lionel Walter (Lord) Rothschild, ikitangaza msaada wa Uingereza kwa Uzayuni wa kisiasa:

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:

Serikali ya Her Majesty inaona kwa upendeleo kuanzishwa nchini Palestina kwa makao ya kitaifa ya watu wa Kiyahudi, na itatumia juhudi zake zote kuwezesha kufikiwa kwa lengo hili, ikieleweka wazi kwamba hakuna jambo litakalofanywa kuathiri haki za kiraia na za kidini za jamii zisizo za Kiyahudi zilizopo Palestina, wala haki na hadhi ya kisiasa wanazofurahia Wayahudi katika nchi nyingine yoyote. (Imenukuliwa kutoka kwa 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)

Ingawa harakati ya Kizayuni ya Kiyahudi ilikwisha anzisha mfululizo wa makongamano ya kimataifa na kuanzisha makoloni madogo ya Kiyahudi huko Palestina mwanzoni mwa karne ya 20, ni udhamini wa Uzayuni uliotolewa na nguvu kuu ya kifalme ya zama hizo ndio uliogeuza mradi wa Kizayuni kuwa mradi mkubwa wa kikoloni wa walowezi wa Ulaya huko Palestina.

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.

Legacy ya Balfour ikawa haitenganishiki na Tamko la 1917 la kuunga mkono Uzayuni alilolitoa. Sababu za tamko hilo zilikuwa ngumu. Uzayuni wa Kikristo wa Balfour ulichochewa na chuki nyingi dhidi ya Wayahudi, na na hofu iliyokuzwa kupita kiasi kuhusu "nguvu ya Wayahudi wa Kizayuni" na hofu ya kuingia kwa wingi kwa Wayahudi kutoka Ulaya Mashariki hadi Uingereza. Akiwa Waziri Mkuu, Balfour alikuwa amepitisha Sheria ya Wageni ya 1905, ambayo lengo lake kuu lilikuwa kuzuia kuingia Uingereza kwa Wayahudi kutoka Ulaya Mashariki. Brian Klug aliliweka hili kwa mashaka kiasi: "Kuwazuia Wayahudi wasiingie Uingereza na kuwatuma Palestina ni pande mbili za sarafu moja ya chuki dhidi ya Wayahudi." Hapa wanahistoria wa Kizayuni mara nyingi walichagua kupuuza tofauti kati ya visababishi/nia na uhalalishaji, na kung'ang'ania maneno ya Balfour mwenyewe ya Uzayuni wa Kikristo baada ya vita ili kuhalalisha Tamko lake. Lakini nia na wasiwasi wa Balfour wa kimkakati na wa kizalendo wa ndani, hasa juhudi na sera zake zilizothibitishwa vizuri za kusimamisha wimbi la Wayahudi wa Ulaya Mashariki kuingia Uingereza, lazima zizingatiwe katika jaribio lolote la kutathmini nia zilizo nyuma ya Tamko hilo, pamoja na matokeo mabaya ya muda mrefu kwa Palestina ya ahadi hiyo ya Balfour.

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.

Misingi ya kidini na kisiasa ya kujitolea huku kwa Uingereza kuunga mkono Uzayuni kunarudi nyuma hadi kwenye kundi la lobi ya Kikristo ya Kiprotestanti ya Kizayuni, lililoanzishwa jijini London miaka ya 1830 na Lord Shaftesbury (Anthony Ashley Cooper; 1801‒1885). Shaftesbury alitoka katika tabaka tawala la kiaristokrasia la Uingereza na kwa miongo kadhaa alikuwa katikati ya mfumo wa Kivictoria. Pia alijulikana sana kwa kutetea sera za mageuzi ya kijamii wakati wa kilele cha enzi ya Kivictoria. Shaftesbury alikuwa mbunge wa chama cha Tory katika Baraza la Commons, na baadaye mwanachama wa Baraza la Lords, baraza la juu la Bunge la Uingereza. Alikuwa shemeji wa Lord Melbourne (Waziri Mkuu katika sehemu kubwa ya kipindi cha 1834 hadi 1841), na mkwe wa kambo wa Lord Palmerston (Waziri wa Mambo ya Nje kwa sehemu kubwa ya miaka ya 1840 na mapema ya 1850, kisha Waziri Mkuu kwa sehemu kubwa ya kipindi cha 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) aliwahi kuhudumu mara mbili kama Waziri Mkuu katikati ya karne ya 19. Kwa karibu muda wote kuanzia 1830 hadi 1865 alitawala sera ya mambo ya nje ya Uingereza, wakati Uingereza ilikuwa katika kilele cha nguvu zake za kikoloni. Shaftesbury alipewa nyadhifa za madaraka na serikali mfululizo za Uingereza. Palmerston alimtia moyo na kumuunga mkono kifedha, na wanaume hao wawili walikuwa na mchango mkubwa katika kuanzishwa kwa Ubalozi wa Uingereza mjini Jerusalem mwaka 1838. Ubalozi huo, katika karne ya 19, ulitawaliwa na Wakristo Wazayuni, na ulikuwa kitovu cha mipango ya kikoloni ya Uingereza iliyosababisha sera ya Balfour huko Palestina (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).

Hasa, Shaftesbury, Mkristo wa Kiprotestanti mwenye msimamo mkali na Mzayuni wa Kikristo, alikuwa mfuasi na mtetezi mkuu zaidi wa kurejeshwa kwa 'watu wa kale wa Mungu', kama alivyowaita Wayahudi (Tuchman 1982). Yeye na kundi lenye ushawishi alilokuwa akiliongoza walikuwa chini ya ushawishi wa siasa za unabii za 'Mwisho wa Nyakati' – siasa za kiinjilisti zilizotegemea Kitabu cha Danieli cha Agano la Kale – ambazo waliamini zingetimizwa kwa 'kurudi kihalisi' na 'Kurejeshwa' kwa Wayahudi huko Palestina. Wakati kuanguka kwa Dola la Ottoman kulipoonekana kukaribia, utetezi wa Kiprotestanti wa 'urejeshaji wa Wayahudi' na ukoloni wa walowezi nchini Palestina uliongezeka nchini Uingereza, na ulionekana kuwa wenye manufaa makubwa kwa Dola la Uingereza lililokuwa likipanuka katika Mashariki ya Kati. Katikati hadi mwishoni mwa karne ya 19, Shaftesbury aliongoza kundi la Uzayuni wa Kikristo la Uingereza, ambalo lilijumuisha watu mashuhuri wa taasisi kama Lord Lindsay (Crawford 1847: 71), Lord Manchester, George Eliot, Holman Hunt na 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.

Akiwakilisha ukoloni wa Kiprotestanti wa enzi ya Kivictoria, Shaftesbury mwenye bidii ya kuhubiri Biblia pia alikuwa mtengenezaji wa hadithi za kubuni. Alisukuma kwa bidii hadithi ya kwamba Wayahudi wa utawanyiko walitamani kila mahali na wakati wote 'kurudi', na tarehe 4 Novemba 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

Alitoa tangazo gazetini The Times (London):

he placed an advertisement in the Times (London):

URUDISHAJI WA WAYAHUDI: Barua ya kumbukumbu imetumwa kwa wafalme wa Kiprotestanti wa Ulaya kuhusu suala la kurejeshwa kwa watu wa Kiyahudi katika nchi ya Palestina. Hati hiyo husika, iliyoandaliwa na muunganiko wa pekee wa mambo huko Mashariki, pamoja na "dalili nyingine za nyakati" zinazovutia, inarejea agano la awali linaloihakikishia nchi hiyo kwa [Wayahudi], wazao wa Ibrahimu. (Imenukuliwa katika 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 alihusika moja kwa moja na kauli mbiu ya propaganda ‘Nchi isiyo na taifa kwa taifa lisilo na nchi’,4 ambayo baadaye ilikuja kuwa hadithi muhimu ya Kiyahudi ya Kizayuni: ‘Ardhi isiyo na watu kwa watu wasio na ardhi’ (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).

Akitathmini umuhimu wa juhudi zake za kushawishi kwenye hatima ya harakati ya Uzayuni ya Kiprotestanti nchini Uingereza, Donald Wagner anaandika:

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

Lord Shaftesbury ko ushawishi wake juu ya wasomi wa kisiasa wa Uingereza, viongozi wa kanisa, na Mkristo wa kawaida hauwezi kutiliwa chumvi. Mawazo yake ya kidini na kisiasa huenda yaliweka mwelekeo wa mbinu ya kikoloni ya Uingereza katika Mashariki ya Karibu, na hasa Ardhi Takatifu, kwa muda wa miaka mia moja iliyofuata. Yeye peke yake aligeuza misimamo ya kitheolojia ya Brightman, Henry Finch, na John Nelson Darby [baba wa dispensationalism ya kisasa ya premillennial]:5 tazama hapa chini]5 kuwa mkakati wa kisiasa. Miunganiko yake mikubwa ya kisiasa, pamoja na silika yake ya ajabu, viliungana kuendeleza maono ya Uzayuni wa Kikristo. (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)

Mwaka 1880, F. Laurence Oliphant (1829‒1888), Mbunge, mwandishi wa riwaya na Mkristo wa kiinjilisti, mfuasi wa Shaftesbury, alichapisha kitabu kiitwacho The Land of Gilead (kilichopewa jina kutokana na "nchi ya Gileadi" ya Biblia), ambamo aliwasilisha mpango wa "urejeshwaji wa Wayahudi" na mradi wa kina wa makazi ya Wayahudi mashariki mwa Mto Yordani. Alilitaka bunge la Uingereza lisaidie uhamiaji wa Wayahudi kutoka Urusi na Ulaya Mashariki kwenda Palestina. Haishangazi kwamba pia alipendekeza Waarabu wenyeji wa Palestina waondolewe na kupelekwa katika maeneo maalum kama yale ya wenyeji asilia wa Amerika Kaskazini.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), au kwa kudokeza itikadi ya Bantustan iliyoendelezwa baadaye na Afrika Kusini (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).

Mchanganyiko wa mambo ya kidini ya Kiprotestanti na ya kikoloni ulisukuma baadhi ya Waingereza kutunga riwaya za Kizayuni za Kikristo, kuanzisha jumuiya za uchunguzi, na kutetea "kurejeshwa kwa Wayahudi Palestina" hadharani na faraghani.8 Zaidi ya hayo, mfululizo wa ugunduzi wa kiakiolojia katika Mashariki ya Karibu, ushujaa wa kijeshi, na idadi inayoongezeka ya simulizi za safari ziliamsha fikra za wamishonari wa Kiprotestanti, maafisa wa Ulaya, na wasomi wa Kiarabu, na kusababisha mataifa ya Ulaya kushiriki moja kwa moja katika Nchi Takatifu (Shepherd 1987; Osband 1989). Shauku hii ya Kiulaya kwa zamani za kiakiolojia iliambatana na dharau dhahiri kwa wenyeji wa Palestina na maisha ya vijiji na miji ya Kipalestina ya kisasa. Kilele cha Dola ya Uingereza na enzi ya Kivictoria kiliambatana na siasa za kinabii za "urejeshaji wa Biblia" pamoja na ongezeko la ushiriki wa kikoloni wa Uingereza katika "Mashariki". Nchi Takatifu katika karne ya 19 ilikuwa lengo la kuvutia kwa mataifa kadhaa ya Ulaya yaliyokuwa yakionyesha nguvu zao za kikoloni duniani kote. Eneo hilo lilikuwa tayari kwa kupenywa na Magharibi, hasa wakati Dola ya Ottoman ilipoonyesha dalili za kuporomoka kisiasa na kiuchumi. Mbio za kupata uwepo wa kitaifa wa Ulaya na maslahi ya kibiashara ya kikoloni Mashariki, na katika Nchi Takatifu hasa, zilifichwa nyuma ya shughuli za kitaaluma na Mafunzo ya Mashariki (Said 1978). Sambamba na "kugombea Palestina" kwa Ulaya, sekta mbalimbali za taaluma za Magharibi, na makanisa mengi ya Kikristo ya Magharibi, yalionyesha shauku inayoongezeka kwa Palestina. Mara nyingi maslahi ya kigeni yalichukua sura ya kuanzisha taasisi za Kikristo – marekebisho ya Ottoman baada ya Vita vya Crimea (1853‒1856) yalitoa haki sawa, ikiwa ni pamoja na haki za mali, kwa wasio Waislamu – hivyo kuunganisha juhudi za umishonari wa Kikristo na ushawishi wa kitaifa. Maslahi ya Mungu na ya nchi yalikwenda sambamba. Waingereza walianza mapema,9 na upesi wakaigwa na Warusi,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

Wajerumani,11 Waustria (Wrba 1996) na wengine, ikiashiria mwanzo wa ushawishi mkubwa wa Magharibi huko Palestina, ushawishi ambao Waothmani waliogopa huenda ukawa ni utangulizi wa jaribio la kurejesha Palestina kama dola ya Kikristo.12 Kiwango cha upenyezaji wa Magharibi kilikuwa hivyo kwamba balozi wa Austria, Hesabu de Caboga, aliripoti mwaka 1880 kwamba Yerusalemu ilikuwa imekuwa mji wa Kizungu, na Kapteni (baadaye Jenerali Sir) Charles Warren (1840‒1927) wa Royal Engineers wa Uingereza, mmoja wa maafisa wakuu wa Mfuko wa Uchunguzi wa Palestina wa Uingereza (British Palestine Exploration Fund), aliyetumwa kuchora ramani ya jiografia ya Agano la Kale ya Yerusalemu na kuchunguza ‘mahali pa hekalu’, alibainisha: ‘[Balozi wa Uingereza] King Consul [James Finn] anatawala kwa ukamilifu, si juu ya wenyeji wa mji, bali juu ya wageni; lakini wageni hawa wengi wao ndio wamiliki halali, na wenyeji, wengi wao, ndio wanaovamia’ (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).

Wazayuni wa Kiprotestanti na wakoloni wa Kiingereza waliamini kwamba 'Palestina ya Kiyahudi' ingefaa kwa ulinzi wa Uingereza kando ya njia kuu ya kwenda India. Kuanzia mwishoni mwa karne ya 19 hadi katikati ya karne ya 20, waziri mkuu watatu maarufu wa Uingereza walihusishwa kwa karibu na 'Uzayuni wa Wasio Wayahudi' nchini Uingereza: Benjamin Disraeli (1804‒1881), aliyefanikiwa kuhakikisha kwamba Uingereza ya kifalme inadhibiti Mfereji wa Suez, David Lloyd George (1863‒1945), ambaye serikali yake ilitoa Azimio la Balfour la mwaka 1917, na Sir Winston Churchill, ambaye kwa karibu nusu karne, akiwa madarakani na nje yake, alijitolea kwa Uzayuni wa kisiasa na Dola ya Uingereza (Sykes 1973: 45, 52, 207). Disraeli na Lloyd George wote walivutiwa na nadharia za kuunganishwa au kufanana kati ya Ukristo na Uyahudi (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, Mzayuni Mprotestanti, alinukuliwa mara moja akisema:

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

"Nilifundishwa historia nyingi zaidi kuhusu Wayahudi kuliko kuhusu historia ya watu wangu mwenyewe" (alinukuliwa na Stein 1961: 142); na Disraeli alibatizwa kuwa Mprotestanti, lakini aliendelea kuvutiwa na asili yake ya Kiyahudi. Akieleza Ukristo wa Kiprotestanti kuwa "Uyahudi uliokamilika", yeye - kama Wakristo wengi wa Kizayuni - alifurahia kujieleza kama "ukurasa uliokosekana" kati ya Agano la Kale na Agano Jipya (Johnson, P. 1993: 324). Ustaarabishaji wa Kikristo wa Disraeli ulichanganya mitazamo ya kuwadharau Wayahudi na sera za kikoloni kuelekea Mashariki ya Kati; sera ambazo alizihalalisha kwa kutumia nadharia za kibaba na za kibaguzi zilizoona ukoloni kuwa udhihirisho wa kile ambacho mshairi wa kifalme wa Uingereza, Rudyard Kipling, angekiita "mzigo wa mzungu".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

Kwa karne nyingi, na kwa zaidi ya miaka themanini ya Uzayuni wa kisiasa, Waarabu wa Palestina walikuwa wengi kabisa nchini Palestina. Balfour alikuwa anajua vizuri ukweli huu alipoeleza waziwazi, tarehe 11 Agosti 1919, mitazamo yake ya kikoloni kama ilivyo kawaida yake, na kuandika:

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:

Uzionisti, iwe ni sahihi au si sahihi, nzuri au mbaya, umejikita katika mila za karne nyingi, katika mahitaji ya sasa, katika matumaini ya baadaye, yenye umuhimu wa kina zaidi kuliko matakwa na chuki za Waarabu 700,000 ambao sasa wanakaa katika ardhi hiyo ya kale … Wazo la kuweka wachache wa [Wazungu] wa kigeni juu ya idadi ya wenyeji wengi, bila kushauriwa, halikuwa la kuwatisha watu waliokuwa wamefanya kazi na Cecil Rhodes au kukuza ukoloni wa Wazungu nchini Kenya. (Imenukuliwa katika 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)

Mwaka 1925 Balfour alitembelea Palestina na alikuwa mgeni mashuhuri wa heshima katika uzinduzi wa Chuo Kikuu cha Kiebrania cha Yerusalemu. Viongozi wa Yishuv (makazi) ndogo ya Kizayuni ya Wazungu walimpokea kwa shangwe.

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)

nchini Palestina, wakati wengi wa wakazi wa asili wa Palestina walimpokea kwa bendera nyeusi.

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

Ufunguo wa kuelewa mchango wa Uingereza katika Nakba (msiba) ya Wapalestina wa katikati ya karne ya 20 upo katika kiwango cha shauku ambacho baadhi ya Wakristo wa Uingereza waliokuwa wakiamini kurejeshwa kwa Israeli (Christian restorationists) walikubali mradi wa 'nchi ya Wayahudi' huko Palestina; katika jinsi Biblia na 'haki za kimungu na ahadi za kimungu' zilivyoonekana na watu kama Waziri Mkuu wa Uingereza Lloyd George na Waziri wake wa Mambo ya Nje Arthur James Balfour (aliyetoa Azimio la Balfour); na kwa ujumla, jinsi Uzayuni wa kisiasa ulivyovutia sana katika nchi za Magharibi. Ingawa Azimio la Balfour lilichochewa kwa sehemu na mahesabu ya Vita vya Kwanza vya Dunia, halikutolewa katika ombwe la kiitikadi. Maudhui yake yalionyesha siasa za kiunabii za Uzayuni wa Kikristo, ambazo zilikita mizizi kwa kina katika Uingereza ya Kiprotestanti yenye ubeberu ya karne ya 19 (Verete 1970).14 Haya yote yalimaanisha kwamba, tangu mwanzo, uhalisia wa Palestina na Wapalestina ulikuwa nje ya taswira za Magharibi na za Kizayuni za 'nchi ya Wayahudi' huko Palestina.

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.

Zaidi ya hayo, kama Edward Said alivyosema, "eneo la mapambano ya Uzayuni lilikuwa sehemu tu ndani ya Palestina"; eneo kuu la mapambano ya Uzayuni lilibaki hadi mwaka 1948 katika miji mikuu ya Magharibi, wakati uhalisia wa Palestina na "upinzani wa wenyeji dhidi ya Wazayuni ulipuuzwa au kufichwa Magharibi" (Said 1980: 22‒23). Kwa kuondoa mapambano hayo kutoka Mashariki ya Kati, Wapalestina (na Waarabu kwa ujumla) walizuiwa kujiwakilisha wenyewe, na walichukuliwa kuwa hawana uwezo wa kufanya hivyo: "[Wao] hawawezi kujiwakilisha; lazima wawakilishwe" (alinukuliwa katika Said 1980).15 Kwa kuufanya vuguvugu la Uzayuni livutie hadhira ya Magharibi, viongozi wake hawakukataa tu kuwepo kwa watu wa Palestina wanaozungumza Kiarabu; pia waliwawakilisha Waarabu mbele ya Magharibi kama watu ambao wanaweza kueleweka na kusimamiwa kwa njia maalum. Kati ya Uzayuni na Magharibi kulikuwepo, na bado kuna, jumuiya ya lugha na itikadi; Waarabu hawakuwa sehemu ya jumuiya hii. Kwa kiasi kikubwa sana, jumuiya hii inategemea mapokeo ya Magharibi ya uadui dhidi ya Uislamu hasa na Mashariki kwa ujumla (Said 1979: 25‒26). Mafanikio makubwa ya Wazayuni Wakristo na Wayahudi yamekuwa uwezo wao wa kuchukua nafasi ambayo kutoka kwake wangewawakilisha na kuwaeleza Waarabu kwa Magharibi:

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:

[Wazayuni] walijichukulia jukumu, kama watu ambao kwa kiasi fulani ni 'Wamashariki' waliojikomboa kutoka kwenye ukiukaji mbaya zaidi wa Mashariki, kuwaeleza Waarabu wa Mashariki kwa Magharibi, kuchukua wajibu wa kueleza Waarabu hasa walivyo na kuhusu wao ni nani, na kamwe wasiruhusu Waarabu waonekane sawa nao kama wanaoishi Palestina. Mbinu hii iliruhusu Uzayuni kila mara uonekane wote ukishiriki katika na kuwa bora kuliko uhalisia wa asili wa maisha ya Mashariki ya Kati. (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)

Licha ya kauli hizo za Wakristo na Wayahudi wa Kizayuni, viongozi wa Kizayuni tangu mwanzo walifahamu vyema kwamba si tu kulikuwa na watu katika ardhi hiyo, bali watu hao walikuwa wengi. Zangwill, aliyetembelea Palestina mwaka 1897 na kukabiliana moja kwa moja na uhalisia wa idadi ya watu, alikiri mwaka 1905, katika hotuba kwa kundi la Kizayuni huko Manchester, kwamba ‘Palestina yenyewe tayari ina wakazi wake. Pashalik ya Jerusalem tayari ina watu wengi mara mbili zaidi ya Marekani, ikiwa na watu hamsini na wawili kwa maili moja ya mraba, na si zaidi ya asilimia 25 yao wakiwa Wayahudi’ (Zangwill 1937: 210). Marejeo mengi ya idadi ya watu wa Palestina katika maandishi ya awali ya Kizayuni yanaonyesha wazi kwamba tangu mwanzo wa makazi ya Kizayuni huko Palestina, ambayo historia ya Kizayuni inaitarehe hadi kuwasili kwa wanachama wa Jumuiya ya Bilu ya Urusi mwaka 1882, Waarabu wa Palestina hawakuwa kabisa uwepo ‘usioonekana’ au ‘uliofichika’. Zaidi ya hayo, tafiti za hivi karibuni zimeonyesha kwamba viongozi wa Kizayuni walijishughulisha na kile walichokiita ‘tatizo la Waarabu’ (Kiebrania: Habe’ayah Ha’arvit) au ‘Swali la Waarabu’ (Kiebrania:

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). Kama inavyoonekana katika maandishi yao, mitazamo iliyoenea miongoni mwa kundi kubwa la makundi ya Kizayuni na walowezi kuhusu wakazi wa asili wa Kipalestina ilianzia kwenye kutojali na kupuuza hadi kwenye dharau ya kujiona bora. Mfano wa kawaida unaweza kupatikana katika kazi za Moshe Smilansky, mwandishi wa Kizayuni na kiongozi wa Chama cha Wafanyakazi aliyehamia Palestina mwaka 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:

Tusijishughulishe sana na Waarabu wa fellahin, ili watoto wetu wasije wakaiga mienendo yao na kujifunza matendo yao mabaya. Wote wanaoshikamana na Torati waepuke uovu na kila kinachofanana nao, na wajiweke mbali na fellahin pamoja na tabia zao duni.

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.

Hakika, kulikuwa na wale waliopinga mitazamo kama hiyo.

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

Ahad Ha'Am (Asher Zvi Ginzberg), mwanafikra huria wa Kiyahudi kutoka Urusi, aliyetembelea Palestina mwaka 1891, alichapisha mfululizo wa makala katika jarida la Kiebrania Hamelitz zilizokosoa vikali ubinafsi wa kikabila wa Uzayuni wa kisiasa, pamoja na unyonyaji wa wakulima wa Kipalestina uliofanywa na walowezi wa Kizayuni.

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, ambaye alitaka kuvuta hisia za watu kwa ukweli kwamba Palestina haikuwa eneo tupu na kwamba uwepo wa watu wengine katika ardhi hiyo ulileta matatizo, alisema kwamba "wapainia" wa Kizayuni waliamini kuwa lugha pekee ambayo Waarabu wanaielewa ni ile ya nguvu ... [Wao] wanawatendea Waarabu kwa uadui na ukatili, wanavuka mipaka yao kwa dhuluma, wanawapiga kwa aibu bila sababu na hata kujivunia jambo hilo, na hakuna mtu anayesimama kuzuia mwelekeo huu wa kudharauliwa na hatari. (Imenukuliwa katika 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)

Alikata kiini cha jambo alipodokeza kwamba mtazamo wa uchokozi wa walowezi kwa wakulima wenyeji ulitokana na hasira yao "dhidi ya wale waliowakumbusha kwamba bado kuna watu wengine katika ardhi ya Israel ambao wameishi huko na hawana nia ya kuondoka."

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’.

Mwingine aliyekuwa mmoja wa walowezi wa mwanzo, Yitzhak Epstein, ambaye alifika Palestina kutoka Urusi mwaka 1886, alionya si tu juu ya athari za kimaadili za ukoloni wa Kizayuni, bali pia juu ya hatari za kisiasa zilizomo katika mradi huo. Mwaka 1907, wakati ununuzi wa ardhi uliofanywa na Wazayuni huko Galilaya ulipokuwa ukiamsha upinzani miongoni mwa wakulima Wapalestina waliolazimishwa kuondoka katika ardhi iliyouzwa na wamiliki wasiokuwepo, Epstein aliandika makala yenye utata iitwayo ‘Swali Lililofichwa’, ambamo alikosoa vikali njia ambazo Wazayuni walizotumia kununua ardhi ya Waarabu. Kwa maoni yake, mbinu hizo, ambazo zilihusisha kuwanyang'anya wakulima Waarabu ardhi yao, zilikuwa na hakika ya kusababisha mapambano ya kisiasa siku zijazo.

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.

Inaonyeshwa katika jibu lenye hasira la taasisi ya Kizayuni kwa makala ya Epstein sifa mbili kuu za fikra kuu za Kizayuni: imani kwamba upataji wa ardhi na Wayahudi ulikuwa na kipaumbele zaidi ya mambo ya kimaadili, na utetezi wa Yishuv (koloni) ya kujitenga na ya kuwatenga wengine huko Palestina.

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.

Kufuatia nyayo za wakoloni wa Ulaya waliojenga makazi, kabla ya Vita Kuu ya Kwanza ya Dunia baadhi ya viongozi wa Kizayuni (hasa Theodor Herzl katika riwaya yake ya Kizayuni Altneuland) walichukulia hali halisi ya Palestina, na faida za kimaada ambazo ukoloni wa Kiyahudi kutoka Ulaya ungeleta kwa Palestina, kuwa sawa na itikadi ya kibaguzi ya 'mzigo wa mzungu'. Hata hivyo, wakati wa kipindi cha Mamlaka ya Uingereza, uongozi wa Kizayuni ulianza kuona wazi kwamba kuwahamisha kwa utaratibu na 'kuwahamishia mbali' wakazi wazawa wa Palestina ndiyo sharti lisiloepukika la mradi wa Kizayuni (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).

Katika kazi yake muhimu, *Orientalism* (1978), Edward W. Said alikosoa vikali masomo ya Magharibi ya "Mashariki" (Oriental Studies) na akaweka wazi dhana zilizojificha ndani ya taaluma hiyo. Pia alihitimisha kwamba masomo ya Biblia yalikuwa sehemu ya, na upanuzi wa, mjadala wa Kiorientalisti wa Magharibi, ambao ulikuwa umejengwa bila kumfikiria msomaji wa "Mashariki"/Mwarabu/Mwislamu. Kwa Said, katika mjadala huu wa Kiorientalisti wa Kibiblia, wakazi wa asili wa Palestina walionyeshwa kama watu wasiokuwa na uwezo wa kuchukua hatua ya pamoja wala fahamu ya kitaifa. Wanachuoni wa Biblia, wakifuata nyayo za Waorientalisti wa Magharibi, walijikita katika maswali ya kihistoria na kiakiolojia. Katika *The Question of Palestine*, iliyotoka miaka miwili baada ya *Orientalism*, Said pia alijaribu kueleza jinsi Wapalestina walivyofutwa katika historia. Kwake, ufutaji wa uhalisia wa Palestina ulijikita katika masuala matatu muhimu: kwanza, kuelewa jinsi Palestina, Wapalestina na Uislamu wanavyowakilishwa Magharibi. Kitabu cha Said *Covering Islam* (1981) kinapaswa kuchukuliwa kama sehemu ya utatu unaojumuisha *Orientalism* (1978) na *The Question of Palestine* (Said 1980; Ashcroft and Ahluwalia 2001: 125). Kwa Said, taswira za Uislamu Magharibi ni sehemu muhimu ya suala la Palestina kwa sababu zinatumika kuwanyamazisha Wapalestina, wengi wao wakiwa Waislamu (Said 1980; Ashcroft and Ahluwalia 2001: 128); pili, kuelewa "mgogoro kati ya uthibitisho na ukanushaji"; tatu, kuelewa mitazamo ya Kiorientalisti ya Magharibi kuhusu Waarabu na Uislamu; ubaguzi wa rangi wa Magharibi, hasa simulizi ya Magharibi ya mapambano kati ya nguvu "zilizostaarabika" za walowezi Wazayuni wa Ulaya na Waarabu wa "Mashariki" "wasiostaarabika", "wadanganyifu" na walioharibika (Said 1980: 25‒28). Mjadala huu uliotokana na Biblia unahusisha (a) kuunda historia, ‘ili historia hii sasa ionekane kuthibitisha uhalali wa madai ya Kizayuni juu ya Palestina, na hivyo kudharau madai ya Wapalestina’ (Said 1980: 8), na (b) kuhalalisha kwa Kizayuni ukoloni wa walowezi wa Kizayuni huko Palestina, mchakato ambao haukuisha kwa kuundwa kwa Israeli mwaka 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.