http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2008/897/op6.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Soviet hand in Israel
While Balfour is usually blamed for the break up of Palestine, it was
the Soviets that ensured the creation of Israel, writes Rumy Hasan*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we approach the 60th anniversary of the creation of the state of
Israel -- or the 60th anniversary of the Nakba (catastrophe) for the
Palestinians -- one element in this conflict-ridden story that seems to be
neglected is the role that the Soviet Union played.
Western critics of Israel almost invariably think that the partition of
Palestine was a product of the West, above all of the old imperial power,
Britain, which held "mandate" Palestine, and the US, the dominant force after
World War II. Given all the support that these two countries have given to
Israel over the past six decades, and continue to give, this is perhaps an
understandable assumption. Importantly, however, it is not a full, and
therefore true, representation of what actually happened.
Crucially, there are two curious, unexpected, twists to the tale
concerning the superpower states that had just embarked upon their Cold War
rivalry, the US and USSR. All those interested in this intriguing and
surprising history would be rewarded in reading an enlightening paper by French
historian Laurent Rucker, who utilises voluminous primary research from Soviet
archives ("Moscow's surprise: The Soviet-Israeli Alliance of 1947-1949",
Woodrow Wilson Centre for International Scholars, Working Paper 46), the main
points of which I elaborate upon, whilst drawing my own conclusions.
Put briefly, there is compelling evidence to suggest that had the USSR
not supported the partition of Palestine and Israel's creation, such a
partition would not have happened. On the one hand, the US's support for the
partition plan was by no means as strong as is ordinarily imagined. We surely
need to recognise that the political terrain in the US with regard to a Jewish
state was very different 60 years ago than it is now. On the other hand, the
USSR's late change of stance and its uncompromising support for the Zionist
project during the fateful years of 1947-48 was arguably the decisive factor.
Recognising that it had no weight in the Middle East, during World War
II the Soviet Union opened embassies in Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq in an
attempt to exert some influence. A corollary to this endeavour was weakening
and removing Britain's influence in the region and somehow forging divisions
between the UK and the US. It was this thinking that drove Soviet policies.
When the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry into the Fate of European Jews was
set up in January 1946, the erstwhile ally USSR, which had a legitimate
interest in the issue as there were about five million Jews living under Soviet
rule, was simply excluded, the crucial reason being that Britain and the US did
not want Stalin to poke his nose into the Palestine issue.
Yet after the war, there arose the issue of some quarter of a million
displaced Jews in Eastern Europe that was now under the Soviet sphere of
influence. It was the issue of the settlement of the bulk of these that proved
fundamental to what happened. The Soviets and East European regimes failed to
do what was incumbent upon them, that is, to re-settle displaced Jews in their
old homes and counter any hostility from the local population. Naturally,
therefore, many of these displaced persons wished to emigrate, the preferred
option, and understandably so, being the US which had not suffered destruction
during the war. But the US operated a closed-door policy to the "tired, poor
huddled Jewish masses yearning to be free" -- thus enabling the second
preferred option, Palestine, to come to the fore. This conveniently suited the
Americans and the Soviets, as well as the East European regimes (none of whom
wanted the displaced persons) so that the Zionist programme of settling
European Jewry in Palestine quickly gathered momentum. Britain, however, was at
first wary as it did not wish to alienate the Arab world.
The Zionist organisations had foresight and forged links with Soviet
diplomats, quietly calling for support for their designs. This, however, did
not immediately lead to the USSR agreeing to a future Jewish state in Palestine
(which the USSR had never supported), though the seeds were sown and came to
fruition surprisingly soon. The official USSR position was for the removal of
the British mandate and troops and for a unitary Palestine to be granted
independence but under UN "trusteeship" (meaning, under joint control of the
"big three" powers). In March 1947, the Near East Department of the Soviet UN
delegation accordingly argued for a "single democratic Palestine that ensures
that the peoples living there will enjoy equal national and democratic rights".
A month later, there was a dramatic U- turn. At the extraordinary
session of the UN General Assembly, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Andrei
Gromyko was instructed to present the new line. For the first time the USSR
advocated the creation of a Jewish state. The new line was duly presented to
the General Assembly on 29 November 1947 in the historic vote to partition
Palestine. A two-thirds majority was needed and here the role of the USSR was
again decisive when it pressured Byelorussia, Ukraine, Poland and
Czechoslovakia to also vote "Yes". Therefore, it needs to be stressed that if
the USSR had adhered to its earlier position of opposing the partition of
Palestine, it is highly improbable that Israel would have been created in May
1948. Indeed, the likely outcome would have been a unified Palestine under UN
trusteeship.
However, after the expected opposition of Arab states and with violence
in Palestine itself, the US began to have doubts. On 19 March 1948, the US
ambassador to the UN argued for a provisional trusteeship that had been the
USSR's original plan. Gromyko countered this in an uncompromising, de facto
Zionist, speech at the 30 March meeting of the UN Security Council that secured
partition: "... the only way to reduce bloodshed is the prompt and effective
creation of two states in Palestine. If the United States and some other states
block the implementation of the partition and regard Palestine as an element in
their economic and military- strategic considerations, then any decision on the
future of Palestine, including the establishment of a trusteeship regime, will
mean the transformation of Palestine into a field of strife and dissension
between the Arabs and the Jews and will only increase the number of victims."
Moreover, despite a UN weapons embargo on Palestine, Czech weapons were
sold, with Soviet knowledge, to Zionists in Palestine that facilitated the
expulsion of some 750,000 Palestinians from their land. The rest, as they say,
is history. As Rucker summarises in his insightful paper, "Moscow provided
political, military, and demographic support to Israel", for the absurd reason
that the only means of weakening Britain's power in the Middle East was by
supporting the Zionist movement. It didn't take long for this policy to
unravel. The various communist parties in Arab states immediately suffered a
haemorrhage of members as the USSR's reputation and influence in the Arab world
was severely damaged; whilst the new state of Israel unequivocally joined the
Western camp. Britain's influence did decline but rather than divisions
arising, Britain remained firmly wedded to the US, helped by Marshall Aid
reconstruction funds. Moreover, without demurring, it settled into its new role
as the US's junior partner. The net effect of the USSR's policy turn was,
therefore, precisely the opposite of what had been intended. The Zionists had
played a brilliant hand as they cleverly finessed Stalin and his cohorts.
The truly shocking fact in this version of the "Great Game" is that the
victims were contemptuously ignored, as if they were mere cattle. It is my
contention that the Soviet Union's role in the creation of Israel and the Nakba
should be accorded greater significance than the Balfour Declaration of 1917;
yet it is the latter that attracts far more attention.
So when Israelis and their supporters celebrate the 60th anniversary,
they ought to give a special toast to the role played by the Soviet Union;
equally, as Palestinians drown in sorrow for the Nakba, they ought to raise an
accusatory finger at those who took them to the path of perdition, not least
the Soviet Union.
* The writer is a senior lecturer at the University of Sussex, UK.
