The discussion on Apartheid, one state vs two states, sends us back to the question of partition and its origins. Why was partition originally proposed and by whom?
2/ There's been some fascinating recent historical work on this, including Sinangolou's book "Partitioning Palestine", Dubnov and Robson's edited volume "Partitions: A Transnational History", and Laila Parsons' "The Secret Testimony of the Peel Commission" (two part article)
3/ A major debate is on the 1937 partition plan, which laid the ground to the 47 UN plan. Sinangolou sees it as a British-Zionist proposal; Motti Golani (Weizmann's biographer) as a Zionist proposal, and Parsons as a British initiative and plan. I agree with Parsons.
4/ Most of this work, crucially, places partition within larger contexts - imperial and international. This is a welcome correction to decades in which scholars focussed on local factors and missed the bigger context and the links to other partitions.
5/ The debate is important for many reasons. I'll mention three. Firstly, how do we understand the Palestine conflict? the architects of Partition understood the problem as an ethnic/national conflict, not as settlers-natives one - downplaying the settler impetus of Zionism.
6/ Secondly, how to understand the aims of the Zionist movement, its priorities - and whether a "Jewish State" of the kind established in 1948 was predetermined or not, whether it was the most logical, inevitable outcome of Zionism.
7/ And finally, why did partition repeatedly fail? Was it about the different parties? Or perhaps it was a solution of the historical moment, that lost its relevance? Or perhaps was never right?
You can follow @YairWallach.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:

By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.