We were once discussing Palestine, and some of us began describing the courage, intelligence, resourcefulness, prudent planning, wisdom, and remarkable stories exhibited by the rebels. Despite having only old weapons, they resist the most advanced modern arms, including planes, tanks, mountain guns, and machine guns. They do not have a single car to move around, yet they are everywhere. They manufacture bombs with their own hands, turn water pipes into cannon barrels, plan attacks in all circumstances, administer justice among the people, settle disputes, reconcile old conflicts and enmities, engage in courts, direct judges appointed by the government, and carry out their orders instead of the government's. They prefer wearing the keffiyeh instead of the tarboush or other headgear, which is now worn by every Arab in the country, even if they were lined up in Egypt or Syria, and the government's authority has diminished. The reconciliation courts ceased to function except in only four cities. The real government now is the government of the rebels.Top of Form

One of us remarked, "This is truly remarkable! Undoubtedly, among the revolutionaries, there are many intellectuals and educated individuals. However, the majority are closer to simplicity and instinct. How do they manage all of this?"

I had no choice but to respond, "They operate on the guidance of their innate instincts. It's not surprising that they excel in planning, governance, and intelligence. Was Omar ibn al-Khattab, Khalid ibn al-Walid, Amr ibn al-As, Muawiyah, and others graduates of Cambridge or St. Cyr, holders of bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degrees? What I mean to say is, we shouldn't be amazed by the talents displayed by Arabs after the advent of Islam, nor by their ability to overcome two major powers simultaneously during that era. Therefore, there is no reason to be astonished by the capabilities demonstrated by the Arab revolt in Palestine against a complaining and willing great power."

The reality is that Palestine can no longer be subdued or forced to accept what it does not agree to. It has been provoked by unprecedented injustice, at least to my knowledge.

It should be noted that the Arabs were allies of Britain and its counterparts in the Great War, and they revolted against the Ottoman Empire, their own state at that time, with most of them being Muslims. They did so because they sought freedom and independence. Britain acknowledged and accepted this, encouraging and promising to support them in achieving it. If they had known they would face what they did, they wouldn't have rebelled, as there is no benefit in exchanging one yoke for another.

This Arab army aided in the liberation of Palestine and Syria, freeing all Arab lands from Ottoman rule. When the British army entered a country, it found the way prepared and was greeted warmly because it was allied with the Arabs. What was the Arabs' reward?

Their countries were torn apart and all promises were broken. The Allies did not fulfil a single commitment to the Arabs. Iraq only gained independence through revolution, as did Syria, or rather, multiple revolutions. Nevertheless, their fate remains uncertain. As for Palestine, its ordeal was the worst. Britain not only imposed a mandate but also handed it over to a foreign people, opening its gates and saying, "Enter, seize the land, establish a state, and make it your homeland."

And the lands were not without inhabitants for Britain to do so, nor were they vast, fertile territories to bear this influx of immigrants. The Jews were persecuted in various parts of the world, but what was Palestine's fault? It's ironic that Jewish immigration and the Zionist national homeland were directed towards Arab lands where Jews lived peacefully under Arab rule, enjoying justice, compassion, and freedom unlike elsewhere. In other nations, they were persecuted and marginalized, even considered unclean outcasts by the British themselves in the Middle Ages. We assume that Jews read the novels of Sir Walter Scott!

So, if the Palestinian people revolted, they are excused. If, due to their small numbers and lack of support, they resorted to this great revolution, it's no wonder. They defend their land and homes with the utmost sense of defending their heritage. Their homes are blown up with dynamite, forcing them and their families to flee to barren mountains and plains, while the fertile lands they possess are seized and gifted to the Zionist state. What else can this people do but revolt? What options do they have, having risen, except to persist and fight to the end? It's death with honour and dignity, defending their land to the last breath, better than dying of hunger in barren mountains with no water or trees, where Arabs are being expelled to make way for the Zionist state.

In addition to the heinous betrayal inherent in this policy, with a people who were among Britain's strongest allies in the Great War, their utmost supporters, it only strengthens the resolve of the revolutionaries, making them stronger and bolder.

It's clear that the nationalist policy at the expense of the Arabs has failed, and the establishment of a Zionist state in Palestine has reverted to the realm of fantasy, with no place in the world of realities. It's now evident that if Britain wants to enforce the decision to partition the country and establish a Zionist state therein, it must mobilize armies and fleets to forcibly open Palestine, as the current strength and equipment there are not sufficient.

Furthermore, two other realities have become apparent. The first is that the Palestinian revolution – the fairest revolution ever witnessed in the world and the most magnificent of its kind – has united the hearts of Arabs in all regions, making them now one nation despite their many states. Britain must choose between friendship with this nation or enmity, and it must gauge the capacity of all Arabs based on the capacity of Palestine alone. We believe that befriending the Arabs influences Britain more than risking their enmity, especially since it has no compelling reason in its vital interests to choose the path of hostility.

The Arabs now say to Britain what Ibn Al-Rumi said:

Before you, two paths diverge, so heed,

One straight, the other, winding indeed.

The straight path, favoured, leads to light,

 The winding, to shadows, veiled from sight.

And the straight one, indeed, is the choice to take,

If our knowledge of English is not all a mistake.

And the other truth is that Britain does not serve the Jews with this policy, but rather provokes the wrath of the Arab world and the Islamic world upon them, they are a nation that does not need more enemies, and we believe that the Jews have begun to realize this, and become aware that Zionist policy bequeaths them enmity they can well do without.

-------------------------------------------------------------

The Source:

Magazine "Al-Risalah", Issue (275).

Read the Article in Arabic