The Enduring and Racist Trope of Palestinian Rejectionism by Fathi Nimer-

By Al-Shabaka The Palestinian Policy Network

Since the beginning of the Zionist project in Palestine, large efforts have been exerted to paint all resistance to its colonial endeavors as irrational and at odds with progress and modernity. From the onset, Theodor Herzl, founder of political Zionism, envisioned that local Palestinian Arabs would welcome the progress brought by Zionist colonizers and greet them with open arms. Those who did not, or the “penniless” ones who could not contribute to this new society, would be “spirited” across the border.

Contrary to Herzl’s predictions, the Zionist colonial project was largely met with resistance. Rather than understanding this for what it was—the natural response of indigenous people toward colonialism—the majority of Zionist leaders dismissed this opposition as regressive and rooted in a fear of ingenuity and prosperity. Later, Palestinian resistance would be characterized by charges of antisemitism and senseless bloodlust.

This deliberately manufactured dichotomy between the prosperous and civilized Settler and the regressive and rejectionist Arab standing in the way of progress set the tone for developments between Palestinians and Zionist settlers for decades to come. This commentary explores the nascence of this trope, unpacking its weaponization to deny Palestinians their fundamental rights and demonize their collective aspirations for sovereignty. 

Rejectionism During the Mandate Period

During the Mandate for Palestine, the British government followed an openly pro-Zionist policy that privileged the new Jewish settlers and bestowed on them perks and preferential treatment that guaranteed their dominance and prosperity over the Palestinian Arabs. Such benefits were not only economic, but also embedded Zionists and those sympathetic to them in positions of power, equipping them with the necessary tools to take control following the mandate’s conclusion.

In a notable feat of historical revisionism, Israeli leadership uses Palestinian opposition to the Balfour declaration as one of the first examples of Palestinian rejection of coexistence and rights for all SHARE ON X

That Palestinians had an inalienable right to sovereignty had no bearing on British plans for Palestine. This was articulated in the Balfour Declaration, which promised British government support in establishing a Jewish national home in Palestine. While the declaration also promised not to “prejudice” the rights of the existing “non-Jewish” population, the wording made clear that the indigenous community would simply be an afterthought, denying their very identity as Palestinians. Unsurprisingly, Palestinians wholeheartedly opposed this declaration, which saw an imperial power promise their land to another people. The declaration sparked protests that continue to this day on the anniversary of its issuance. In a notable feat of historical revisionism, Israeli leadership uses Palestinian opposition to the Balfour declaration as one of the first examples of Palestinian rejection of coexistence and rights for all.

Importantly, Palestinian grievances were reflected in British reports and investigations at the time. For example, the 1921 Haycraft Commission of Inquiry dismissed the idea that antisemitism was the driving force behind Arab resistance to the new settlers, instead pointing to the very real threat of Zionist takeover of Palestine as the basis for their reactions. Nonetheless, the legitimate grievances of Palestinians highlighted in this and other subsequent reports were largely ignored, with the prevailing narrative claiming that Palestinian rejectionism was the main obstacle in finding a solution between the Arabs and the Jews.

Meanwhile, as Zionist influence and power expanded in Palestine, the calls to ethnically cleanse the natives grew louder, and multiple proposals were laid out on how to achieve this. For example, the 1937 Peel Commission, which was instigated following the Great Palestinian Revolt, suggested the partitioning of Palestine and the forced transfer of 125,000 Palestinian Arabs to barren lands in order to make room for a Jewish state. This proposal was overwhelmingly rejected by Palestinians, who understood that their right to self-determination over a large part of their land was being stripped away and given to a European settler population. Notably, it was also rejected by large parts of the Zionist community, who felt the proposed Jewish state was too small. In fact, Jewish settlers also rejected offers for a unitary state for all peoples between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea in both 1928 and 1947. 

Decades of propaganda and selective reporting regarding the nature of these various plans during the British Mandate period have distilled into the trope of the unreasonable and rejectionist Palestinians, contrasted with their Zionist counterparts, who are historically positioned as willing partners in peace and compromise. It is this history that gives weight to the racist saying, “The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity,” which has since become ingrained as a cornerstone of Western analysis on Palestine.

Continue reading via Al-Shabaka …