It's well known that there were proponents of both Zionist and Arab point of view within the British political system and in the Foreign Office. It's also true in regard of other Western countries. If we want to sum up the Western attitude toward Arab-Zionist conflict in pre-state period than it is similar to the one existing today: the West has always been aware and is aware of the existence of the two contradicting points of view and was and is trying to bring the sides of the conflict to the compromize. One may claim that Balfour declaration was adaptation of the Zionist narrative or that the White Book was adaptation of the Arab narrative. But the overall Western policy was the one of the compromise, and it manifested in Peel commision recommendation of 1938 to partition the land and in League of Nation partition plan of 1948. Zionists accepted the both, Arabs rejected the both. Therefore, there is indeed historical truth beyond the conflicting narratives: Zionists accepted the compromise, Arabs rejected it.
Hello user Logout | profile
You have watched of 10 articles
Initial report: Man lightly wounded in stabbing attack at Gush Etzion junction in W. Bank. (Haaretz)
from the article: The historical truth behind the Israeli-Palestinian narratives