The most important views of Mahatma Gandhi on Palestine and the Jew’s issue were stated in his three prominent articles in Harjian in November 11th 1938; at the outset of the conflicts between Palestinian Arabs and immigrant Jews. He put forward his views under the severe pressures especially from the side of Zionism circles, so he began his article by these words that he had always sympathy toward Jews, since they had lived under pressure and harassment. Although Gandhi emphasize, “My sentiments does not blind me to justice.” Jews’ struggle for establishment a state is not so interesting for me. I think this is not justified that they want to get back to Palestine. Why don’t they make their country where they were born and lived their life, like other nations?”
Gandhi questioned the fundamental principles of political Zionism. He rejected the idea of Jew’s state in Promised Land and said the Palestinian concept in holly book is not meant a special geographical part. Zionists by colonial policy and gaining the support of Britain by Balfour Declaration wanted to get the international support as much as possible. Jew’s leaders were bent on gaining the support of Gandhi, because he was a significant international character and the leader of a non-violent movement against imperialism and he also had a high profile in international level, although his position was against political and religious Zionism by all accounts. He was against British mandate, since it acted according to Zionists’ policy for imposing a Jew’s state over Palestinians.
Gandhi’s article in Harijan was an absolute emphases on Arabs’ rights on Palestinian issue. The following statement makes his position clear: “Palestine belongs to Arabs as England belongs to English people and France belongs to French people. Jews’ imposing to Arabs is not right and humanistic. Returning of Jews to some parts of Palestinian territory is a genocide against human.”
Gandhi’s reaction toward Zionism and Palestinian issue from a moral position to a political pragmatism, consists of special conceptual layers. Interestingly as Gandhi was severely against the separation of religion and policy, he always rejected Zionist’s cultural and religious Nationalism. From his point of view, religion should not act as a political ideology, in fact, he was thinking about religion as moral foundation for national state policy; so any struggle for imposing a special religion as a support for a state nation, as the case of Zionism, was not really an accepted practice for him. History of Palestine in the first half of 20th century is marked by the conflicts between two types of Nationalism, Zionist and Arab Nationalism, Zionism by colonialism and wide range of Jewish immigration was trying to establish a Jew’s state in Palestine and Arab Nationalism was seeking to free Palestinian people from colonist and Imperialist control.
Gandhi as the leader of a national movement and the Leader of Indian National Congress played a major role in formation of Indian people imagination toward National and Anti-Imperialism movement in the Arab world. In 1937 the meeting of Indian Congress Committee insistently opposed the terrorist Government of Zionists and its plans for dividing Palestinian territory and declared its solidarity with Arab movement for National freedom. This meeting in 1938 in Delhi in its resolution asked England to let Jews and Arabs solve peacefully their problems between themselves and asked Jews not to take shelter behind English Imperialism. Gandhi asked Jews seek the good will of Arabs by leaving aside the military aid of English Imperialism. Gandhi and Indian National Congress clearly supported Arab nationalism and Gandhi severely opposed Zionist nationalism. The most important dynamic of such positions was the common legacy of Indian and Palestinian Anti-Imperialism movement. Gandhi’s views on Zionism and his responsibility over the fate of Palestinians which had begun from 1930 had a major effect on the formation of Indian independent position over Palestinian issue.
Gandhi’s recommendation to Jews in Germany and Arabs in Palestine was a non-violent resistance. Gandhi pointed out his view over Jews’ issue in Germany in this way: “I believe if a strong and shifty person stood among them and led them toward a non-violent action, their fall of hopelessness immediately would be changed into the spring of hope. His views over Zionism and his recommendation for non-violent action and self-scarification produced different reactions among Jews in Germany from anger to frustration. Prominent pacifists among Jews, like Martin Buber, Judah Magnus and Jim Greenberg who had already admired Gandhi were severely hurt and accused him that he did not understand the Zionist’s sprit.
Religion should not act as a political ideology and Gandhi was trying to provide religion as a moral foundation for national state policy. Martin Buber in his long response to Gandhi’s editorial article stated: “Mr. Mahatma you are only worried about property right and you do not take into account the right of people who are thirsty for establishment a free land.” As it was already pointed out Gandhi was against this view that the Zionist’s quest for Palestine territory create a right for them. On January 7th in 1939, Gandhi in his response wrote: I believe lack of violence is not only a personal virtue, it is also, from my point of view, a social virtue which should be nurtured like other virtues. I am seeking to develop non-violence through the national and international level.
According to Paul Power 4 factors effected the Gandhi’s position on Zionism: first, he was in a sympathy with anti-Zionist sentiments of Indian Muslims; since they opposed the Jew’s state for the sake of their sentiments toward Middle Eastern Muslims. Second, he opposed any Zionist way not adapted to his non-violence way. Third, he saw Zionism against his pluralistic nationalism and fourth, he saw Zionism part of English plans seeking colonization of Palestine.
Gandhi stood against all Zionists’ struggles and Zionists were trying to make him adopt a position in their favor. G. H. Jonson about the defeat of Zionist lobbies wrote: “despite numerous and different measures by Zionists, from pressure to persuasion and encouragement known as lobbing, although Zionists are very competent in it, Gandhi remained steadfast in his anti-Zionist positon for nearly 20 years.”
In addition to these measures, Jonson referred to 4 more Zionists’ struggles to persuade Gandhi. At first, Hermann Kallenbach, Gandhi’s Jewish friend from South Africa went to India in 1931 and staying there for 6 months, he tried to talk Gandhi into taking a position in favor of Zionism. Then in 1930s, following the request of Rabbi Stephen Wise, John Haynes Holmes, American pacifist, he tried to persuade Gandhi to issue a statement in favor of Zionism. In March of 1936, Sidney Silverman, member of English Parliament from labor party and one of the supporters of Indian independent, tried hard to change Gandhi’s idea. At the end of their hard talk, Gandhi told him: “after all this conversation I can’t change the idea that I declared at the beginning.”
The fourth struggle of Zionists to change Gandhi’s idea was carried out by Lewis Fisher, the prominent Gandhi’s biographer.
On July the 14th in 1946, Gandhi responded him: “I think it is a big mistake of Zionists that by the help of England and America and naked terrorism they are trying to impose themselves to Palestine. Why have they relied on the help of American money and English weapon? Why should they resort to terrorism?
Few months before Gandhi’s assassination, he answered Reuters’ question about Palestine issue’s solution. He answered: “I think it has nearly become insoluble. If I were in the shoes of a Jew I would tell the Zionists not to be so idiot to turn to terror, Jews should make relation with Arabs, they should extend the hand of friendship towards them and they should not rely on the help of America and England, they should act according to what Jehovah has revealed to them.”

/J