If Zionists had a list of the most evil people in history, the British Foreign Secretary after WWII, Ernest Bevin, would be close to the top of the list, right under Hitler. The reason for this is that Bevin oppossed Jewish emigration to Palestine after WWII. Furthermore, he opposed the creation of a Jewish state. One has to agree denying Jews a home after the Holocaust isn't a praiseworthy act.
But, there is a different perspective. Bevin and the (flailing) British Empire had a strong interest in keeping Palestine peaceful. The Middle East was seen as the new future for the Empire, especially with mounting nationalism in India. Not only did Palestine have a crucial geopolitical position right by the Suez Canal, but relations with Arabs were key to maintaining British power over Kuwait, Qatar, Iraq, Iran, Bahrain, and Aden (Yemen). Keeping even levels of population was a necessity for stability in Palestine, much like it is in Lebanon today. In general, when one looks back on the Arab-Israeli conflict, much of it stems from population differences. For example, in the 80s there was relative peace in Israel. Peace lasted until the fall of the Soviet Union brought a huge wave of Jewish immigrants to the region.
When one considers the enormous pressure on Bevin to maintain a crumbling empire and the negative implications of Jewish immigration for British interests, Bevin's position becomes more understandable. We can at least empathize that Bevin was in a very difficult position.Bevin's side of the story has been forgotten for too long. But, it seems Obama understands Bevin's dilemma. In fact, Obama might have found the perfect middle way between supporting Israel and pleasing the Arabs. Geopolitically, Obama's position is similar to Bevin's. Obama faces significant pressure to cede to Israel's demands; though like Bevin, giving in to these demands would mean a weaker position among Arabs. Also, much like Bevin, Obama has a much greater stake in being friends with the Middle East than previous presidents—a result of high oil prices and terrorism.
Giddeon Rachman wrote in the FT today that Obama is "a soft power president. But the world keeps asking him hard power questions." That may be true for cases like Afghanistan and North Korea, but the Israeli-Palestine conflict is a pure soft power play. I wrote in an earlier post that Obama's soft power efforts would yet bear dividends and I think that moment is near in the Middle East. With his highly anticipated speech in Cairo tomorrow (as well as his order to Netranyahu to stop settlements), Obama will set the course to achieve what Bevin could not: a balance of Arab pride and Israeli ambitions. Historians' most potent criticism of Bevin is not that he was anti-semetic, just very undiplomatic—what a difference soft power makes.
