mahatma gandhi and the jewish national home 39tently opposed to the idea of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. This was
not in the interests of the Arabs and Palestinians and would also have
worked against India. For a long time, Indian leaders and commentators
used Gandhi’s 1938 statement to explain, rationalize, and even justify the
prolonged absence of relations with Israel and the host of anti- Israeli po-
sitions India took since 1947. Any references to post- 1938 statements of
the Mahatma would have made these claims untenable. Admitting that
Gandhi had recognized the “prior claims” of Jews to Palestine would
have eroded, if not destroyed, the “moral” content of India’s pro- Palestine
policy.
But why did the Zionist leaders also ignore these statements? Their
interests in the Mahatma, or India for that matter, were belated, limited,
and one- sided. Preoccupied with the problem of homeland enterprises,
they had little time or interest in non- Western personalities, especially
the anti- British Gandhi. Zionist interest and interaction with him came
to an abrupt end following the Harijan article. They were no longer pay-
ing attention to any of Gandhi’s subtle shifts; from the Zionist viewpoint,
it was too little, too late. In short, not only Palestinians and Indians but
also the Zionists choose to ignore the nuanced changes in the Mahatma’s
post- 1938 position.
Third, Gandhi’s espousal of nonviolence was not absolute, and this ne-
gates his criticism of Jewish violence in Palestine. While deploring the
Nazi persecution, in 1938 he urged the Jews to practice nonviolence against
Hitler.^66 When his Zionist critics pointed out the plight of Jews in Ger-
many, he replied: “Their nonviolence, if it may be so called, is of the help-
less and the weak.... I have drawn a distinction between passive re-
sis tance of the weak and active nonviolent re sis tance of the strong.”^67
Gandhian nonviolence was eff ective against the British in India. It is
highly debatable whether it could have been replicated in other parts of the
world— especially in Nazi Germany. The Mahatma’s hope that active Jew-
ish nonviolence would have “melted” Hitler’s heart is highly questionable.
Furthermore, the Mahatma demanded Jewish nonviolence against the
Nazi dictator in 1938 but took a milder view on Arab violence against the
British in Palestine. The Harijan article, which appeared during the Arab
Revolt in Palestine, deplored the use of force by the Jews in Palestine and
their dependence upon the British. At the same time, he declared, “I am
not defending the Arab excesses, I wish they had chosen the way of non-
violence in resisting what they rightly regarded as an unwarrantable en-
croachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of