Could Jews and E.Africans have peacefully coexisted?
By Guest Writer More by this Author  The world has breathed a collective sigh of relief after the Egyptian-brokered truce between Hamas and Israel took effect. For starters, the Middle East is a perennial tinderbox where past conflagrations have often escalated and sucked in partisan players. Normally, the pro-Israelis stand on one side of the divide, while pan-Arab nations with their ideological brethren occupy the other. However, the Israeli-Arab conflict is primarily about real estate. We, therefore, ponder what would have happened to East Africa had the Jews been settled in Uasin Gishu, western Kenya, as was outlined in the infamous Uganda Proposal of 1903. Unlike the Maasai, the native Nandi tribe of Uasin Gishu had not been affected by the late nineteenth century rinderpest epidemic and, their combat superiority had grown spectacularly. Having subdued most of their neighbours, they had gained sufficient courage and confidence to wage intermittent guerilla attacks against the British, Arab caravans venturing further west. When in 1900 the railway-line made its way through the Nandi Escarpment towards Port Florence (Kisumu) and onward to Uganda, the Nandi tampered with its progress by stealing telegraph wires and poles to use in making weapons and ornaments. Advertisement  The British held the Nandi in dread, terming them as proud and warlike. Between 1900 and 1930s, anti-Semitism was festering around the world, becoming unbearably vehement, genocidal and intractable in Europe. Zionism envisaged a homeland for the Jews. It was the British Prime Minister Joseph Chamberlain- who once in December 1902 had dropped by East Africa to inspect the progress made by the British settlers - who came up with a peculiar suggestion about bringing in the Jews. On August 26, 1903, a meeting of the 6th Zionist Congress took place in the Swiss city of Basel. Theodor Herzl - the founding father of Zionism- had agreed with Chamberlain that the Jews could be settled in western Kenya (or eastern Uganda, the borders having not been clearly demarcated). This charged meeting was the beginning of months-long turbulent disputes and accruing liturgical crystallisation within the Zionist movement. Other possible Jewish havens such as the Sinai, the Congo, Mozambique and South Africa, had been proposed, but the Uasin Gishu plateau was earmarked as the most promising. The offer was a free land lease of 3,200,000 acres in Uasin Gishu. (The current area of Israel is 5,472,100 acres.) The Zionist movement subsequently sent spies to inspect the land. These gave three reasons why they would not take it up. One was that the area was inhabited by wild animals and the thick forests were impenetrable. Two, the local inhabitants were unfriendly and warlike. Three, the area did not have any religious significance for the Jews. At the same time, Lord Delamere, whose anti-Semitism was un-camouflaged, teamed with settler associates and vowed to fight to see to it that no Jews were ever settled in this part of East Africa. The Jews may by today have integrated locally as one of East African communities, as have done the Arab, European and Asian tribes. One thing is sure; they would be among the largest East African ethnicities. Babere Chacha and John Wahome are lecturers at Laikipia University, Kenya.