[Decky]

Israel is an anti-colonial movement. It is the preeminent example of anti-imperialism in modern history. It is the epitome of a movement of people returning to their ancient homeland and refusing to have their destinies defined by others.

Oh for gods sake

Britain owned most of France in the past does that mean that I should just turn up with a terrorist group and carve my own little empire out so my people can "return."

The Arab and Muslim spread across the Middle East, on the other hand, represent the colonialism you should oppose. Of course in your fantasy world, reality is flipped upside down.

No shit there were Jews there before Muslims, open a book once in a while Islam is a relatively young religion. You do realise arabs still existed before Islam did right? They lived there happily for thousands of years. A massive chunk of the Israeli population is just people the Soviets didn't want because they didn't like Judaism, they have no connection to the middle east at all. Unlike the people who lived there for generations.

[peterm1988]

To think that somehow Muslim are native to this land while Jews are not, considering we've been around these parts for thousands of years prior to the arrival of Islam, is pure stupidity.

If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been antisemitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?

[Oleh Hadash]

Oh for gods sake :roll:

Britain owned most of France in the past does that mean that I should just turn up with a terrorist group and carve my own little empire out so my people can "return."

Look, there's really no point in continuing to speak with you. You're clearly opposed to Jewish independence and self-determination, while supporting those rights for a people that already occupies about twenty-five states from North Africa to South-East Asia. You think somehow I'm going to concede Jewish national rights for any reason, and accept subjugation and control from others?

No shit there were Jews there before Muslims, open a book once in a while Islam is a relatively young religion. You do realise arabs still existed before Islam did right? They lived there happily for thousands of years. A massive chunk of the Israeli population is just people the Soviets didn't want because they didn't like Judaism, they have no connection to the middle east at all. Unlike the people who lived there for generations.

Being Jewish automatically connects one to the land of Israel. That connection transcends everything. Stop playing amateur anthropologist, you're not very good at it. As someone whose very familiar with the history (modern and ancient) of this region, you've got a lot to learn before you start speaking about the history of the peoples of this land. It's not like you care about it, anyways...

If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been antisemitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?

I'm well aware of perceptions. Do you really think I don't understand the Palestinian narrative, or that I didn't come across that quote many years before you could point out Israel on a map? I know how the Arabs view things, it doesn't make them correct.

[peterm1988]

I'm well aware of perceptions. Do you really think I don't understand the Palestinian narrative, or that I didn't come across that quote many years before you could point out Israel on a map? I know how the Arabs view things, it doesn't make them correct.

Well, my point isn't so much that this is how Arab view things as much as it is that the Zionist leadership in the early days admitted the fact that the fellahs were on *their* own land, that they were native to Palestine. It was challenged when it became clear after the riots that co-existence was a pipe dream and certain ideological acrobatics were required, but it's rather convenient of you to forget that even Jabotinsky referred to the Arabs as the 'native population'.

So it's slightly puzzling to hear you describe an acceptance of their status as the (or, rather, 'a') native population as 'pure stupidity' when just such an acceptance was a given for even a lot of Revisionist figures, let alone for the leftists who actually created Israel.

[Oleh Hadash]

There's a difference between Arab perceptions and reality. Recognizing that the Arabs view the land as their own is one things, accepting their view is something else entirely.

There are also important distinctions to be made between individual property rights and national land rights. So there are Arabs who lost their homes as a result of the War of Independence, that's something different than saying the land as a whole belongs to the Arab nation.

Most importantly, since when am I supposed to accept all opinions and statements of early Zionist leadership? Am I supposed to accept all the statements from Ben-Gurion's diaries? Am I supposed to settle the Negev because he said so?

And my original comment was describing Decky's statements as stupidity when he describes the Arabs as "native" while we are not. He is clearly trying to suggest that Jews who are not native to Israel, which is about as stupid as a statement can get. Anytime someone brings up nativity or indigenous status, it's done for one purpose - to deny Jewish self-determination. It's just a transparent attempt to tell us that we shouldn't be here and that this land doesn't belong to us. Unfortunately for them, we're here and their opinions are irrelevant.

And the leftists that built this country are not the same leftists of today, as much as they may wear the same label and party affiliation.

[peterm1988]

Most importantly, since when am I supposed to accept all opinions and statements of early Zionist leadership? Am I supposed to accept all the statements from Ben-Gurion's diaries? Am I supposed to settle the Negev because he said so?

Well.. You're not supposed to, but it just strikes me as strange that you can dismiss an idea as pure stupidity when the founding fathers of the country you love so much also held that very idea. I don't think you're poorly read enough that you didn't already know this, but it does touch on something that irritates me. You seem to purposely rob the discussion of these issues here of a level of complexity that you're evidently capable of whilst at the same time attacking others for a simplicity which they probably aren't capable of surpassing.

But, that's off topic.

Anytime someone brings up nativity or indigenous status, it's done for one purpose - to deny Jewish self-determination.

Isn't it often brought up to deny Palestinian nationhood as well? It's unbelievable how many times I've been told that Palestinians don't exist as a people because they lived in the Land of Israel, where they could never become a native population.

And the leftists that built this country are not the same leftists of today, as much as they may wear the same label and party affiliation.

You're right, but I think that certain elements of the Israeli left are the heirs of Ben Gurion... Whatever their attitudes may have been towards the Arabs (which did differ) it can't be denied that Israel was a socialist state for much of its existence and that the original leaders would be very disappointed to see the homeless Jews, the drug addicted and alcoholic Jews, the impoverished Jews - the Jewish underclass - which now exists in Israel today. Let alone to see the corruption at the highest levels of the state...

[Oleh Hadash]

Well.. You're not supposed to, but it just strikes me as strange that you can dismiss an idea as pure stupidity when the founding fathers of the country you love so much also held that very idea. I don't think you're poorly read enough that you didn't already know this, but it does touch on something that irritates me. You seem to purposely rob the discussion of these issues here of a level of complexity that you're evidently capable of whilst at the same time attacking others for a simplicity which they probably aren't capable of surpassing.

The idea I'm dismissing is that the Arabs are native to this land while we are not. Being in exile for a long time doesn't mean our claim to our homeland expired. Irregardless, we're here now. And we're certainly not going anywhere.

The entire discussion of who is or is not indigenous is one I never start, because it's pointless. And it is ALWAYS brought up by ignorant anti-Israel folks with little grasp of modern or ancient history in order to parrot the false narrative of sweet n' innocent little Arab natives who were displaced and had their lands taken over by the big bad Zionists.

It is completely irrelevant to have a debate about who has a stronger indigenous claim to this land (we do, anyways, since we were here first by thousands of years), because it doesn't address core issues of national rights.

Either way, early Zionist leadership acknowledged the perceptions of the Arabs who were here, not necessarily the legitimacy of those perceptions. Again, there's a important distinction between individual property rights and national land rights that you seem to be overlooking - Arabs' rights to their homes is certainly not the same as acknowledging a legitimate Arab national claim to yet another totalitarian Islamist state at the expense of Jewish independence.

Isn't it often brought up to deny Palestinian nationhood as well? It's unbelievable how many times I've been told that Palestinians don't exist as a people because they lived in the Land of Israel, where they could never become a native population.

You're confusing related issues. Denying Palestinian nationalism, which I generally do quite openly, isn't the same as arguing of who is or is not indigenous. I don't reject Palestinian national claims because of arguments attacking their indigenous status, I reject it because Palestinians aren't a distinct people. They're Arabs just like all the others around us. There's certainly no need for them to have a state, and CERTAINLY not at our expense. They have more than enough countries and land already. They want a state? Go get one somewhere else. Moreover, they simply cannot be trusted with independence as our neighbours given their atrocious track record of violence. We don't need to open up another front for the war in order to appease your leftist sensibilities while you attend protests in London, so that the monstrous Catherine Ashton can get a handshake and employee of the month award.

You're right, but I think that certain elements of the Israeli left are the heirs of Ben Gurion... Whatever their attitudes may have been towards the Arabs (which did differ) it can't be denied that Israel was a socialist state for much of its existence and that the original leaders would be very disappointed to see the homeless Jews, the drug addicted and alcoholic Jews, the impoverished Jews - the Jewish underclass - which now exists in Israel today. Let alone to see the corruption at the highest levels of the state...

And free-enterprise advocates enjoy seeing homeless or drug-addicted Jews? Or that we're happy with cases of governmental corruption? Are you implying that socialism or leftism would remove these problems (when in reality it'd make them much worse...)? Look, in any free society some people fail - because they choose to. You have as much of a right to succeed as you do to fail. They don't need advocates like you playing the blame game and accusing outside factors for people's own shortcomings. In a country like Israel, there are very few legitimate excuses for failure. And when they arise, there are social ladders available to address the problem. The system is not perfect, but it certainly doesn't need your ideology for improvement.

[peterm1988]

Either way, early Zionist leadership acknowledged the perceptions of the Arabs who were here, not necessarily the legitimacy of those perceptions

Well, no. I have a hard time seeing how so much of the discourse in the Yishuv was connected to how to deal with the Arabs and integrate them into society (Jabotinsky's draft constitution, the 'Hebrew' nationalism, Ben Gurion's calls, etc...) if it was really all just a facade concerned with Arab perceptions instead of an honest feeling that these were embedded communities.

The Jews of that era and later who honestly did buy into the 'land without a people' idea or at least its rhetoric didn't concern themselves with these issues. Probably the more sensible attitude for the Israelis, but nevertheless you can't just pass off all these discussions which were very important in the formation of Zionism as just an acknowledgement of Arab perceptions. It was far more than that, as you should know full well.

I don't reject Palestinian national claims because of arguments attacking their indigenous status, I reject it because Palestinians aren't a distinct people. They're Arabs just like all the others around us.

Don't want to open up a whole new thread here, but just to ask that if this is the case, what allows us to differentiate between, say, the Welsh nation and the English nation? Or the Austrians and the Germans? Walloons and French?

It strikes me that the *key* right of self-determination, which you seem so concerned about in your defence of Israel as the pre-eminent anti-Imperial example, is the right of self-definition.

And free-enterprise advocates enjoy seeing homeless or drug-addicted Jews? Or that we're happy with cases of governmental corruption? Are you implying that socialism or leftism would remove these problems (when in reality it'd make them much worse...)?

I think the free-enterprise advocates are far more comfortable with this. Furthermore, I do think that socialism/leftism removes these problems. I mean, after all, how unequal was Israel in the 70s? Hardly at all, it was a light unto nations of equality and cooperative economic organisation. And in terms of corruption - can you really see the dollar account affair being such a big deal today? Or any current politician acting in the way Rabin did?

[Dave]

Then you should understand that its not irrational or unhealthy, just a natural consequence of what happens when peoples opinion is polled on a subject in the way in which it has. To be honest I would struggle to call it obsessive.

No, it is both irrational and unhealthy. Israel is a tiny scrap of sand and commands an absurd amount of media attention and political involvement. For many people in Europe, the Palestinian problem is their most important issue which they invest a great deal of emotional angst. It's absolutely outrageous and incredibly annoying. I hate the posters who do nothing but whine about this issue.

If you're not from the region, or at least a Moslem or a Jew outside of it, the issue does not concern you except to the extent that your government is involved with it.

[Oleh Hadash]

Well, no. I have a hard time seeing how so much of the discourse in the Yishuv was connected to how to deal with the Arabs and integrate them into society (Jabotinsky's draft constitution, the 'Hebrew' nationalism, Ben Gurion's calls, etc...) if it was really all just a facade concerned with Arab perceptions instead of an honest feeling that these were embedded communities.

None of that is a recognition of Arab national rights in this land, rather they are illustrations of early Zionism's sincere outreach to integrate the Arab population into Israel's social/political fabric. Seeing the Arabs as "embedded communities" is very different than giving legitimacy to their not-yet-manufactured nationalism. At this time, theirs was still an unarticulated pan-Arabism. The problem of their exclusion from Jewish nationalism is an ongoing problem.

The Jews of that era and later who honestly did buy into the 'land without a people' idea or at least its rhetoric didn't concern themselves with these issues. Probably the more sensible attitude for the Israelis, but nevertheless you can't just pass off all these discussions which were very important in the formation of Zionism as just an acknowledgement of Arab perceptions. It was far more than that, as you should know full well.

How was it more than a recognition of Arab perceptions? That recognition manifested itself, in part, through what you mentioned earlier about how early Zionism considered addressing the Arab population. All of the outreach, and all of the entertained ideas still do not amount to a recognition of Arab national rights at our expense, and certainly do not represent a recognizance of Arabs being "more indigenous" than us.

Don't want to open up a whole new thread here, but just to ask that if this is the case, what allows us to differentiate between, say, the Welsh nation and the English nation? Or the Austrians and the Germans? Walloons and French?

It strikes me that the *key* right of self-determination, which you seem so concerned about in your defence of Israel as the pre-eminent anti-Imperial example, is the right of self-definition.

I would agree in principle. But the reality is that Palestinian nationalism is simply a rejection of Jewish self-determination. If one group's nationalism is predicated on the rejection of another's, then we know we're not dealing with a sincere nationalism. be serious, the Palestinians are only different insofar as their experiences with Israel. Yes, many of them speak Hebrew and have familiarity with Israel. So what? It's not enough just to declare difference, there has to be some meat on those bones.

Let's not pretend that nationalism can't be honestly evaluated by us, once self-definition has been declared. The people living in the territories are indistinguishable from those living in Jordan. They're indistinguishable from Syrians. Aside from French colonization, they're largely indistinguishable from many of the Lebanese. We can go on and on. Stop pretending they're different. Just because they say they are (for political purposes), doesn't mean they really are. Nationhood is not just something you can manufacture on a whim in order to advance a political agenda of destroying another nation-state.

Now consider the Jewish national. Our nation is quite an easy thing to differentiate from other nations. You cannot ask us to relinquish our country in order to appease Arabs who simply say they're different from others (when they're not).

I think the free-enterprise advocates are far more comfortable with this. Furthermore, I do think that socialism/leftism removes these problems. I mean, after all, how unequal was Israel in the 70s? Hardly at all, it was a light unto nations of equality and cooperative economic organisation. And in terms of corruption - can you really see the dollar account affair being such a big deal today? Or any current politician acting in the way Rabin did?

Please spare me the "light unto nations" rhetoric, it's very unbecoming of a Gentile of your ideological leanings. Of course free-market advocates are more comfortable with these realities, because we recognize natural inequalities between various peoples. Just as some people succeed, other will fail. It doesn't mean we like it. How much did you give to charity last month, by the way? I donate between thirty and fifty US dollars a month to charity. Talk is cheap. Social safety nets exist to address legitimate hardships, but we don't hold a leftist mentality that we can draw up regulations and programs to correct all social problems.

Stop fantasizing about Israel regressing to its past with all of us living on kibbutzim. And socialism/leftism certainly does not remove the problems you mentioned, and certainly don't address them at a justifiable price. You just want something for nothing, and this will likely be your mentality for a long time as a liberal-arts student with nothing of value to offer the economy.

[Oleh Hadash]

No, it is both irrational and unhealthy. Israel is a tiny scrap of sand and commands an absurd amount of media attention and political involvement. For many people in Europe, the Palestinian problem is their most important issue which they invest a great deal of emotional angst. It's absolutely outrageous and incredibly annoying. I hate the posters who do nothing but whine about this issue.

If you're not from the region, or at least a Moslem or a Jew outside of it, the issue does not concern you except to the extent that your government is involved with it.

It's a void into which people with empty lives pour their useless energy. Their lives have no meaning, so they consume their time arguing and worry about these issues, patting themselves on the back for arguing on behalf of the downtrodden Palestinians. "Debating" the issue, of which 99.9% of them are completely clueless, gives them a few moments to engage in self-congratulatory actions while the advocate for justice around the dinner table, or while protesting in front of government offices with exchange students from Lebanon named Salma and Ahmed. There are so many hollow leftist ideals that they can indulge in meaninglessly when attacking Israel. It's mental masturbation.

[peterm1988]

But the reality is that Palestinian nationalism is simply a rejection of Jewish self-determination. If one group's nationalism is predicated on the rejection of another's, then we know we're not dealing with a sincere nationalism.

I disagree with that, but even if we assume that to be the case, why is the conclusion true? I'm deadly serious here. Even if Palestinians are, all other things equal, indistinguishable from other Arabs, does not the experience of refugee camps, occupation or living in a Jewish state not ensure that their experience over at least the past 63 years mean that they have been split from the Arab mainstream? I mean, even by your logic the Arabs-with-Jordanian-citizenship didn't rot in refugee camps for 60 years. The Arabs-with-Kuwaiti-citizenship weren't expelled, en masse, in 1991. The Arabs-with-Lebanese-citizenship aren't blocked from any number of professions.

Even if we accept that Arabs were once some sort of cohesive society and we accept that self-definition is irrelevant, I fail to see how the Palestinian experience hasn't been transformative enough to give them a very different identity from other Arabs.

I'd agree with you that we can judge nationalisms and that, furthermore, the burden of proof should probably be on the people claiming a new nationalism, but if any experience of the past 100 years entitles a group to the declaration of a new nationality, it should probably be Palestinians.

None of that is a recognition of Arab national rights in this land, rather they are illustrations of early Zionism's sincere outreach to integrate the Arab population into Israel's social/political fabric. Seeing the Arabs as "embedded communities" is very different than giving legitimacy to their not-yet-manufactured nationalism. At this time, theirs was still an unarticulated pan-Arabism.

Ok, I see more where your coming from now. Where would you draw the line between national rights and the rights of embedded communities? Does the Palestinian (or, if you prefer, Arab) nation have any national rights in any part of the mandate territory?

The problem of their exclusion from Jewish nationalism is an ongoing problem.

How so? What would you do?

All of the outreach, and all of the entertained ideas still do not amount to a recognition of Arab national rights at our expense, and certainly do not represent a recognizance of Arabs being "more indigenous" than us.

Oh, by no means not. I don't think any Zionist deserving of the name believed that Palestinians were 'more indigenous' than the Jewish people, but I think it's very easy to argue that the vast majority early Zionists (and many later ones) saw the problem of co-existence as a question of balancing the needs and rights of two legitimate national groups instead of a pragmatic question of how to deal with the Arab question. I don't even think that many would have assumed that the Arab claim was *as* legitimate as the Jewish claim, but I just can't see how most Zionist thought rejected the entire concept of national rights for Arabs until after the state was founded. Admittedly, my knowledge of Zionist thought is less complete than it should be, but at least in the canon that I have been exposed to, I just can't see this.

Please spare me the "light unto nations" rhetoric, it's very unbecoming of a Gentile of your ideological leanings. Of course free-market advocates are more comfortable with these realities, because we recognize natural inequalities between various peoples. Just as some people succeed, other will fail. It doesn't mean we like it. How much did you give to charity last month, by the way? I donate between thirty and fifty US dollars a month to charity. Talk is cheap. Social safety nets exist to address legitimate hardships, but we don't hold a leftist mentality that we can draw up regulations and programs to correct all social problems.

Stop fantasizing about Israel regressing to its past with all of us living on kibbutzim. And socialism/leftism certainly does not remove the problems you mentioned, and certainly don't address them at a justifiable price. You just want something for nothing, and this will likely be your mentality for a long time as a liberal-arts student with nothing of value to offer the economy.

Last month is disproportionate (hard luck! :P) but I gave 1,500 NIS to my shwerma guy's legal fund to fight his house demolition as a goodbye, £50 to the Japan appeal - on top of the twenty odd quid I give to British charities each month. Normally just the regular stuff, though.

I agree, talk is cheap. And even though you always resort to these rather strange and unnecessary pokes at people's status, you don't really know much about me at all, do you? I've touched on it before and I hate to get even more blunt: but I have a job and (shock!) a good one. Economic analysts get paid rather well, even in these post-credit crunch days, don't you know?

Don't pretend you know me and don't pretend you have any right to know about me, beyond what you can goad out of me. I have the decency of not making assumptions about or accusations at you and then dragging them into this. It's beneath me and it's beneath you. You are, all other things considered, rather a good advocate of your point of view on this forum. Don't you realise that this kind of thing immediately turns people off?

[eugenekop]

I don't care about this. I care about the fact that seemingly millions of Europeans are obsessed with an ethnic conflict in a tiny strip of the Levant with almost no natural resources are strategic significance. I understand perfectly well the phenomena that contribute to this irrational obsession.

Well maybe you can explain this to me, because I still don't understand it.

Oleh Hadash and peterm1988:

I believe you can argue for another year which group has more right to form a country in Palestine, but that would be futile. There are no laws and definitely no moral guidelines that will help to resolve this issue. In fact accepting group rights already leads to contradiction. What do group rights mean? Does it mean one group can take over another group or use violence to conquer the lands of other groups? Justice is much simpler. You simply cannot use aggression against other people and their property, that's all. There are no group rights because they necessarily lead to such aggression. Thus, the Palestinians who lived in Israel have the right to those lands (unless they were captured by force from previous inhabitants and those inhabitants can prove that), and the Jews who live in lands that did not previously belong to Palestinians have the right to live in those lands. Neither Palestinians nor Jews have a group right to form a state in this region or in any region without the consent of the people in that region. For example if peter and I decide to form a state we can do this, but we can't force Oleh to be part of that state, because that would be aggression, at least this is how I see it. Now this is a simple morality, a simple universal principle. I'll state it again in other words. You cannot use aggression against a person or his property unless he used aggression against you or your property before that.

[Dave]

Well maybe you can explain this to me, because I still don't understand it.

It's trendy. That's pretty much it.

[peterm1988]

You cannot use aggression against a person or his property unless he used aggression against you or your property before that.

Why?

Should Israel have been carved out of the land of Germany then? Should no communities be allied to political authority?

Don't be ridiculous. Israel needed to be created, where it is, and the violence and ethnic cleansing which was necessary to create it is understandable if not quite forgiveable. I'm not saying that Israel shouldn't have been created or that morality didn't justify Zionism, I'm saying that Israelis need to live up the responsibilities they inherited through the way their state was created.

[eugenekop]

It's trendy. That's pretty much it.

Why is that trendy? You said you perfectly understand the reasons. Can you explain it more deeply?

Why?

Should Israel have been carved out of the land of Germany then? Should no communities be allied to political authority?

Don't be ridiculous. Israel needed to be created, where it is, and the violence and ethnic cleansing which was necessary to create it is understandable if not quite forgiveable. I'm not saying that Israel shouldn't have been created or that morality didn't justify Zionism, I'm saying that Israelis need to live up the responsibilities they inherited through the way their state was created.

Being an anarchist I oppose all states. However I definitely support Zionism as a movement of Jews to immigrate to Israel. Nevertheless it does not imply that Arabs had to be subjected to the rule of Jews. Now this of course goes to every state on the planet, as no state was created without aggression. In fact Israel was created with less aggression than the vast majority of other states.

As I previously said, Jews could have created Israel but they should not have included those who did not consent to that creation. For example they should not have come to an Arab, or for that matter to another Jew who did not want to be part of the state, and tell him that he should now be subjected to the Israeli police, courts and army. In my view that's aggression. So morality did justify Zionism until it tried to subject Arabs. After that it stopped being moral. Does it mean Zionism is less moral than other national movements? Of course not, they are all immoral. Does it mean that in practice Israel should try to fix history? No, I don't think so, after all no one expects this from other nations, and being holier than the pope in the middle east is a recipe for disaster anyway.

[Oleh Hadash]

I disagree with that, but even if we assume that to be the case, why is the conclusion true? I'm deadly serious here. Even if Palestinians are, all other things equal, indistinguishable from other Arabs, does not the experience of refugee camps, occupation or living in a Jewish state not ensure that their experience over at least the past 63 years mean that they have been split from the Arab mainstream? I mean, even by your logic the Arabs-with-Jordanian-citizenship didn't rot in refugee camps for 60 years. The Arabs-with-Kuwaiti-citizenship weren't expelled, en masse, in 1991. The Arabs-with-Lebanese-citizenship aren't blocked from any number of professions.

Even if we accept that Arabs were once some sort of cohesive society and we accept that self-definition is irrelevant, I fail to see how the Palestinian experience hasn't been transformative enough to give them a very different identity from other Arabs.

I'd agree with you that we can judge nationalisms and that, furthermore, the burden of proof should probably be on the people claiming a new nationalism, but if any experience of the past 100 years entitles a group to the declaration of a new nationality, it should probably be Palestinians.

You're kidding me, right? Are you seriously trying to sell me on Palestinian nationalism by telling me that what distinguishes them from other Arabs is their experience with Zionism? Have you not realized that their experiences with Israel haven't changed them? You'd have a point if they became a new people in that time. They haven't.

How neighbouring Arab countries treat them is also irrelevant with respect to an analysis of the legitimacy of their nationalistic claims. Not having a Lebanese passport doesn't mean Abdul from Ramallah is any different that Mahmud from Tripoli. They are, generally speaking, the same people. The way other Arab nations deal with their "Palestinian" refugee problems doesn't give any strengthening to the false argument that you're trying to advance about Palestinians constituting a distinct national identity.

Consider the fact that Jews from all over the world reunited in Israel through Zionism. We were able to coalesce and unite, relatively speaking. It's not our problems that Arabs pretend that they have distinct national identities based on lines drawn from European colonialists in the 20th century. They are the same people. Get over it, already.

The real reason they claim this distinct identity, which is the same reason Arab countries have been so resistant toward integrating these "Palestinian" refugees, is that they refuse to accept Jewish independence in Israel. Lebanon thinks that if it absorbs Palestinian refugees that it will be taking responsibility for the great Zionist crime of establishing Israel. Same thing for Jordan. Same for Egypt. Same for Kuwait. Same ad nauseum. Of course there are secondary political (and arguably practical) reasons for not integrating these Arabs, the fact remains that the way neighbouring countries treat these Arabs doesn't provide any credibility to the false argument you're trying to advance: that Palestinian constitute a distinct people who deserve land upon which to have a state of their own. We have more than enough Arab states as it is.

Ok, I see more where your coming from now. Where would you draw the line between national rights and the rights of embedded communities? Does the Palestinian (or, if you prefer, Arab) nation have any national rights in any part of the mandate territory?

Absolutely not. Consider the fact that I examine all of these issues from exclusively one vantage point: what is in the best interests of the Jewish people and Israel? I do not see any way in which giving independence to an openly hostile and violent group serves best interests. Indeed, it puts our BASIC interests at risk: survival. Like I said, we don't need to open up another front for the war in order to appease our enemies.

How so? What would you do?

Widespread revocation of political rights, for starters. Without loyalty and recognizance of the legitimacy of Jewish self-determination in Israel, a person should not be permitted to vote in this country. That would immediately remove large portions of the Arab population from voting, justifiably. They should have all human rights, of course, but they should have no say in determining the future of the state. I'm sure you know how openly hostile Arab politics in Israel are towards basic Jewish rights. They exist to oppose Jewish nationalism.

]Oh, by no means not. I don't think any Zionist deserving of the name believed that Palestinians were 'more indigenous' than the Jewish people, but I think it's very easy to argue that the vast majority early Zionists (and many later ones) saw the problem of co-existence as a question of balancing the needs and rights of two legitimate national groups instead of a pragmatic question of how to deal with the Arab question. I don't even think that many would have assumed that the Arab claim was *as* legitimate as the Jewish claim, but I just can't see how most Zionist thought rejected the entire concept of national rights for Arabs until after the state was founded. Admittedly, my knowledge of Zionist thought is less complete than it should be, but at least in the canon that I have been exposed to, I just can't see this.

They certainly did not seek to "balance national rights" in Israel. What do you think the Partition Plan was for? That was the balancing offer, and you know who rejected it and opted for war. Arab nationalism was never accepted as legitimate by early Zionism (or any Zionism) beyond the Partition Plan, because it wasn't. The offer was made! And then there were two decades in which nothing was done towards securing another Arab state (Palestinian nationalism didn't really exist until the late 60s, contrary to lies from Rashid Khalidi or Edward Said) except MORE violence and another two wars. So, they reject an offer towards giving them independence (and if anything, it was a three-state solution considering the establishing of Transjordan on the Eastern side of river from the land of the Palestinian Mandate), fail to establish a state for two more decades while continuing hostilities and participating in two wars, and engage in terrorism against Jordan and Lebanon! Nowadays, there is relatively widespread support for Palestinian nationalism among Jews, but of course this is misplaced. All Jews need to ask themselves one simple question: what is in our own best interests? If the establishment of a Palestinian state in one shape or form is in our best interests, I will support it. Otherwise, I will not support a manufactured and superficial nationalism manufactured in the sixties which is used as political cover for the agenda of destroying Jewish independence. Because that's all Palestinian nationalism is: a rejection of Jewish national rights on this land.

Back to early Zionist thought, if you read the diaries and memoirs of Ben-Gurion and Jabotinsky, they don't reject Arab nationalism outright, but it's obviously implied in their workings towards the establishment and ongoing developments of a Jewish statement. Zionism, by definition, rejects any other national claims on our land. It would be completely contradictory to allow another group to have a claim to the same land upon which we actualize our national rights. At the end of the day, it's not that important what the early Zionist leaders thought of this issue, because things have changed and we know more now than they did back then.

Last month is disproportionate (hard luck! :P) but I gave 1,500 NIS to my shwerma guy's legal fund to fight his house demolition as a goodbye, £50 to the Japan appeal - on top of the twenty odd quid I give to British charities each month. Normally just the regular stuff, though.

I agree, talk is cheap. And even though you always resort to these rather strange and unnecessary pokes at people's status, you don't really know much about me at all, do you? I've touched on it before and I hate to get even more blunt: but I have a job and (shock!) a good one. Economic analysts get paid rather well, even in these post-credit crunch days, don't you know?

Don't pretend you know me and don't pretend you have any right to know about me, beyond what you can goad out of me. I have the decency of not making assumptions about or accusations at you and then dragging them into this. It's beneath me and it's beneath you. You are, all other things considered, rather a good advocate of your point of view on this forum. Don't you realise that this kind of thing immediately turns people off?

I have enough experience with enough different people in the political context to be able to quickly discern what category of person I'm dealing with. The character and political leanings of a person greatly inform their approach to issues. That's why there's nothing at all which is out-of-place with you as a leftist Brit looking for adventure in his young years to give his life a sense of higher purpose battling for justice in Palestinian-denied. Don't you see? It all fits. You may not be a complete caricature like some others on this forum, but that doesn't mean I'll withhold assumptions of mine about you that are likely accurate.

Congratulations on giving charity. At least you put your money where you mouth is. I respect that much more than losers who talk a big game but produce and give nothing.

Well maybe you can explain this to me, because I still don't understand it.

Oleh Hadash and peterm1988:

I believe you can argue for another year which group has more right to form a country in Palestine, but that would be futile. There are no laws and definitely no moral guidelines that will help to resolve this issue. In fact accepting group rights already leads to contradiction. What do group rights mean? Does it mean one group can take over another group or use violence to conquer the lands of other groups? Justice is much simpler. You simply cannot use aggression against other people and their property, that's all. There are no group rights because they necessarily lead to such aggression. Thus, the Palestinians who lived in Israel have the right to those lands (unless they were captured by force from previous inhabitants and those inhabitants can prove that), and the Jews who live in lands that did not previously belong to Palestinians have the right to live in those lands. Neither Palestinians nor Jews have a group right to form a state in this region or in any region without the consent of the people in that region. For example if peter and I decide to form a state we can do this, but we can't force Oleh to be part of that state, because that would be aggression, at least this is how I see it. Now this is a simple morality, a simple universal principle. I'll state it again in other words. You cannot use aggression against a person or his property unless he used aggression against you or your property before that.

Seriously, eugenekop, you've become some sort of libertarian robot. I don't even want to think about engaging in a dialogue with you, because I know it'd be much too painful. Group identities exist. They're powerful. The motivate and mobilize people. Wishing them away won't make them disappear. You might as well learn to live with it, as I'm sure you have, considering you're Israeli.

In all seriousness, part of me wouldn't mind living in your libertarian world, assuming all people on earth genuinely subscribed to its principles. Without widespread support to libertarian principled, an overly individualistic society will be destroyed by stronger national movement. Until that day arrives, however, I'll stay on earth and you can continue flying through the clouds of your fantasies. Star Trek is a nice fantasy, but it's not realistic at this time.

[Dave]

Why is that trendy? You said you perfectly understand the reasons. Can you explain it more deeply?

It's trendy because it has social status. And why is that? Because people with social status took up the cause, and then people lower on the social ladder aped this as a means of status signaling.

In you want a rational reason for this irrational phenomenon, the defeat of fascism as well as traditional religion has left progressive ideology as the last man standing. Ironically the failure of National Socialism today endangers the security of Israel.

[eugenekop]

Seriously, eugenekop, you've become some sort of libertarian robot. I don't even want to think about engaging in a dialogue with you, because I know it'd be much too painful. Group identities exist. They're powerful. The motivate and mobilize people. Wishing them away won't make them disappear. You might as well learn to live with it, as I'm sure you have, considering you're Israeli.

In all seriousness, part of me wouldn't mind living in your libertarian world, assuming all people on earth genuinely subscribed to its principles. Without widespread support to libertarian principled, an overly individualistic society will be destroyed by stronger national movement. Until that day arrives, however, I'll stay on earth and you can continue flying through the clouds of your fantasies. Star Trek is a nice fantasy, but it's not realistic at this time.

Can you then provide a coherent and universal moral framework for group rights? If you can't, then what's the point of arguing who has the right to form a state in Israel? You will just make up something arbitrary to support your cause, but is that justice?

[eugenekop]

It's trendy because it has social status. And why is that? Because people with social status took up the cause, and then people lower on the social ladder aped this as a means of status signaling.

In you want a rational reason for this irrational phenomenon, the defeat of fascism as well as traditional religion has left progressive ideology as the last man standing. Ironically the failure of National Socialism today endangers the security of Israel.

My explanation as to why Israel draws so much attention:

1. 1 billion of Muslims want Israel gone, that's a lot of enemies for one state, and they spread their propaganda effectively.
2. Israel is a western nation, and lefties have more demands from western nations.
3. Israel was marked by the lefties as a symbol of supposed colonialism and imperialism, some country has to be a symbol, and Israel was chosen.
4. Israel unlike Russia, China, America or Muslim and African countries actually listens to criticism and changes its ways accordingly. Of course this invites even more criticism.
5. Jews are more familiar and more interesting than other peoples, Jews are special.
6. Antisemitism.
7. Europeans and Americans have problems with Muslims as well.
8. Wars in the middle east have a direct affect on oil prices.
9. Israel has free press, so more information gets out.
10. Israel has a strong and vocal left/liberal segment, and they spread their message abroad.