peterm1988 wrote: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.
Oleh Hadash wrote: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.
Oleh Hadash wrote:]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.
eugenekop wrote: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.