pbleighton, on Jul 5 2006, 07:07 AM, said:
"In fact, although there has not been a Palestinian state previously (and certainly not an Arab one), by all means let them have a separate state."
Disingenuous. The Palestinians had lived in Palestine for centuries, under various oppressors, the most recent of which were the British.
"What precisely was the nature of the individual injustice of which you speak: 1948partition? Why is or was that an injustice?"
No, it started with the the 1922 Mandate For Palestine, which attempted to cut out from Palestine a homeland for European Jews. You can read about it on the Internet, if you like.
"Regardless of the rights or wrongs, prior to 1948 partition there was a significant Jewish population - and no reason why they should not be self-governing."
Jews were one seventh of the population in Palestine. As a parallel, let us suppose an superior power occupied your country, identified an ethnic or religious group comprising one seventh of the population, carved out a section of your country, gave it to them, and invited all members of that group from around the world to move there permanently. Assuming that you were not a member of that group, how would you feel about this?
"When you stack statistics of those killed you take a Western viewpoint conveniently to suggest injustice by loss of life: but it is only one side (the Israeli) which has placed the Western huge premium on individual life."
Nonsense. This is essentially a civil war, with mass murder on both sides.
Here is another perspective on injustice, from the first Prime Minister of Israel, David Ben Gurion, a dedicated Zionist:
"Why should the Arabs make peace? If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: they think 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 anti-Semitism, 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? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations' time, but for the moment there is no chance."
Peter
Gerardo,
Thank you for correcting the formatting previously.
Fairly obviously, I do not know how to intersperse the quotation withmy comments to achieve the format. I request your assistance again.
Peter,
THe use of dismissive and derogatory comment such as "disingenuous" does nothing for your argument, but tends to be an attack on the man (as opposed to playing the ball - or merely ad hominem classically).
Your claim of "various oppressors" of "the Palestinians" is interesting.
Firstly, define your "Palestine": do you mean the British mandate following WW1, the Roman colony, Israel plus other areas?
Bear in mind that with the exceptions of the Roman colony and the British mandate, there has not been a single state "Palestine" - or any people who so identified themselves! The concept is a recent one - but that does not make it wrong - just don't try to wrap it in centuries of historical conflict. Otherwise you might as well say that various areas of the Middle East (or the Balkans or Europe or anywhere else) have been conquered and reconquered.....
Similarly when you allege "Jews were one seventh of the population of Palestine" - are you taking that definition of "Palestine" as the British Mandate at the date of partition?
The changing boundaries and carving up of areas into smaller groups ahs gone on for centuries: post WW1 rampant nationalism and self-determination. Post WW2 India and Pakistan andcontinues today with the continuing fragmentation of what used to be known as Yugoslavia (Monte Negro's separation from Serbia being the most recent).
It is a formula for a majority of people of a particular persuasion to obtain autonomy. Whether it is sensible, economically viable or practical is another issue. Pragamatism dictates that it has occurred as a worldwide phenomenon, and that we accept it.
If your point is that there is injustice in the form of drawing borders - you are right: there always will be whenever an artificial distinction is drawn. There will be injustice on both sides of the line.
If your point is as to strict division of territory on per capita basis at the time, again live with it: it doesn't happen. Every chronicle I have read suggests the British did the future state of Israel no favours in its division but I accept that someone will alwaysfeel disadvantaged.
As to your comment about "dividing off one portion of their country":-
a) there was no "country" extant at the time - if anything the "Palestinians" really were no more than Syrians and Jordanians (and let us not examine too closely Jordan and its antecedents !!) . Facetiously, they did not play football as a state, have a separate government or appear at Olympic Games. Realistically there was no single differentiating characteristic to argue that those living in that area were a separate people.
rightly or wrongly, it happens all the time: break-up of the Austro-Hungarian empire, Ottoman empire, USSR....it is the right of people to form their own groups and secede as they will. It may yet happen in another construct: Iraq. It is not necessarily progress, but self-determination is apparently part of human nature...
c) it is not as if the group annexed all the best areas or valuable economic assets - they certainly did not get oil (blame Moses?).
I suggest what really annoyed many was that land was sold to Jews at what appeared to be a high price for uncultivated and generally believed to be unarable land - which was then rendered arable. THe vendors moved from self-congratulation at their own cleverness to irritation that they had been underpaid. there are few things as annoying as humiliation - and watching your neighbour progress after you had the opportunity for decades but did not avail yourself thereof, tends to be frustrating.
I agree with you and Ben Gurion as to an understanding of their frustration but that does not make it right.
You might note that Ben-Gurion referred to "the Arabs" as opposed to Palestinians.
All sorts of explanations aside from religious ones can be posited: curseof an outsider, uniting your own impoverished populace against an external force, a perceived attack on Western colonialism, distracting your own populations from their own economic woes, support from USSR against a democratic/capitalist foothold in the area, remnants of support of Nazi Germany- and nobody really knows which of those and other influences and their relative extent was dominant or even contributing.
In any event, more than 2 generations have passed but if anything the positions have become more entrenched fuelled by money while keeping the Arab population in comparative penury - perhaps to keep their attention focused?
If I lived in comparable circumstances exposed to continuing propaganda I too might feel as tehy do. I can understand how and why they feel that way - but that does not mean I accept it as logically correct, much less their "solution".
Elianna,
One further point about the bombing of the King David Hotel which certainly fits a definition of terrorism: warning was conveyed to the British in much the same way as the Irish conveyed occasional warning to their victims in England, but the warning was ignored. That does not make it right - or remove it from "terrorist " classification as far as I am concerned - but there was some concern for innocent civilian population evinced, albeit insufficient.
Help
