Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mick on May 16, 2008 at 9:24am

This discussion seems to be ignoring much that to me is self-evident, and I'm especially troubled by the inaccurate terms being thrown around. The first is that the Jewish nation was born and evolved in the area that was defined as "Mandatory Palestine" by the League of Nations in 1920. Like it or not, this makes Jews indigenous, and, given that all Arabs are indigenous to the Arabian Peninsula, it means that they are not indigenous to Palestine. They are people who call Palestine "home".

Zionism is by definition a movement advocating Jewish self-determination. Self-determination is a basic human right to allow any group with a common language, culture and history to form a national entity in order to further and develope themselves as a group. It is the claimed basis for a Palestinian state, so we can't be hypocritical by denying it to Jews.

Given that the above two are true, which as definitions they must be, it allows one to understand the League of Nations decision to establish a Jewish homeland on the land that was taken from the Ottomans in WW1. The partition of Palestine was fair, with 80% going to the Arabs and a mere 20% to the Jews. The Jewish land has now been whittled down to 15% of Palestine in the wake of wars and violence.

So I have to ask two questions. Do you believe in self-determination for both Jews and Palestinians? It's a basic civil liberty guaranteed by the UN, so it's a very valid question. And secondly, if the Arabs have their 85% of Palestine ethnically cleansed of all Jews, is it fair for the Jewish residents of Palestine to have their little piece of turf, with a massive 20% arab minority? Is there anybody this doesn't work for, and why?

I'm intrigued by Mary Rizzo's comments. Clearly Mary you are at home in the Czech Republic and feel no pull to move to Israel, but is that a reason to deny those who do want to move there develop their language and culture? Isn't this freedom of movement when another country will accept you also a basic human right?

As for myself, I have always valued the richness of the tapestry of cultures we have in the world, and therefore have always been a firm believer in self-determination for everybody, Jews and Palestinians alike. But because we speak of two separate cultures developing, these are separate inalienable rights. Palestine was divided almost a century ago to cater to this development, and both Jordan and Israel have developed an immeasurable richness. The Palestinians of the West Bank were a very happy part of Jordan until 1967, and it was their terrorist leadership that tore them away from their Jordanian citizenship. So, ultimately when peace comes, they will have to decide whether their cultural future lies as Jordanians, or whether they see their future as independent Palestinians. I see their culture as part of the rest of Palestine that lives in Jordan ... but that's not my decision to make.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by mary rizzo on May 16, 2008 at 4:42pm

I'm intrigued by Mary Rizzo's comments. Clearly Mary you are at home in the Czech Republic and feel no pull to move to Israel, but is that a reason to deny those who do want to move there develop their language and culture? Isn't this freedom of movement when another country will accept you also a basic human right?

When did I say I was at home in the Czech Rep? I have never been there! I am saying that when I grew up, in a mixed faith home with the Jewish side that came directly from there, they never thought of Israel as any kind of home, and for centuries our history was there. It would be artificial to implement a move to a place that did not share our language, habits, culture, climate. It was simply out of the question. I state that the nostalgia is for the place that we have experience with, not some kind of dream. Just as for African Americans, the Back to Africa movement would not mean implementing the physical transfer, but the values that Africa had and that could make the US a better place by keeping these values alive.

As to the rest, I'd recommend an article on it that I have published by another author on my site (about Jewish Self determination - it's on www.peacepalestine.wordpress.com) as I don't have time or inclination to address a new topic when most of my questions here have been ignored by substitution of new issues.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Paul RETI on May 16, 2008 at 4:47pm

Which of your questions have been ignored here here, Mary?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John Wilmerding on May 16, 2008 at 7:11pm

Mick, this appears on the face of it to be untrue: "... to establish a Jewish homeland on the land that was taken from the Ottomans in WW1. The partition of Palestine was fair, with 80% going to the Arabs and a mere 20% to the Jews. The Jewish land has now been whittled down to 15% of Palestine in the wake of wars and violence."

Of course, one of the sources for the misunderstanding might be that several people on this site are taking Jordan to be part of Palestine. Of course, the Jordanians here might understandable object -- I leave it to them to decide. Hey there, all you Jordanians -- is your country part of Palestine?

But Mick, I think your figures are false to begin with, and so I ask you to please document them.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mick on May 17, 2008 at 9:56pm

I'm happy to oblige, John. From the Library of Congress:
Mandate allocations making Britain the mandatory power for Palestine (including the East Bank and all of present-day Jordan) and Iraq, and making France the mandatory power for the area of Syria and Lebanon, were confirmed in April 1920 at a meeting of the Supreme Allied Council at San Remo, Italy (see fig. 3). The terms of the Palestine Mandate reaffirmed the Balfour Declaration, called on the mandatory power to "secure establishment of the Jewish national home," and recognized "an appropriate Jewish agency" to advise and cooperate with British authorities toward that end. The Zionist Organization was specifically recognized as that agency.

As you can see from the definition of Palestine in the first line, it included today's Jordan.
For maps describing the above the best was this from the Jewish Virtual Library.

I'm also happy to link the original League of Nations 1920 San Remo document establishing the Mandate, as well as the 1922 League of Nations revision on British advice, subsequently excluding Transjordan from the Jewish homeland but still including it in the Mandate. Also an excellent online history book documenting Abdullah's march on the French in Syria with 2,000 that prompted Winston Churchill (then Foreign Ministry) to propose the establishment of Transjordan if he desisted.

I doubt that any Jordanians would object. The Palestine Mandate, along with the Syrian Mandate and Mesopatamian Mandate, was a creation of the the League of Nations that had to do with territorial administration. That Jordan was carved out of Palestine should matter as little as that Lebanon was carved out of the Syrian Mandate. Jordanians have much to be proud of, and I'm sure that their history records Abdullah's efforts in establishing the Kingdom. They have been a thriving nation for the same 60 years as Israel has, and one for which I have always had a lot of admiration ... I especially respected King Hussein.

This is all history, John, the only question is what we do with it. If we have factual veracity we have a sound basis for discussion. Certainly the map showing the area Churchill removed in 1922 clearly demonstrates what I was saying, and I'm more than happy to link the documents that the Library of Congress report covers that I mention above.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Corey Gil-Shuster on May 16, 2008 at 3:52pm

As usually happens with debate around conflict, ideas and concepts become mixed together into a mess that is almost impossible to untangle. I would remind everyone that the information we have of the other is third hand at best- to almost everyone in this conflict, we either read it somewhere or were told by someone. None of us have been in the shoes of the other side. So when stating “facts” (Palestinians came from Arabia, Jews in Arab lands were forced into Zionism, etc.) it would be a good idea to ask yourself whether the other side would agree with that statement- in most cases they would not. In the end, we each have our narrative, our way of viewing history that creates meaning in the conflict of today. No one will talk the other side out of its beliefs and its “truths”. The question is, how do we all move forward?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Paul RETI on May 16, 2008 at 4:01pm

Simple answer. Difficult to implement.

We have many lemons. They are sour. So let's make lemonade.

But we can only do that if people (are prepared to) move on.

--PmR

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jafra W. on May 16, 2008 at 4:03pm

you know my ideas ;)

(Hamas vs. fanatic Zionists) big-brother show. That can be one of the highlights of 21th century!
intelligent Dialog web-portals for narratives polarisation.
intelligent Dialog web-portals for common sense.
and much more ..

to move forward, our open-minds-movement should take responsibility and co-create functionalities toward solution-process.

You have to imagine those functions as transformation-matrix parameters.

We have to knock down the dimensions of the matrix and break down each one in precise ..

It is very complex, but possible.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mick on May 16, 2008 at 4:31pm

Corey, if you're suggesting that there is a way forwards whilst everybody remains entrenched in their myths, then I think you're wrong. I was hoping that with small steps that start at some kind of beginning, we could actually bring about some change, a sharing of ideas. There are two different narratives, but only one complete set of events that are well documented. I thought that by subjecting both narratives to the factual evidence through discussion some sembalance of reality would emerge.

If I want to understand Catholicism, I go to the Catholic Church. In this discussion ... well I have no idea where these ideas of Zionism originated. What I do know is that for the definitive description of what Zionism means to Israeli society you have to go to Israel's Declaration of Independence, on which Israel's constitutional Basic Law is based, and to which all of Israel's courts of justice adher. In it "Representatives of the Zionist movement" put their signatures to a declaration that states the following:

"THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

WE APPEAL - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.

WE EXTEND our hand to all neighboring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighborliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East."

Call me naive, but I see none of the racism there that people above claim. Having read the charters of Hamas, Fatah and the PNC I do see it there. So I have to ask again, have you read these documents? They are the core documents of all these representatives ... of Israel, of the Palestinian government Hamas, and of the entire Palestinian representation. For me it's as simple as I said before, if you want to know what a Zionist believes, the only person you can ask is a Zionist. Even Jabotinski, founder of Likud and the most extreme right wing branch of Zionism adhered to the concept of a Jewish Israel with a vibrant, equal Arab minority ... he even envisaged an Arab Prime Minister. So where exactly is this racism people are so adamant about??? Because without getting into this kind of nitty-gritty we will resolve nothing here, and only have a frustrating circular repetition of the same old.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Corey Gil-Shuster on May 16, 2008 at 5:27pm

I don't have the time to illustrate how each people's movement says one thing on paper yet the reality is different (for good and bad). That is the nature of groups. If you are interested in the difference between the declaration of independence and how it plays out in Israeli society or how much the charters of Fatah or Hamas have an impact on Palestinian thinking, create new topics and I will be happy to give my opinion when I have a chance.

For now, talking about people with entrenched beliefs that aren't willing to move forward, what are you willing to do to move forward? You are right, we can't force another group (or even our own group) to change or think differently. In fact, the more we try, the more entrenched people become. So what are you, Mick, willing to do to end the conflict?

▶ Reply to This

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7