ISRAEL: Most Hated Country in the World?

[padillah]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


The roots of Palestinian Nationalism essentially go back to the Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin el-Husseini - the mentor of Yasser Arafat. Amin el-Husseini was a close ally of Hitler who helped to import Nazi-style anti-semitism into the Middle East, and was possibly destined to carry out the Final Solution in the region.

Matthias Kuentzel has written extensively on the subject of the relation between the 3rd Reich and the birth of Palestinian nationalism.

http://www.matthiaskuentzel.de/contents/kategorie/english/

It seems to me that the difference betwen the two ideologies is that one aims at the survival of the Jewish nation, while the other aims at its destruction.

Unfortunatly, and I know I'm gonna get creamed for this, that doesn't have anything to do with their right to assemble as a nation.

Tom P.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by padillah
Sorry, but this seems a little circular to me. They can't determine if they want to be a "nation" until they are a nation?

They can't determine if they want to be a nation-state until they are a nation.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


And what does any of that have to do with the denial of the right of self-determination for the Palestinians?

Again, what right did the British have to place Jewish refugess in Palestine against the wishes of the majority of the population? Heck, Cyprus was also part of the British Empire, so from a British perspective, what difference did it make? Refugees don't get a choice of where their host places them. If the British restricted Jewish immgration to Palestine during the 30's and 40's, it is because they recognized that the majority of the population in no way agreed with that immigration policy.

Your statement that the numbers in 1947 were "morally suspect" is intellectually suspect. Those Jewish refugees would have been just as safe (no, safer) being sent to say Kent, or Long Island. Why did they have to be sent to Palestine? To become fatcs on the ground for Zionist leaders? And why is British immigration policy that kept Jews out of Palestine during the war an "apartheid wall", but Israeli policy that keeps Palestinians from going to their ancestral villages valid sovereign control over immigration, given that you acccept the validity of British sovereignty over Palestine at that time?

1. You seem to be under the impression that Jews were being settled as refugees in Cyprus. They were not, and its not likely the Cypriots would have accepted them. They were being held in detention camps.

2. From all I can gather, the motivation for British policy was less their belief that the Arabs had a right to excluding Jews from Palestine, than that it was necessary to give in to Arab demands, to maintain order and to get Arab support elsewhere

3. The Jews certainly had no particular right to go to America, any more than to Palestine (and dont pretend the UK expected most to go the UK) Given that they had a historic claim to Palestine, rather less.

4. A. Israels wall leaves on the other side a Palestine that Israel is willing to let become soveriegn. The Brit immigration barriers did no such thing B. Britain was NOT sovereign over Palestine, it had authority under a mandate which specifically required them the building of a Jewish National Home, which may not mean a state, but certainly was incompatible with restrictions on Jewish immigration C. Israels barrier was designed principally to prevent folks from coming into Israel to murder civilians. The UK barriers were NOT aimed at keeping attackers out of the UK, nor even out of Palestine, but were explicitly there to prevent immigration.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Actually, the right of self-determination was certainly around in 1919. It was part of Wilson's 14 points. That Europeans decided that Arabs were not to get the same rights they would give Europeans is simply racism.

I. Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view.

II. Absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas, outside territorial waters, alike in peace and in war, except as the seas may be closed in whole or in part by international action for the enforcement of international covenants.

III. The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance.

IV. Adequate guarantees given and taken that national armaments will be reduced to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety.

V. A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined.

VI. The evacuation of all Russian territory and such a settlement of all questions affecting Russia as will secure the best and freest cooperation of the other nations of the world in obtaining for her an unhampered and unembarrassed opportunity for the independent determination of her own political development and national policy and assure her of a sincere welcome into the society of free nations under institutions of her own choosing; and, more than a welcome, assistance also of every kind that she may need and may herself desire. The treatment accorded Russia by her sister nations in the months to come will be the acid test of their good will, of their comprehension of her needs as distinguished from their own interests, and of their intelligent and unselfish sympathy.

VII. Belgium, the whole world will agree, must be evacuated and restored, without any attempt to limit the sovereignty which she enjoys in common with all other free nations. No other single act will serve as this will serve to restore confidence among the nations in the laws which they have themselves set and determined for the government of their relations with one another. Without this healing act the whole structure and validity of international law is forever impaired.

VIII. All French territory should be freed and the invaded portions restored, and the wrong done to France by Prussia in 1871 in the matter of Alsace-Lorraine, which has unsettled the peace of the world for nearly fifty years, should be righted, in order that peace may once more be made secure in the interest of all.

IX. A readjustment of the frontiers of Italy should be effected along clearly recognizable lines of nationality.

X. The peoples of Austria-Hungary, whose place among the nations we wish to see safeguarded and assured, should be accorded the freest opportunity of autonomous development.

XI. Rumania, Serbia, and Montenegro should be evacuated; occupied territories restored; Serbia accorded free and secure access to the sea; and the relations of the several Balkan states to one another determined by friendly counsel along historically established lines of allegiance and nationality; and international guarantees of the political and economic independence and territorial integrity of the several Balkan states should be entered into.

XII. The Turkish portions of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of an autonomous development, and the Dardanelles should be permanently opened as a free passage to the ships and commerce of all nations under international guarantees.

XIII. An independent Polish state should be erected which should include the territories inhabited by indisputably Polish populations, which should be assured a free and secure access to the sea, and whose political and economic independence and territorial integrity should be guaranteed by international covenant.

XIV. A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.

.

Now tell me where is there a general right to self-determination in those points? In fact there was NOT, and self-determination was NOT uniformaly applied in drawing European borders - the return of Alsace-Lorraine to France, was unconditional, whether Alsations wanted it or not. The Polish and Czech boundaries were made based on economic and strategic concerns. The peoples of Austria-Hungary are promised autonomous development, NOT self-determination. In the case of the Balkans, borders are to be settled along HISTORICAL lines of nationality, not necessarily by plebiscites.

In fact there was NO general "right" to self determination established in the 14 points. Self determination was merely one principle used at the peace conference, alongside others.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Self-determination is just that, the ability of individuals for themselves to chose their own political future. You are totally wrong to state that there is any need of any "national" anything in order to grant people the right to chose their own leaders. Simply the fact they were human beings living in that land gave them the right to decide for themselves how they would govern themselves. Had they chosen to be part of some greater, or smaller, political unit is irrelevant. The ability to self govern is something that is a right of people, NOT national groups.

In which case the ethnic Germans of say, Pressburg would have been entitled to self determination, or many other ethnic groups who existed as inkblots across the map of eastern europe. In fact selfdetermination was NOT applied that way in Europe, and the existence of historic nations, provinces, as well as self-conscious national groupings was always important. Note the denial of self-determination to Katanga, Biafra, and other "lands".

[lord of the mark]

However I must correct some facts here.

SOME Palestinian intellectuals did in fact assert a Palestinian identity, at least in the early 20's, and I think somewhat spottily even before 1914.


As for PLO claims, you have to remember that the PLO wasnt the same as Fatah in the early 60s. The PLO was basically a puppet of the govt of Egypt. Fatah was backed by Syria, and IIUC did assert a claim to the West Bank, as part of Syrias campaign against the Jordanian monarchy.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by padillah
Sorry, but this seems a little circular to me. They can't determine if they want to be a "nation" until they are a nation?

Like straybow said - they can decide to want to be a nation anytime.
I simply claim that haven't done it at any time prior to 1948, and therefore did not have any rights ignored.

There was little holding the U.S. together other than we didn't want to be part of England anymore. No one was over here for any particular reason or other: no racial identity, no "ethos", nothing you wouldn't find in any other English colony. We simply decided we didn't want to be treated that way.

I put in bold the parts that are an ethos

The palestinians began defining themselves once they didn't want to be part of the state of Israel. That is their ethos.

It did not pre-date 1948.

Isn't the establishing of a national ethos what you guys are talking about? Of course there was no Palestine before 1919 nobody cared if there was one. But whether or not they formed "in response to Israel" is irrelevant - they have the right to form.

Of course they have the right to do it.
I don't deny their right to form.

I renounce the narrative according to which something formed prior to 1948, and was ignored and disowned.

I don't claim they have no right to be a nation. I claim that they simply didn't have any such concensus in 1919.

One of the questions I asked that spurred this debate was "Why do Jewish people think they deserve a country?" A desicion that was defended with verve. What makes that argument any less valid when applied to the Palestinians?

It doesn't.

The Jews decided they want to have a country in the middle / late 19th century and formed a movement called Zionism, which achieved that state.

The palestinians decided they want to have a country, between 1948 and 1967. They're yet to achieve that.

I'd applaud them if they hadn't blown up Israelis.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by GePap
Self-determination is just that, the ability of individuals for themselves to chose their own political future. You are totally wrong to state that there is any need of any "national" anything in order to grant people the right to chose their own leaders. Simply the fact they were human beings living in that land gave them the right to decide for themselves how they would govern themselves. Had they chosen to be part of some greater, or smaller, political unit is irrelevant. The ability to self govern is something that is a right of people, NOT national groups.

There is not a single real world scenario where random, miniature groups were encouraged or granted to govern themselves simply because they felt like it.

Had it been like that, all nations would have crumbled to city states right now.

Why can't the citizens of Manhaten govern themselves? They are human beings, no?

The privilege to self govern is something that organized groups strive for, and achieve, if they are well organized and large enough. This is not an inherent right for every bunch of people on a corner block.

As such, the palestinians in 1919, happenned to be an unrelated bunch of people living next door.

The formation of Israel turned them into a more adhesive group, that has national aspirations. Yay for them. You can't grant national rights to groups without national aspirations.

It dosn;t matter if in 1919 the Arabs in Palestine did not see themselves as unique from the Arabs in Syria. All Arabs should have been granted the right of self-determination, something the Europeans denied them for racist reasons. Had the Arabs in Palestine chosen to be part of a single Arabs state covering the whole levant, or some greater Syria, or whatever, that should have been their choice, not one made in European Capitols.

Arab nationalist movements began appearing slowly around the levant circa the 1920s.
Egypt had amongst the more pronounced movements. They achieved what they wanted, because they had been determined to do it.

The arabs in palestine were given a right to choose what they want. A higher committee was set up, and the brits did all they could to empower it. Little came out, because they were not ready for it.

The zionists however, had a clear idea and a goal. Arabs didn't, so they just concentrated on sporadically fighting the zionists.

You can't force people to have national aspirations if they don't.

I would at least consider your claims if you had said that the Europeans denied arab rights for interesant reasons. That would be true - they did try to slow the process down. They even tried to slow the zionist project.

But to claim that it was down out of racism holds no water IMO. You have no proof for their motiefs. Infact, you have proof for British active involvement in setting up arab nationalist movements and political institutions where none existed. So your whole case is lost.

So what? The right still exists.

Yippie.
So what indeed?

This is the best you can come up with?

Civic rights are guaranteed under the Universal declaration of Human Rights. Israel signed that agreement. Your government agreed to abide by those ideals. Here they are:
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

When were the refugees ever citizens or inhabitants of the Jewish state? a: never.

Those who did come back and resettled during 1949-1955 (and there were dozens of thousands), had their civil rights kept by Israel ever since.

[Sirotnikov]

[q]SOME Palestinian intellectuals did in fact assert a Palestinian identity, at least in the early 20's, and I think somewhat spottily even before 1914.[/quote]
I'd appreciate to see names.

I know that some well off clan leaders saw an opportunity to create a local haven, and had local political aspirations.

I'm not sure that is is similar to a claim of a palestinian identity. Esp. since it wasn't at all prevalent among the people living here.

As for PLO claims, you have to remember that the PLO wasnt the same as Fatah in the early 60s. The PLO was basically a puppet of the govt of Egypt. Fatah was backed by Syria, and IIUC did assert a claim to the West Bank, as part of Syrias campaign against the Jordanian monarchy.

for the PLO egyptian puppet.
about Fatah being backed by Syria.
I'm not aware of a major Syrian involvement in that, and had always seen the Syrian interest in Jordan in 1970, as merely opportunism rather than a campaign.

I will check my own sources but I'll gladly accept reference and some more explanation about the subject.

[Heresson]

You know, Sirotnikov, by yout arguments Poland would be completely right to take entire Byelorus after ww1, colonialism doesn't seem so bad either: after all, Byelorussians didn't have a national identity, in polls they usually describes themselves as "tutejsi" - "the ones living here".

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



In which case the ethnic Germans of say, Pressburg would have been entitled to self determination, or many other ethnic groups who existed as inkblots across the map of eastern europe. In fact selfdetermination was NOT applied that way in Europe, and the existence of historic nations, provinces, as well as self-conscious national groupings was always important. Note the denial of self-determination to Katanga, Biafra, and other "lands".

Sorry LoTM, but the crimes of others do not absolve anyone of their own crimes.

You seem to be utterly incapable of understanding the fact that I do not view self-determination as being tied whatsover to the notion of ehtnicity or "nation." Self-determination means people being able to chose their own governance. Any system that would reserve that right for made up groups (aka "nations") is a system I do not support. That is the greatness of the EU, slowly fighting an hopefully in the far future finally defeating that nationalist claptrap.

[GePap]

Re Siro:

Look above. The same denounciation of the idiocy of nationalism in any form applies to your comments.

And you are historically wrong about when Arab nationalism began anyways.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
You seem to be utterly incapable of understanding the fact that I do not view self-determination as being tied whatsover to the notion of ehtnicity or "nation."

You seem to be utterly incapable of understanding the fact that he's demonstrating morality to the rest of us, who (presumably) do (thus the historical evidence to that effect). If you're going to make a moral argument you have to show us you have the same values as the rest of us. Otherwise you might as well be Ludd.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


You seem to be utterly incapable of understanding the fact that he's demonstrating morality to the rest of us, who (presumably) do (thus the historical evidence to that effect). If you're going to make a moral argument you have to show us you have the same values as the rest of us. Otherwise you might as well be Ludd.

Why the **** would I have to show anyone that I share "their values"?

Heck, I am glad not to share many of the value several Poly posters have enunciated through the years.

Nationalism is one ideology I find utterly immoral. I don't give a **** if you or Siro or LoTM find it acceptable or believe in it strongly.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Why the **** would I have to show anyone that I share "their values"?

Because you're never going to convince someone of something if he recognizes different axioms than you.