When you write a progressive blog about the Israeli-Palestinian confilct, you’re going to draw lots of nutty, nattering comments from those who disagree with you. I’d like to take a few moments to highlight some penetrating insights I’ve received from my readers lately.
You’ve heard, no doubt, of Holocaust deniers like David Irving. Now, there are right-wingers who I call Palestine Deniers. Perhaps their delusion is less insidious than the David Irving variety, but no less irritating.
Joseph Norland, the author of Israpundit wrote:
“Palestinian” is an anti-Israel fiction, concocted after the 1967 Arab assault on Israel. Did you ever ask yourself why the Partition Plan of November 1947 never mentions “Palestinians”? Even Resolution 242 doesn’t, and that was in 1967!
When I refused to rise to the debate, he attempted to goad me into conducting a graduate seminar on right-wing interpretations of Zionism:
If your thesis is that a “Palestinian people” exist, please use Western rules of logic and discourse to prove your statement. I hope you don’t need me to elaborate on what these rules are, but let us start with the historical background to your thesis.
These type of lexicological debates about Zionism are, of course, fruitless. More than that, they are perverse and insidious because they contend that the conflcit can be reduced to theoretical concepts and arguments (in which they win every time, of course).
I replied to him that neither I nor the Palestinians themselves needed to prove their existence to him nor anyone else. Besides, what did it matter whether this document or the other neglected to mention the term “Palestine?” Since I live in Seattle, I tacked on this cogent (at least I thought so) analogy: Mount Rainier didn’t exist 100 million years ago (I’m no geologist, so the actual age may be different, but you get my point). Does that mean that the volcano needs to prove its existence before Norland will accept that it does? As its lava flows down the mountain racing to engulf downtown Seattle (as it will invariably do sometime in the next tens of millions of years), does it need to prove it exists?
To me, the Palestinians are a volcano in the midst of the Mideast. Pretend they don’t exist and they will explode (as they have in the last two Intifadas). Accept that they exist and attempt to co-exist with them–then you have a chance to live and not die.
…to be continued…
Sadly, the kind of pointless discussion you’re talking about is all too familiar to me! (Do these guys think Pakistan is still part of India, too?)
Palestine *doesn’t* exist; there is no country by that name.
That said, let’s look at the question you seem to be asking; is there a historical basis for a Palestinian national identity?
Hard to argue that there is. Like most of the Arab world, and indeed like most post-colonial regions, lines have been drawn on a map without great regard for history. Identities which were largely based on clan, tribe, religion or ethnicity have been ignored.
So, the question really is; is there a historical Palestinian identity based on clan, tribe, religion or ethnicity?
Well, no there isn’t. Those Arabs who, prior to the founding of Israel, lived in what is now Israel didn’t speak a distinct Palestinian language or share a distinct Palestinian religion. They were Arab. Like the Arabs who then lived in what is now Jordan. Or Syria. Or Egypt. Or …
That may not change current reality … the post-1948 construct of Palestinian national identity is with us, for better or worse. But yet another question arises; why then are Palestinian claims for a state treated more seriously by the world than say, Basque, Tamil or even Aztlan claims?
I would argue that it’s a result of the world’s (1) dependence on oil, (2) fear of Muslim fundamentalists, and (3) deep-seated discomfort with Jewish self-determination. And of course, the willingness of the PLO to use indiscriminate terrorism.
NO, I am NOT asking the question: is there a historical Palestinian national identity? You and all the other Palestine deniers ask that question and have an all too ready–and irrelevant–answer. It matters not a whit whether there is–or is not a historic Palestinian national identity. Palestine exists. Palestinians exist. The world, the UN, George Bush and even supposedly Ariel Sharon agree with that proposition. The only ones who reject it are Palestine deniers like you, thankfully a very small minority.
Instead of spreading your puerile propaganda, why don’t you go back & actually read what I wrote? Then it might, just might be worth having a conversation.
> Palestine exists.
Where? In real, actual, concrete terms, where does it exist? Like Germany, like France, like Chile … like any other actual country you care to name … where is it?
The land on which the PLO & PNA wish to create a country exists, but the “country” doesn’t. It doesn’t exist in physical form. Right now it’s an idea. Much like the State of Israel pre-1948, it’s only an idea.
I think you’re not reading what I wrote. Yes, my views are (an awful long way) to the right of yours, but I’m trying to understand what you’re saying.
Oh, and “puerile propaganda”? Please.
Now, you’ve raised a very interesting analogy between Palestine now & Israel pre-1948. So you accept that Israeli statehood was justified in 1948 (a position I firmly agree with) but deny that Palestinians have the same right themselves to create their own state and homeland? I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but that clearly appears to be your position and if it is it’s preposterous because you arrogate a right to one people which you deny the other.
One person’s propaganda is another’s clear-eyed logic. To me what you’re saying is propaganda for a view not shared by the vast majority of the world’s population. Therefore, I can’t have any sympathy for it.
Although it is probably true that a full-blown Palestinian identity probably did not emerge until after 1948, it is wrong to say Palestinian consciousness was completely non-existent before then. Historian Rashid Khalidi has argued that Palestinians had already thought of themselves as a separate, distinct people by the time of the Balfour Declaration in 1917. And historians like Baruch Kimmlering have shown that the idea of Palestine developed as early as the mid-19th century.
One difference between Palestinians and groups like Tamils and the Basque is that the latter have the right to live as citizens of larger states; although the Basque may not have self-determination, they do have the right to be treated as Spaniards and hold the same rights that other Spaniards have. In contrast, Palestinians living on the West Bank, Gaza Strip or East Jerusalem are not citizens of Israel; Israel does not want to give these Palestinians Israeli citizenship because doing so would destroy the Jewish character of Israel (And, of course, there is the issue of Palestinian refugees who are not allowed to return to their homes, for the very same reason).
Whoever opposes Palestinian self-determination must therefore support one of two options: (1) A binational state, which virtually no Israeli wants (except for a few groups on the far left) (2) An apartheid solution, where 5 million Israelis have one standard of rights and 3 1/2 million Palestinians on the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem have no rights. I don’t think IsraPundit and Andy Levy-Stevenson would be happy with South Africa serving as a model for Israeli Jews.
Peter, you’ve studied your Mideast history far more thoroughly than I & I thank you for adding background to this discussion. Your arguments were far more erudite and historically grounded than mine & I salute you.
Regarding whether Israpundit & Andy Levy-Stephenson would be happy with Israel turning into an apartheid era South Africa. Unfortunately, that is precisely where their views WILL lead Israel. They certainly would deny the connection to South Africa. But denying it exists is altogether different from whether or not it actually exists. Anyone can deny anything they don’t like. But “wishing cannot make it so.” So Israel may indeed travel down the road to apartheid and these two will be apologists for it all the way to the end.
> In contrast, Palestinians living on the West Bank, Gaza Strip or
> East Jerusalem are not citizens of Israel; Israel does not want
> to give these Palestinians Israeli citizenship because doing so
> would destroy the Jewish character of Israel (And, of course,
> there is the issue of Palestinian refugees who are not allowed
> to return to their homes, for the very same reason).
In order to give Palestinians in Aza, Judea or Samaria citizenship, Israel would have to annex these areas. So the demographic argument is a red herring: it’s a non-issue, since the world wouldn’t countenanace it.
However, Israeli Arabs in Israel have the right to be treated as Israelis, to vote, to hold public office … like any other Israeli citizen. That would not have been possible for blacks in apartheid-era South Africa, which is why that particular argument has never gained currency. Israel has many faults (I’m allowed to say that, I live here!) but it certainly isn’t racist. One look around the shuk in Jerusalem … full of Ethiopians, Yemenites, Moroccans, Asians, Europeans, Indians and a dozen other groups … would dispel that idea.
Neither are the rights outlined above possible in the Arab countries which accepted the Arabs who left Israel as a result of the 1948 War of Independence (most Arab countries didn’t accept them). More details can be found here http://tinyurl.com/5wgby for those interested.
This is of course the dirty little secret of Middle Eastern politics … the only people who hate the Palestinian Arabs more than Israelis do, are other Arabs. They’ve been denied entry to many Arab countries, expelled from several more, and treated as non-citizen residents by the rest. Eveb when Jordan, an Arab country, controlled Judea & Samaria they weren’t offered an independent state.
But their plight is, of course, the fault of Israel.
Andy, I didn’t say that Israel was a racist state or like South Africa. Rather, my point was that if Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were denied self-determination, one of the only two remaining possibilities would be an apartheid-like alternative similar to South Africa (the other alternative being a binational state). The example of the Arab Israelis may make that analogy less-than-perfect(although many Arab Israelis do feel that they are second-class citizens), but it doesn’t refute the basic point: the only way Israel can oppose Palestinian self-determination while remaining a Jewish state is to deny citizenship to over 3 million of its inhabitants. i.e. the Palestinians of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. If Israel were to take that path, it would become one of the most of the racist countries in the world. Because I don’t want to see Israel become a racist state, I support Palestinian self-determination
My point about the Palestinian refugees not being allowed to return to their homes was to challenge your earlier analogy of Palestinians to other ethnic minorities like the Basque or Tamils. I didn’t want to start a debate about who bears responsibility for the Palestinian refugees, nor do I intend to now (That would be an abuse of Richard’s blog).
Andy’s most recent comment is more reasoned & cogent than his earlier ones, but still misses the mark on almost every count.
He disingenuously seems to claim that the reason Israel won’t give citizenship to Palestinians is that the world wouldn’t countenance annexation of the Territories. Well, Israel annexed East Jerusalem & didn’t seem to care a whit about world opinion which was univerally negative. The real reason for not granting Palestinians citizenship in Israel is of course the one that Peter gives: that Israel does not wish to make itself effectively a bi-national state in which there would soon be an Arab majority.
As for the so called rights enjoyed by Israeli Arabs, I would go much farther than Peter in categorizing their treatment at the hand of Israelis & the government. They are 2nd, 3rd or 4th class citizens in every respect. Israeli Arab towns & villages receive miniscule government disbursements for services compared to Jewish towns & cities. Poverty is more rampant & extreme in Arab areas. Unemployment is much higher. And the worst thing is that the government tacitly endorses this racist (yes, I’ll call Israeli attitudes towards its Arab miniority racist) attitude by doing almost nothing to address the problems. Israeli Arabs are an afterthought within Israeli society (if they’re a thought at all in Israeli Jews’ minds).
The Israeli press is full of stories of Israeli Arab, Bedouin & Druze solidiers who fight valiantly for their country. But when they return home after their miliatary service they face all the poverty, neglect & frustration of the average Israeli Arab, which is especially embittering considering what they’ve done in service to their country. This is much like the experience of Black soldiers during WWII who returned home to the same racism they faced before they entered service. The United States then (& still) had many racist attitudes toward Blacks. Why can’t we acknowledge that the same holds true in Israel today?
Andy argues over the treatment of Palestinians at the hands of Arab neighboring states, which is largely true. But he of course omits to mention that Palestinians WERE citizens of Jordan before 1967. Many Israelis believed then that Israel should only have conquered Jerusalem and left the West Bank to Jordan. Doing this would have obliterated the problem now facing Israel because you could then legitimately argue that the Palestinians did have a state in Jordan, since Palestinians would have retained their Jordanian citizenship. But in conquering the Territories, Israel saddled itself with an unbearable conundrum which it can only resolve by allowing the creation of a viable Palestinian state (and not a bantustan as Sharon seems to wish for).
Katherine shows her ignorance of the Middle East when she states that:
“Those Arabs who, prior to the founding of Israel, lived in what is now Israel didn’t speak a distinct Palestinian language or share a distinct Palestinian religion. They were Arab. Like the Arabs who then lived in what is now Jordan. Or Syria. Or Egypt.”
As anyone who signs up for an Arabic class will swiftly discover, there are distinct differences between the various dialects of the Middle East.
The thought of a Palestinian conversing with an Egyptian without mutual incomprehension and head scratching is just ridiculous. This has been aknowledged to be a problem for many years, hence the current enthusiam for Modern Standard Arabic (MSA).
To find out what language the Palestinians speak, visit Wikipedia’s article on Levantine Arabic
As for the cultural stuff, Palestine had it’s own regional identity for centuries, not least because it was a relatively fertile strip of land close to the coast where cultivation was possible in contrast to the desert wastes to the East and South which dictated a more nomadic lifestyle. Was there interaction between Palestine and the rest of the Arab world? Of course. Did they share the same religion? Of course, just as the Western European countries that emerged in the middle ages were all Christian.
– roGER
Roger: That’s Andy whose argument you criticized above. Katherine agreed with your & my views on this subject. I know from my own experience that in a long comment thread it’s hard to keep straight who said what.
You’re right, Richard.
Katherine, I’m very sorry to have falsely criticised your comments, I was of course aiming at Andy.
– roGER
As anyone who signs up for an Arabic class will swiftly discover, there are distinct differences between the various dialects of the Middle East.
There are indeed, but hardly such that the following could be true:
The thought of a Palestinian conversing with an Egyptian without mutual incomprehension and head scratching is just ridiculous. This has been aknowledged to be a problem for many years, hence the current enthusiam for Modern Standard Arabic (MSA).
Sorry, Roger, but as an Arabic speaker I can tell you that this is nonsense. Egyptian and Palestinian Arabs are perfectly capable of understanding one another in mainstream discourse (obviously there are colloquial and slang situations where that is not the case, but even here there are exceptions – a Gaza Palestinian might have less difficulty following Egyptian slang than a West Bank or Galilee Palestinian, say).
One of the reasons that Egyptian Arabic is readily grasped in other parts of the Arab world is that Egyptian dialect is the language of classic Arab songs and the early Arab movie industry.
This is not to say for a moment that I accept the laughable arguments of Palestine deniers. That people do not have a distinct language does not lessen their claims for self-determination or independence (cf Austria, Switzerland or any of the Spanish-speaking nations of Latin America) and this is even less true where it comes to distinct religions (one Jews always tend to think of, because they are a people defined in religious terms – but where would this leave the many Christian nations of Europe?).
That someone can argue:
“Those Arabs who, prior to the founding of Israel, lived in what is now Israel didn’t speak a distinct Palestinian language or share a distinct Palestinian religion. They were Arab. Like the Arabs who then lived in what is now Jordan. Or Syria. Or Egypt.”
Is tantamount to saying that Egyptians, Syrians and Jordanians don’t have a right to national independence or self-determination either. Is that really what Andy is saying?
I don’t think so. Instead, I think the barely shrouded implication is that since there has to be a Jewish state, Palestinian Arabs should be reasonable and simply move to one of the many other Arab states that already exist. Never mind that they have been living in the particular area in question in most cases far longer than white people who call themselves ‘Americans’ and ‘Australians’ have been living in those countries (without a distinct language or religion of their own, moreover).
Even Jabotinsky, hardly a slouch when it come to right-wing views, understood that this argument was dishonest.
In fact Palestine as a national and cultural construct – and all nations are constructs; only the vintage varies – has far more to recommend it than ‘Jordan’, which is entirely a British colonial fabrication. Yet apart from the odd die-hard Betarist, no Israeli seriously questions the decision of successive Israeli governments to recognise and deal with the Jordanian regime.
Palestine may once have been a Roman colonial fabrication, but a few centuries will put flesh and bones on any construct.
In any case, the crucial criterion in considering national constructs is not whether some authority or historian considers them valid but that they satisfy the needs and the expressed will of the indigenes. Israel in its current form stands no chance of satisfying this requirement with regard to the non-Jewish indigenes of the territory, ie. the Palestinians. For other salient demonstrations of this principle, see Sudan and Iraq in recent months.
Maher, I’ve been persecuted for thousands of years and would like to live in your house. Why don’t you just “be reasonable” and move to another state that ostensibly has a bunch of people who look, sound, and think like you?
I love Israel and I will certainly be celebrating Yom Ha’atzmaut this year, but frankly I’ve had enough of people who, for whatever myopic reason, refuse to believe that its founders never transgressed any sort of moral or other law.
Simply because it set out to be a state for the Jewish people does not mean that it has always and at all times acted in accordance with the same Jewish ethics by which I try to live my life.
Brian, I wish you well on Yom Ha’atzmaut. To act on the sentiments you have expressed here is to ensure the future prosperity and glory of the state of Israel.
Brian: It is simply welcoming to know of a Jewish (a fellow believer of the Holy Scriptures) who is reasonable and logical. It is true that one should always practice what he preaches. ALL religions teach good.
Maher: People like yourself do give a very distorted view of a good religion. I am aboslutely appalled to think that “to ensure the future prosperity and glory of the state of Israel”, one must remove people in their way. I have had some very bitter experiences with some Jews in the UK. Someof my Jewish “friends” never knew I was Muslim. I was invited for a meal to their home. Upon finding out my religion, they had asked me to leave immediately. It was the most humiliating experience I had ever encountered as a guest. Nothing compared to the experiences my fellow Muslim brothers and sisters are encountering in their own “homes” in the rightful state of Palestine.
I decided to dislike every Jew after that. By God’s grace, I had the pleasure of meeting a wonderful Jewish friend. She was the person who made me realise that Jews exist in two shades, in this blog, I refer to as “Brian” and “Maher”. Brians and Mahers of the world will always be at loggerheads but it is the innocent who will suffer.
I have since re-instated my respect for the Jewish people and truly do wish what every Miss Universe contestant utters meaninglessly …”I wish for world peace”.
What we really need is for the religions of the Holy Books to gather and respect the differences and celebrate the similarities. After all, aren’t we all God’s children. Who are we to deny one from standing on His soil?
Akmal’s statement is very puzzling. Why would he think a miss universe contestant would not want world piece?
Are we not allowed to prevent those who desire to kill us from standing on our soil? Because he has a book supposedly from God, we are to bare our necks?
Strange.
Ibraham, it is not your soil. That land has changed hands more than you change your underpants. And someday, 100 years, 1000 years, 10000 years from now, some other people will claim it. I know that sounds unthinkable to someone who believes he belongs to God’s chosen race and therefore is entitled to enjoy double standards, but it is reality and I hope it happens in my lifetime.
Zionism as a political force is morally corrupt and should be opposed by all lovers of freedom and equality.
Not fair, Gentile Joe. I didn’t read anything in Ibraham’s comments that said he believed he was a member of “God’s chosen race.” That’s a cheap shot. And besides Ibraham appears to be Muslim & not Jewish. Since that concept usually attaches to Judaism, I’m assuming you believe him to be Jewish which I’m fairly certain he isn’t (read all of his comments in this thread & not just the last one to find out more about his religious beliefs).
You & I also disagree about the nature of Zionism but two people of good will can disagree on these things & still maintain a dialogue.
Fair enough. Sustained.