Palestinian national identity and the roadblock to peace
Updated
A distinctly Palestinian national sense-of-self evolved during the 1920s - not organically, but as a negative reaction to Zionism. And this fact is at the centre of the current conflict, writes Ted Lapkin.
Let's start with a quiz. Which Jewish leader said the following words?
The land over which we have restored our sovereignty was the property of our fathers and no foreigner has claim to its ownership or its inheritance. Our enemies sinfully and unjustly robbed us of our patrimony, but now that G-d has bestowed success upon us we have reclaimed and resettled the inheritance of our fathers.
Was it Theodor Herzl? Perhaps David Ben-Gurion? Or maybe Vladimir Jabotinsky?
The answer is none of the above.
Those words were said 2,200 years ago by Shimon HaMaccabee, the Jewish commander who led a war of liberation against the Seleucid Greeks that has been commemorated ever since by the Hanukah holiday.
The First Book of Maccabees informs us that Shimon's declaration was issued in response to an ultimatum from Seleucid King Antiochus IV who demanded that the Jews submit or die. But the Jews fought back and regained their independence, tragically losing it again 70 years later to the conquering Roman legions of Pompey.
Now let's fast forward to the present and the current conflict between those who call this territory Eretz Yisrael and those who call it Filistin. A useful perspective is acquired by contrasting the respective historical connections of Jews and Arabs to this contested parcel of real estate.
The link between People of Israel and Land of Israel has endured over two millennia in the face of imperial conquest by the British, Ottomans, Mamaluks, Ayyubids, Crusaders, Seljuks, Fatmids, Abbasids, Umayyads, Rashidun Caliphs, Byzantines, Sassanids, Palmyrenes, Romans, Selucids, Diadochi, Macedonians, Persians and Babylonians.
And throughout these long centuries of foreign incursion, ruinous war, forcible expulsion and oppression, the Jews' stubbornly refused to abandon a primal attachment to their ancestral homeland.
Can a similar claim be made on behalf of the Palestinians?
Former Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich succinctly answered that question when he described the Palestinians as an "invented people". And the controversy generated by that comment did nothing to detract from its essential accuracy.
Newt may not have been politically correct, but he was factually correct nonetheless. The paper trail of Middle East history reveals that a distinctly Palestinian Arab national identity didn't coalesce until the 1920s at the earliest.
So found the King-Crane Commission, a US diplomatic mission established in the wake of WWI to analyse policy options for non-Turkish territories of the defunct Ottoman Empire. Commissioners Henry King and Charles Crane travelled extensively throughout the Middle East in June-July 1919, meeting more than 400 delegations from indigenous ethnic and religious communities.
Neither King nor Crane was supportive of Zionism and their report recommended that Jewish national ambitions should be "greatly reduced". But they also discovered that Muslim and Christian Arabs of the Galilee, Jaffa and Jerusalem were "practically unanimous" in their desire to become part of a "Unified Syria".
These pan-Arab ambitions were reflected in the manifesto published by the First Muslim-Christian Association Congress of 1919 that declared:
We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographic bonds.
All of which explains why historical biography is silent on the topic of pre-20th century Palestinian Arab political leadership. Simply put, there was never a distinctly Palestinian Arab nation for anyone to lead.
Yet for all the flimsiness of the Palestinian national narrative, there's no doubt this campaign of political self-conjuration has been a spectacular success. The construction of a Palestinian something-from-nothing constitutes the most remarkable triumph of fable over fact in living diplomatic memory.
So what are the implications of this 20th century political mythology for 21st century political reality?
The answer to that question involves a simple quid pro quo.
Most Israelis are prepared to overlook the dubious historical foundations of Palestinian peoplehood and accept that this idea has achieved political critical mass in our time. This pragmatism is reflected in a survey conducted by the University of Maryland in December 2013 which found Israelis to be "fairly flexible" on the prospect of Palestinian statehood.
But in exchange Israelis require formal Palestinian acceptance of the Jewish people's right to self-determination in an explicitly Zionist state. In other words - genuine national recognition in return for genuine national recognition that nullifies all further claims by either side against the other.
Sadly, a bona fide acknowledgement of Jewish national rights has never really been forthcoming from the Palestinian side. That aforementioned University of Maryland opinion poll found a decisive 71 per cent majority of Palestinians opposing Israel even as "'a state of the Jewish people and all its citizens,' thus assuring equality of non-Jewish citizens".
Another survey, conducted only just last month by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, revealed similarly belligerent results, citing Palestinian:
... majority support for the long-term goal of reclaiming all of Palestine, and for armed struggle as a means toward that end. Fifty-eight per cent of West Bankers and 65 per cent of Gazans say that even if a "two-state solution" is negotiated, "the struggle is not over and resistance should continue until all of historic Palestine is liberated.
As we have observed, a distinctly Palestinian national sense-of-self evolved during the 1920s - not organically, but as a negative reaction to Zionism. And when opposition to the other constitutes your primary raison d'être, reconciliation becomes impossible for fear of negating the central pillar of your own existence.
Thus the core of the Middle East conflict does not revolve around how Israel's borders are drawn or where Jewish homes are built. The unpardonable sin in Palestinian eyes was the establishment of a sovereign Zionist nation-state in any form or of any size within the Islamic Middle East.
But Israel isn't going anywhere. And this fundamental building block of Palestinian national identity will have to undergo root-and-branch metamorphosis before any peace worthy of the name will ever be achieved.
Ted Lapkin is director of public affairs for the Zionist Federation of Australia.
Topics: world-politics, unrest-conflict-and-war, history
First posted
Comments (47)
Comments for this story are closed.
Tabanus:
28 Aug 2015 2:04:36pm
While I may not agree with all the above, Mr Lapkin is correct in his history.
Unfortunately I must also agree with his conclusion: that the impediment to peace in the ME is the Palestinian leadership.
I say unfortunately, as I can see no inclination on the part of that leadership to move towards peace, only for continued violence. And that Israel, having found that peaceful overtures are interpreted as surrender or weakness, has largely given up on the peace process, preferring to safeguard its citizens and its territory, letting the Arabs kill each other.
Alert moderator
Dove:
28 Aug 2015 2:48:45pm
The PA is certainly one impediment to peace although by no means the only. I doubt the Israelis government shares your interest in letting Arabs kill each other as there are plenty of Arab citizens in Israel
Alert moderator
MA:
28 Aug 2015 2:14:50pm
Interesting article that can be seen to have parallels with the current Indigenous referendum debate. What makes a nation would have to include a uniformed systematic and cohesive governance you would think.
Alert moderator
TrevorN:
28 Aug 2015 2:15:39pm
Maybe if Israel stopped bombing, starving, hounding, oppressing and imprisoning generations of them behind fences and barbed wire the Palestinians might have the inclination to start to look at other alternatives. But given that they have been under siege for 60 years or so it is hard to think that they might as well go down fighting because no matter what they do it will never satisfy the extremists amongst their Jewish neighbours.
Alert moderator
Zing:
28 Aug 2015 3:03:12pm
"Maybe if Israel stopped bombing, starving, hounding, oppressing and imprisoning generations of them behind fences and barbed wire the Palestinians might have the inclination to start to look at other alternatives."
Every time Israel has granted concessions, the Palestinians have interpreted it as weakness and defeat. A sign their violence towards Israel is working and should continue to occur.
So to answer your question? No. It is unlikely that giving the Palestinians what they want will make them any less violent.
If anything, the evidence suggests the opposite - the more the Palestinians are given, the more they will demand and the more violent they will become.
Alert moderator
Eric the Echidna:
28 Aug 2015 3:17:50pm
Zing, the Zionists have not stopped stealing Palestinian land or breaching the Geneva Conventions in many ways.
Not a sign of people looking for peace.
Not forgetting some of the dire comments from members of the Israeli government.
Alert moderator
Zing:
28 Aug 2015 3:39:52pm
Eric. Even if your comments were true (which they aren't) they don't change the answer to TrevorN's question.
Rest assured. Israel would like nothing better than for the Palestinians to agree to the current borders and refrain from any further violence.
By contrast, this is the last thing the Palestinians want to do. They prefer war on their terms to peace on Israel's terms. It is Israel that is clearly interested in peace, while the Palestinians clearly see nothing to gain from it.
Nothing you say or infer will change this truth.
Alert moderator
Eric the Echidna:
28 Aug 2015 7:11:50pm
Zing, one would have thought that you could have got something correct in four paragraphs. Or maybe not.
Alert moderator
R Gaede:
28 Aug 2015 5:23:53pm
Zing look to the history of this issue. Essentially European Zionists were granted rights over Palestinian land to salve European consciences and satisfy American domiciled, sympathetic Zionists demands. Land granted was expanded by force of arms and, yes terrorist activities against British peacekeeping forces mandated by the UN.
This process has continued. Israeli Zionist breaches of UN resolutions, despite the very loud protestations of the US Zionist lobby, outnumber Palestinian breaches 5 to 1.
Who are the real villains of the piece?
Alert moderator
Bev:
28 Aug 2015 3:07:04pm
Who has started every war between Israel and the Arabs?
Only foolish leaders start a war they have no hope of winning rather than try and negotiate a reasonable peace.
Alert moderator
Eric the Echidna:
28 Aug 2015 3:20:55pm
Bev: "Who has started every war between Israel and the Arabs?"
Why don't you answer your own question. I suspect your answer will be wrong.
Alert moderator
Son of Zaky:
28 Aug 2015 2:22:25pm
Youngsters who may be interested in getting instruction on how people with barrows to push go about their task of misinformation can find some useful education in this article.
Mr Lapkin's statement that;
"Neither King nor Crane was supportive of Zionism and their report recommended that Jewish national ambitions should be "greatly reduced". But they also discovered that Muslim and Christian Arabs of the Galilee, Jaffa and Jerusalem were "practically unanimous" in their desire to become part of a "Unified Syria"."
can be pitted against the following excerpts (from a freely available, on-line transcript) of the King-Crane recommendations;
"The Commissioners began their study of Zionism with minds predisposed in its favor, but the actual facts in Palestine, coupled with the force of the general principles proclaimed by the Allies and accepted by the Syrians have driven them to the recommendation here made."
and;
"For "a national home for the Jewish people" is not equivalent to making Palestine into a Jewish State; nor can the erection of such a Jewish State be accomplished without the gravest trespass upon the "civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission's conference with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase."
It is also worth mentioning that "Syria" in the King-Crane context refers to "Ottoman Syria", "Greater Syria", or what is today the countries of Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine and Syria.
It seems Greeks bearing gifts and Zionists writing articles deserve to attract the same health warning.
Alert moderator
Dove:
28 Aug 2015 2:39:04pm
Flying a flag might well be a non-invasive start of a resumption in negotiations. Neither side is without fault and being bigger doesn't mean a bigger fault any more than being the non-state player makes for a bigger fault. Fly the damn flag and try to salvage something without killing each other
Alert moderator
Zing:
28 Aug 2015 3:11:17pm
"Flying a flag might well be a non-invasive start of a resumption in negotiations."
Not really. It's more a sign that the palestinians aren't willing to negotiate, so they're going to act unilaterally to try and get what they want.
The only problem with that approach is that Israel is capable of acting unilaterally as well. And they have a far greater capacity to do so if the palestinians insist on taking that path.
Alert moderator
Dove:
28 Aug 2015 3:28:18pm
Israel is capable of acting unilaterally and does so. The PAs ability to act unilaterally is on a far smaller scale. Both sides are hamstrung by their respective political leaderships, both of which rely for their position and power on forces somewhat removed from the popular will of their citizenry. Failing the Likud coalition meeting catastrophe in their next election or the PA leadership bus driving into the Dead Sea there won't be much of a change anytime soon.
What is certain is that the days of an armed struggled for the Palestinians is over and that a political struggle, long encouraged by the west, is all that's left open for them. Flags are better than bombs, and acting unilaterally with pieces of banners or with observer status is a step in the right direction and one that should be encouraged- of one's aim is peace
Alert moderator
Ed:
28 Aug 2015 3:02:55pm
I think this entire article is intentionally missing the point, it is trying to undermine the Palestinian position by creating a straw man argument. And come on ABC, what kind of logic is it to get a Zioinst to write on legitimacy of Palestinians etc, we may as well all be reading Joan Peters From Time Immemorial and telling ourselves it's the Gospel truth.
It really doesn't matter whether the Palestinians are a modern creation or not. They are people, with a connection to land, and they are being denied the right to self determination and statehood.
For sure Gaza could be part of Egypt and West Bank part of Jordan, or as this author supports (doesn't) part of a greater Syria. But when it comes down to it Israel, the US and the UN aren't receptive to the Palestinian people being legally recognised.
It's a modern day version of Terra Nullius, if we don't recognise a Palestinian state then we don't have to recognise the past 67 years, etc and all that that entails.
Alert moderator
Bev:
28 Aug 2015 3:29:17pm
The Arab states particularly Jordan and Syria had a vested interest in keeping the Palestinian Arabs as homeless refugees. It gave them a pressure point. They could have easily absorbed these people but deliberately did not even though a great many Palestinians would have been happy to settle.
Alert moderator
Alpo:
28 Aug 2015 3:08:59pm
Muslims have been actively present in Palestine since at least the 7th century of the current era. The al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem wasn't built recently, it dates back to 705 c.e.. That the Jews have been living in Palestine longer than that, it is obviously true. But what does it mean? Should we use the same argument to throw Australian Europeans/Asians back to where they came from, because Aboriginal populations have the exclusive right to live in this country, given their ancestral occupation of it?
So, it seems to me that it is unavoidable in the case of Palestine, that the whole territory will be eventually shared. Nobody is going to give up, nobody is going anywhere else. The only question both sides must answer themselves is this: What is the most stable geopolitical configuration for the land of Palestine? Find such a stable configuration and the future will take care of itself. If the most stable configuration is that of two countries living side by side, then so be it.
Alert moderator
Zing:
28 Aug 2015 3:30:44pm
"Should we use the same argument to throw Australian Europeans/Asians back to where they came from"
Who is the 'we' to whom you refer?
"What is the most stable geopolitical configuration for the land of Palestine?"
That would be a Palestine without any palestinians. Or alternatively, an Israel without Israelis.
But Israel isn't willing to do the first (though they had plenty of opportunity) and the Palestinians lack the capacity to achieve the second (though they would if they could). And so, here we are.
Alert moderator
Alpo:
28 Aug 2015 3:45:49pm
"Who is the 'we' to whom you refer?".... Anyone.
"That would be a Palestine without any palestinians. Or alternatively, an Israel without Israelis."..... Or alternatively, two countries in two separate areas: Current Israel for Israel and West Bank plus Gaza for Palestine.
In my view the two-countries solution is the stable configuration. We will be running in circles until we reach it.
Alert moderator
Zing:
28 Aug 2015 4:52:32pm
"Anyone" isn't an answer, Alpo.
I ask again. When you talk about "we" judging Australians and evicting them from the continent, who is the "we" to whom you refer?
Who would have the standing to make such a judgement or the power to implement it? And if they could, why would our opinion matter to them?
Alert moderator
APM:
28 Aug 2015 5:01:31pm
But Alpo, as the author is pointing out, there is an abundance of evidence that most Palestinians aren't interested in a "stable configuration" for Palestine that doesn't involve completely destroying Israel and evicting the Jews. It is a genocidal mindset, and hard to see Israeli good faith ever being rewarded with peace; rather concessions are likely to be celebrated as tactical victories to advance the genocidal intentions. Squabbles over alleged historical injustices do not help here because in the here and now the Palestinians broadly have a Man Monis pathology of Islamic extremism and aggression masquerading as victimhood. It's the Palestinian way of life now. The Palestinian good life is measured in terms of resistance to Israel existing. I cannot see anything substantial changing for generations.
Alert moderator
Eric the Echidna:
28 Aug 2015 5:54:03pm
APM, you referred to "Israeli good faith". The history of the Zionist project shows no such quality exists.
Alert moderator
Hudson Godfrey:
28 Aug 2015 3:19:28pm
Where exactly this man obtained the imprimatur to circumscribe his fellow man's national identity I don't know, but like many who've opined in a similar vein I think he could use a little perspective.
We may not necessarily have a dog in this fight, but the useful perspective relative detachment has to offer allows some of us to look at both sides and wonder what either of them are doing that signifies they're abiding love of the peace that they keep blaming the other side for withholding.
In other words Ted. If you truly want peace and deny its just about the land then quit playing the blame game. From here it's transparently disingenuous.
Alert moderator
Tiresias:
28 Aug 2015 3:53:16pm
I have a pre-World War 1 Bible with a map with an area labeled Canaan, today called Israel.
That the Palestinians were not a united nation and had no discernible leadership was their weakness. The Zionists were well supported, as in the Balfour Declaration of 1917.
The proposed partition of Palestine under the Peel Commission of 1937 had an area set aside for the Zionists from approximately Haifa to Jaffa along the coast. The Woodland Commission of 1938 actually reduced the area. The Jewish Agency Proposal of 1947 sought an area from above Haifa to Aqaba at the Red Sea under the Unscop Proposal, but under the Armistice of 1949 reduced some
territory given to the Arabs on the West bank and in Gaza.
In 1917 the Cabinet (in the UK) "was officially advised ...that in asking for a national home the Zionists were not seeking a Jewish republic...The unpleasant truth must be faced that the Zionists in London were undoubtedly guilty of double-dealing." (Christopher Sykes, 1965, p19)
Sykes goes on: "Two things were necessary for a state: a territory and a population. The first the Jews had on terms which were precarious; they had not received a precise pledge, as they had hoped, for 'the establishment of Palestine as the National Home of the Jewish people,' but for 'the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,' a hazy definition." (p. 19-20)
"The total population (of Palestine) in that year (1917) was
somewhat below 700,000. The Jews of Palestine were less than 10% of the whole people, and - a most important detail - only a minority were Zionists." (p. 20)
So what happened to Palestine? The Zionists got their way. There was violence between the British, the Arabs and the Jews.
World War 2 and a fear of a Pan-Arabic state fixed all that. So we have Arabs firing rockets on Israel and Israel bombarding the Arabs trapped in Gaza and taking over Arab land...
It sounds a like another interfering, post-colonial/Mandate mess, left to fester. Sound familiar?
Alert moderator
Eric the Echidna:
28 Aug 2015 5:31:02pm
Tiresias, it is not as if there were no warnings of what would happen:
"
When the question of the British Mandate over Palestine was discussed in Parliament, it became clear that opinion in the House of Lords was strongly opposed to the Balfour policy, as illustrated by the words of Lord Sydenham in reply to Lord Balfour:
"... the harm done by dumping down an alien population upon an Arab country - Arab all around in the hinterland - may never be remedied ... what we have done is, by concessions, not to the Jewish people but to a Zionist extreme section, to start a running sore in the East, and no one can tell how far that sore will extend."
That was not the only warning.
Alert moderator
ThingFish:
28 Aug 2015 3:55:25pm
If the contention is that the lands in question belong to Israelis because they have the longest historical tenure, then:
1. Why did the west side with the Bosnian Serbs and not side with the Serbians who were invaded by the Turks in the seventh century (historical fact!)
2. Why is Australia agonising over the recognition of indigenous people in the constitution of a nation that is a little over 100 years old?
Alert moderator
Saint Alfonso:
28 Aug 2015 4:01:43pm
I wonder what Ted Lapkin's response would be if his family had lived on a farm for 700 years and then one day some armed soldiers showed up, told him that his family's land was forfeit, and there was a nice refugee camp down the road waiting to receive him and his family?
Alert moderator
dave frasca:
28 Aug 2015 4:04:02pm
I consider much of the arguments by Ted Lapkin and many of the commentators here to be deeply obscene. Who cares what happened 2,000 years ago if the persistent, explicit and determined policy of the Israeli government is to bomb, torture, imprison, impoverish, starve, abuse and degrade the Palestinian people over which it exercises complete control.
How do people feel about pedophiles who can discuss at length their tender feelings, their compassion and 'love' for the children whose lives they destroy?
Well, that's the level of contempt I feel for the turgid, twisted, self-serving nonsense from Israeli propagandists with their hyped and lying claims of Palestinian rockets fired out of racist malice while 300 Palestinian children are murdered in their beds by Israeli bombs in operation Cast Lead.
In March this year Israel's Foreign Minister Lieberman demanded that disloyal Israeli Arabs be beheaded, saying it was vital for Israel's survival.
In May Israeli army veterans themselves published a report saying that in the 2014 attacks upon Gaza they were ordered to shoot Palestinian civilians.
Enough already! Lapkin's arguments are political pornography, selective, self-serving, dishonest and murderous in their outcomes.
Alert moderator
homeatlast:
28 Aug 2015 4:08:49pm
It is a bit silly calling it the Land of Israel, as the Israelite tribes have not substantially occupied a substantial area of the land any more than other people, whether permanent or transient. Furthermore, 1949 - 2015 is only 66 years, hardly a notion of permanency. I think what gives it leverage is it's women. I don't think traditional Palestinian females engender much ooompha for the males, leaving them and their unequal society against the odds.
Alert moderator
dave frasca:
28 Aug 2015 4:09:57pm
Israeli officials are knowingly murdering unarmed Palestinian civilians and then conducting a highly orchestrated media response to the ensuing public outcry. They are guided by a 112 page media and PR playbook written by an expert Republican pollster and political strategist, Dr Frank Luntz. It was produced in the aftermath of Operation Cast Lead in December 2008, when 1,387 Palestinians and nine Israelis were killed, in order to counter the obvious -- that Israel was conducting war crimes and crimes against humanity. The Luntz report, officially entitled "The Israel project's 2009 Global Language Dictionary" was commissioned by a group called The Israel Project, with offices in the US and Israel, for use by those "who are on the front lines of fighting the media war for Israel".
There's a whole range of language techniques described in the report:
"Much of Dr Luntz's advice is about the tone and presentation of the Israeli case. He says it is absolutely crucial to exude empathy for Palestinians: 'Persuadables [sic] won't care how much you know until they know how much you care. Show Empathy for BOTH sides!' This may explain why a number of Israeli spokesman are almost lachrymose about the plight of Palestinians being pounded by Israeli bombs and shells."
and,,,
"Dr Luntz cites as an example of an 'effective Israeli sound bite' one which reads: 'I particularly want to reach out to Palestinian mothers who have lost their children. No parent should have to bury their child.'"
There's a lot more but all of it represents a deliberate and detailed attempt by the Israeli government and its public supporters to mislead the public as to Israel's intentions in regard to the Palestinians. The Israeli government is knowingly murdering defenceless civilians. There should be no confusion on that score, and no respect or public credibility afforded to them.
Alert moderator
Tabanus:
28 Aug 2015 5:51:35pm
That a group has published a book to be used by supporters of the Israeli cause to put their case persuasively is not in itself a crime, though you seem to think it is.
Anyone who wants to put a case forward wants to do so effectively.
Does the book call for lies to be said? Does it contain anything that could be construed to be calling for violence? From your absence of any such claim I assume not.
You say it is an attempt by the Israeli gov't to mislead the public, yet provide no link between the Israel Project and Israeli gov't.
So your problem is that someone has produced a book which instructs people how to put a case forward in an effective manner. I suspect the Palestinians have been advised in a similar way for some time. Your post indicates it has been very successful: you seem to be quoting Hamas press releases.
Alert moderator
dave frasca:
28 Aug 2015 6:37:53pm
You can read journalist Patrick Cockburn's detailed account in the UK Independent (27 July 2014). Dr Frank Luntz has reasonably strong ties to Israel and the Likud Party but the key here is that he was contracted by Israeli interests close to that government in order to produce a strategy document for advancing public falsehoods about Israeli policy interests.
The Israel Project, while ostensibly non-partisan, has high level contacts with US Congress members and former Israeli ambassadors to the US sit on its board. It's aim is to change US and European perceptions of Israel into something more positive. The Jewish Daily Forward, an American newspaper published in New York City for a Jewish-American audience, said several groups, including the Israel Project, "seem to exist for no other reason than to spotlight the very worst aspects of Muslim societies."
The idea that Luntz would produce such a report for the Israel Project outside of any Israeli government input or direction is, in my view, not credible.
Alert moderator
raymond:
28 Aug 2015 4:30:31pm
When you refer to religion as an argument there is no place for sensible rational discussion let alone an equitable solution. So the injustice and oppression of a people continues with no end in site, where violence and hatred rule.
Alert moderator
rumtytum:
28 Aug 2015 4:44:02pm
I suppose for some people God trumps the United Nations but while a limited number of people think that God exists there can be no dispute about the existence of the United Nations. Furthermore, those who believe that God exists are by no means in agreement as to which God they're talking about. Best to go with the reality on the ground - an illegal occupation in the name of an imaginary friend.
Alert moderator
Aquarius:
28 Aug 2015 4:50:21pm
From what I understand, a large percentage of ordinary Israelis are supportive of a Palestinian homeland, or of at least living alongside each other in peace. It's the ultra-religious, orthodox Jews who have no desire to see this happen.
The Palestinian question will need to be answered soon - before more liberal attitudes are totally engulfed by neo-conservatism. The ultra-orthodox are gaining more and more influence and power within the Knesset (Israeli government) and this will only increase - this group's high birth-rate will see them become the majority players within Israel in the not-too-distant future.
I used to be pro-Israeli, in light of the Holocaust, and even spent time on a kibbutz back in the '70s. That left me with mixed feelings. The Jews may believe that this is their homeland, but it is not their right. (Lack of USA-backing may have produced a different outlook.)
The years-long embargo on goods going from Israel to the Palestinian territories includes basic building materials. Palestinians have been living amongst the rubble of their homes for years, with no chance of re-building (petition against this embargo at avaaz.org ). As well as this, around 98% of Palestinian applications for building approval are rejected and many Palestinian villages are removed by Israeli bulldozers as 'illegal'.
Where is Israel's humanity?
Alert moderator
Andrew C:
28 Aug 2015 4:55:10pm
Surely there can be no doubt that the ultimate aim of Israeli policy is the complete annexation of the territory of old Palestine (plus whatever else it can take from its Arab neighbours). This includes the slow, inexorable but absolute removal of Arabs from that territory, using whatever means is available, and their replacement with people who profess the religious belief of the state of Israel (plus a tiny minority of compliant second-class citizen arabs - to use to placate the west).
Clearly it is Israeli strategy to continue the conflict whilst ensuring the slow strangulation of the remaining Arab-Palestinian territories, reducing their population by starvation, poverty and conflict deaths until it loses critical mass and the remaining refugees are absorbed by Egypt, Syria and Lebanon.
The most effective weapon has really been the poverty though, as the destruction of any centralised form of government education means that the Palestinians are unable to fight back effectively with reason, nuance and sophistication. They probably don't even know much of the history of the conflict, except for the oral testimony passed down from the few parents and grandparents who survived.
That, of course, is precisely why Ted Lapkin can write the above specious article, smugly holding up the Palestinian's enforced lack of understanding as a weapon against them.
When it comes to Israeli policy, one always has to conclude that someone is intimately familiar with Machiavelli.
Alert moderator
my alter ego:
28 Aug 2015 5:02:09pm
I implore people to read the survey from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy which the author has helpfully linked to and uses to base a few of his assertions. It's not that long.
I don't know about others but I took from the survey a message between contrary and neutral to the claims made in the Drum article.
My opinion is either Mr Lapkin did not understand the results of the survey or has skewed his summary so that it fits the opinion he is conveying in his article. Thanks for the link anyway.
Alert moderator
saline:
28 Aug 2015 5:42:27pm
I do believe Lapkin stated that he knew the surveyors from the WNINEP were Jewish sympathisers.
I am really astounded that the Israelis and the Jewish religion has survived since the establishment of Christianity.
They have wandered about the world being vilified in Europe, enslaved and traded in feudal times, not allowed to own land, persecuted by Hitler and now we are talking about denying them their native land.
Here in Australia we are hopefully working towards establishing the indigenous homelands, perpetually I hope, in law.
What are your thoughts on doing the same for the Israelis?
Alert moderator
R Gaede:
28 Aug 2015 5:11:53pm
The comments of this commentator are a self-serving confection of misleading and deceptive half truths and misrepresentations.
The Zionists alleged 2000 year old rights to the land they claim ignores the fact that their forebears stole that land from other settlers by force of arms.
The claimed longstanding links are solely by reason of Jewish sentiment. Throughout the 2000 years where did the forebears of those now claiming that land live? They were the Jews of the Diaspora spread throughout Europe, particularly Eastern Europe. Where were the forebears of most of the Palestinians now living in living? In Palestine.
Claims are made about the 1920's. It is established history that in return for support during World War I the British promised the Arabs their own homeland free from Austro-Hungarian or Turkish domination. The Arabs delivered. The British and French reneged.
Now turn to the origin of Israel. Basically Israel was a state born out of terrorism practised by displaced Zionists against the British governed protectorate decreed by the UN. Ask the families of British soldiers who policed Palestine in the period up to 1948 about the garotting of soldiers merely trying to maintain peaceful co-existence between Jews and Palestinians as it had been for centuries before the arrival of the Zionists from Europe. Throughout this period the Zionists were stealing Arab Palestinians' land , much as they are now in the West Bank now. Deceased relatives of mine who served in Palestine then told me about it. Ultimately out of a sense of guilt flowing from the Holocaust the UN granted the nation of Israel.
Several times throughout history the Zionist Jews proved so troublesome their conquerors shifted whole populations out of that part of Palestine now called Israel to dilute the management problem. Similar situations have occurred elsewhere in the World. In those cases no credence has been given to any claims of rights to ancestral lands. Once they change hands they remain in the hands of the conqueror until usurped by the next conqueror. So why are the Zionists entitled to any special claim to Palestine?
Alert moderator
saline:
28 Aug 2015 5:32:19pm
R Gaede,
"... ancestral lands. Once they change hands they remain in the hands of the conqueror until usurped by the next conqueror. So why are the Zionists entitled to any special claim to Palestine?"
From this statement I wonder why you don't now see the Israelis as the conquerors. After all, they're still there defending even though the likes of you are in there supporting the Palestinians. You said it.
Alert moderator
R Gaede:
28 Aug 2015 5:16:48pm
I have submitted 1 response. In that I omitted to point out that personal research on a variety of websites (most influential being the US Baptist Church) shows that despite Zionist railing against Palestinian breaches of UN resolutions the reality is that Israeli breaches of UN resolutions outnumber Palestinian breaches in a ratio of 5:1
Alert moderator
saline:
28 Aug 2015 6:03:45pm
Isn't that generous of RG quoting Christians on the behaviour of Jews, you include the Palestinian opinion? A demonstration of fairness?
It just confirms to me that atheism is the best choice.
Alert moderator
David Inglis:
28 Aug 2015 5:38:33pm
I fail to see how the article main point is relevant. Surely the rights of people is not invested in national identity but individuals. All states are to some cultural constructs. If a group of people can trace back national myths further than another group does that give that greater rights over a another group that cannot?
The Zionists settlement of Palestine was connotation by Europeans who had no connection with Palestine for a very long time. What right did they have to impose their rule over the local native population?
All this guff about cultural identity is just to make the Palestinians "non people" without rights he can be subject of dispossession and displacement.
Alert moderator
Martin:
28 Aug 2015 5:52:20pm
Lets say the Jews who the bible seems to record as having lived in the holy land have the right to recolonise and all others to be evicted.
So will the Angles, Saxons and Jutes be leaving England any time soon - allowing the surviving members of Albion (Scots and Welsh) to recolonise?
Should all the Spanish leave Spain and give their land back to the Basques or the Celts?
And lets no forget all us immigrants in Australia.
But where will we all go? I am of Scottish/Irish/Dutch/Basque heritage. Which one will have to accept my return?
Too much time has elapsed. Let whoever lives there do so. No-one has rights to land forever.
Alert moderator
RiverGodMaz:
28 Aug 2015 6:04:36pm
Again a zionist is using ancient (supposed) events to justify a sense of entitlement in their oppression of the Palestinian people. This argument attempts to deny the Palestinian people of an identity thus hoping to devalue their existence.
Par for the course and one of the reasons why trained thinkers everywhere take any statement from any zionist with fist-sized grains of salt.
Alert moderator
Lachy:
28 Aug 2015 7:13:25pm
In fact many national identities were born this way and I doubt it detracts from their claims for self-determination. Nobody would question the legitimacy of Dutch or US identity. Some might question Kosovar identity, but in time it will become entrenched as well.
The fact is neither side is going anywhere so they can either accept that fact and move forwards or keep sticking their heads in the sand. Try as they might, Israel is not going to be driven in the ocean, and Arabs are not going to just up and leave the country. Deal with it guys.
Alert moderator
Comments for this story are closed.