Zionism is an Example of National Self-Determination

[JB Globe]

OK, what peoples called themselves "Palestinians" before 1948, or for that matter before the mid-1960's?

Palestinians started asserting their national rights at the turn of the last century. This of course was a response both to Zionism AND the fact that ethnic-nationalism across the Arab world didn't develop until that time anyway. They started asserting their national rights along with other Arab nations at the same time when more political options became available to the masses.

As Bernard Lewis notes, just because Palestinian nationalism didn't exist before 1900 doesn't mean that a Palestinian society didn't exist, (Did a Jewish society exist prior to political Zionism?) or that their claims to their homeland aren't valid (Were native landclaims in Canada not valid because they didn't have a national government?).

Modern Palestinian society goes back as far as the 17th century, and Palestinians see themselves as the ancestors of the people who inhabited the land before then, stretching back millennia.

It's no surprise that those who claim that there is no such thing as Palestine, and that the Palestinian identity doesn't exist, are the same people who DON'T want a two-state solution, who don't want an independent Palestine. It's self-serving "scholarship" by ultra-zionists and Jewish extremists who want to establish an Israel that runs from "The sea to the Jordan" - thus wiping Palestine off the map. That's a lot easier to do if you make people believe that the land "doesn't belong to anyone, because there is no Palestine" - Whereas, those people who do recognize Palestine come from all camps, even Israel supporters like Lewis.

And you really, really don't want to address why you left out the Palestinian issue to your original arguement for Zionism as self-determination, do you?

[buffycat]

Palestinians started asserting their national rights at the turn of the last century. This of course was a response both to Zionism AND the fact that ethnic-nationalism across the Arab world didn't develop until that time anyway. They started asserting their national rights along with other Arab nations at the same time when more political options became available to the masses.

As Bernard Lewis notes, just because Palestinian nationalism didn't exist before 1900 doesn't mean that a Palestinian society didn't exist, (Did a Jewish society exist prior to political Zionism?) or that their claims to their homeland aren't valid (Were native landclaims in Canada not valid because they didn't have a national government?).

Modern Palestinian society goes back as far as the 17th century, and Palestinians see themselves as the ancestors of the people who inhabited the land before then, stretching back millennia.

It's no surprise that those who claim that there is no such thing as Palestine, and that the Palestinian identity doesn't exist, are the same people who DON'T want a two-state solution, who don't want an independent Palestine. It's self-serving "scholarship" by ultra-zionists and Jewish extremists who want to establish an Israel that runs from "The sea to the Jordan" - thus wiping Palestine off the map. That's a lot easier to do if you make people believe that the land "doesn't belong to anyone, because there is no Palestine" - Whereas, those people who do recognize Palestine come from all camps, even Israel supporters like Lewis.

And you really, really don't want to address why you left out the Palestinian issue to your original arguement for Zionism as self-determination, do you?

jbg honestly believes that Israel was empty and that there are NO such things as Palestinians.

Really...

[HisSelf]

The thing about threads like this is that it attracts people who consistently think that support for Israel is an "a priori" declaration of the suspension of International law. How did this happen?

[buffycat]

The thing about threads like this is that it attracts people who consistently think that support for Israel is an "a priori" declaration of the suspension of International law. How did this happen?

Good question.

[jbg]

Are you saying it has nothing to do with Christianity?

The substance does. The nomenclature does not.

[jbg]

jbg honestly believes that Israel was empty and that there are NO such things as Palestinians.

Really...

Actually not far off. I believe that it was almost empty and that many Arabs arrived as a result of economic development and, just as importantly, increased security and safety provided by the Jewish settlers.

[WIP]

Actually not far off. I believe that it was almost empty and that many Arabs arrived as a result of economic development and, just as importantly, increased security and safety provided by the Jewish settlers.

This is all history though! The problem is that Israel was set up as a Jewish state , but had a sizeable population of Arabs who remained after 1948. Since Israel was also created as a representative democracy on a European model, with guarantees of basic rights and freedoms, it never managed to decide how to deal with non-Jewish residents. The Israeli Arabs have been 2nd class citizens right from the beginning; but as long as they were a small minority of the population (10% in 1967), they had little impact on policy decisions.

The problem is the Arab population is growing faster than the Jewish population, and then there's all of the Arabs living in occupied territories. The Palestinians would have been easier to reach an agreement with back in the 60's, before this festering wound turned them into a large hostile and subversive population. Unfortunately, I'm afraid Jimmy Carter is right when he says that Israel has become an apartheid state! Carter may have bad ideas about how to fix it, but the status quo can't be sustained forever!

[jbg]

The Palestinians would have been easier to reach an agreement with back in the 60's, before this festering wound turned them into a large hostile and subversive population.

Maybe that would have happened had the Arabs not thratened an invasion in 1967.

Quick question. Was there any serious move, between 1948 and 1967 to grant the West Bank and/or Gaza "self-determination"? And who was "occupying" those areas then?

[WIP]

Maybe that would have happened had the Arabs not thratened an invasion in 1967.

Quick question. Was there any serious move, between 1948 and 1967 to grant the West Bank and/or Gaza "self-determination"? And who was "occupying" those areas then?

Not that I am aware of! But don't forget, it's easier to get Arabs to rise up against a Jewish occupier than an occupation by outsiders( Egypt, Jordan) who are nevertheless, Muslim Arabs.

[jbg]

Not that I am aware of! But don't forget, it's easier to get Arabs to rise up against a Jewish occupier than an occupation by outsiders( Egypt, Jordan) who are nevertheless, Muslim Arabs.

Exactly my point. The hypocrisy of those saying that the Jews are suppressing Palestinian national is breathtaking.

[WIP]

Exactly my point. The hypocrisy of those saying that the Jews are suppressing Palestinian national is breathtaking.

But that's a separate issue! In order to maintain the Jewish character of their nation, they have to suppress Palestinian nationalism and within Israel's borders, they cannot give Israeli Arab citizens the same rights as Jewish citizens. This makes the country an ethnic democracy - perhaps by necessity, but if ethnic cleansing is not an option, the only permanent alternative to this festering sore is to redraw the borders to separate Jewish and Arab populations.

[jbg]

But that's a separate issue! In order to maintain the Jewish character of their nation, they have to suppress Palestinian nationalism and within Israel's borders, they cannot give Israeli Arab citizens the same rights as Jewish citizens. This makes the country an ethnic democracy - perhaps by necessity, but if ethnic cleansing is not an option, the only permanent alternative to this festering sore is to redraw the borders to separate Jewish and Arab populations.

Effectively the "redraw" is to use the 1967 borders as the borders for Israel proper and administer the remaining areas as territories, much the way the US administers Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

[socred]

By law I can obtain Scotish or British citizenship via my grandparents birthright.

...SO YES.

Really? All Scots are Christians? Are all Christians Scots?

Are all Jews Semites?

Can all Jews claim citizenship in Israel through their right of return law?

What's a Jew?

[socred]

But that's a separate issue! In order to maintain the Jewish character of their nation, they have to suppress Palestinian nationalism and within Israel's borders, they cannot give Israeli Arab citizens the same rights as Jewish citizens. This makes the country an ethnic democracy - perhaps by necessity, but if ethnic cleansing is not an option, the only permanent alternative to this festering sore is to redraw the borders to separate Jewish and Arab populations.

Just like the white apartheids, who in order to maintain the "white character" of their nation, suppressed the blacks.

[JB Globe]

To re-iterate an earlier point I made, that really hasn't been rebuked - is that you can't call something Self-Determination if it involves denying another group it's own self-determination.

There's another word for that, it's called colonialism.

[Oleg Bach]

To re-iterate an earlier point I made, that really hasn't been rebuked - is that you can't call something Self-Determination if it involves denying another group it's own self-determination.

There's another word for that, it's called colonialism.

Its like two twins being born - at the same instance..one twin strangles the other and takes both breasts for himself..now that is self determination...as my dad said about money and food - "there are others" - this was a highly civlized approach..there should be no losers . All should be winners if we care about our fellows..seems that not caring is exceptable in these days of modernity that is barbarity!

[M.Dancer]

To re-iterate an earlier point I made, that really hasn't been rebuked - is that you can't call something Self-Determination if it involves denying another group it's own self-determination.

There's another word for that, it's called colonialism.

So in effect, because the palestinians deny israel's right to exist, it doesn't?

I think there's a flaw in your logic.

[Rue]

Can a political objective still be called self-determination if it involves denying other people their own self-determination?

Personally I think one groups' right to self-determination ends where another peoples' right to self-determination begins.

Your post made no mention that your interpretation of Zionism involved such a thing.

Did you just not think about it, or was the exclusion deliberate, and if so, why?

Nowhere in any Zionist doctrine does it state that the self-determination of Jews, or universal sufferage for Jews denies the self-determination of Palestinians. It never has.

The reason Palestinians do not have a state is because they have chosen to pursue a position where it will not allow a Jewish state and a Palestinian state can only exist if a Jewish one does not.

Its interesting though how you try revise history and pretend the above never happened and its simply Zionism that caused the Arab League to place Palestinians in refugee camps as political pawns to gult the world into undoing the Israel it could not prevent by war.

Provide one Zionist document that says Zionism believes no other peoples should have universal sufferage.

Right.

[Rue]

Its like two twins being born - at the same instance..one twin strangles the other and takes both breasts for himself..now that is self determination...as my dad said about money and food - "there are others" - this was a highly civlized approach..there should be no losers . All should be winners if we care about our fellows..seems that not caring is exceptable in these days of modernity that is barbarity!

Oleg and his breasts. Problem is Oleg your breast theory is not even close to what actually happened. Israel did not take two tits. Just one. The other is still out there for the other to suck on. Problem is the other side still says after sixty years, I won't suck this tit, as long as you suck the other. I want both.

Your assumption as to Israelis desiring two tits at once is another one of your subjective assumptions which I can only assume is how you approach such situations.

Why you analogize Israel and Palestine as tits in the first place is amusing. Your attempt to turn the Middle East conflict into Fellini's obsession is bizarre but then at this point not suprising.

[jbg]

Provide one Zionist document that says Zionism believes no other peoples should have universal sufferage.

He'll serve up Protocols of the Elders of Zion or Mein Kampf.

[JB Globe]

So in effect, because the palestinians deny israel's right to exist, it doesn't?

That's not true.

Earlier in this thread I posted survey data (one of the many surveys that prove this) that shows a majority of Palestinians want a two-state solution, meaning - they recognize Israel's right to exist. Most Palestinians aren't Hamas fanatics - they're quite practical, they know there's no way in hell that Israel will ever not exist, which is why their realistic & ideal future is one in which a Palestinian state exists alongside an Israeli one.

[JB Globe]

Nowhere in any Zionist doctrine does it state that the self-determination of Jews, or universal sufferage for Jews denies the self-determination of Palestinians. It never has.

That may be true in theory, but in reality political Zionism has in fact resulted in denying another group their own self-determination. Often times things don't work out in real life they way they were intended in theory.

The reason Palestinians do not have a state is because they have chosen to pursue a position where it will not allow a Jewish state and a Palestinian state can only exist if a Jewish one does not.

Palestinians were never given a real choice prior to the creation of Israel. Put yourself in their shoes - how would you feel if colonial powers (Britain) decided amongst themselves that they were going to create a new state in your homeland whose laws and institutions would be centred around a religion which was a minority in the region (Judaism) and would allow millions of immigrants with a different culture than your own (mainly folks from Germany, Poland, etc) to come and become citizens? You'd feel threatened, disempowered, and angry and probably would want nothing to do with whatever "choices" were being offered if THAT was the starting point ("They just refused to make a choice - I gave them two bad options and told them the good one wasn't on the table, it's THEIR fault for not participating!)

As I've said earlier though, right now Palestinians are practical and reasonable people and studies have shown again and again that they would accept a two-state solution.

Its interesting though how you try revise history and pretend the above never happened and its simply Zionism that caused the Arab League to place Palestinians in refugee camps as political pawns to gult the world into undoing the Israel it could not prevent by war.

I never said Arab states didn't deserve much criticism. In fact, I didnt' say anything about Arab states in this thread? Why? Because it's about Zionism & self-determination. If you want me to talk about the fact that Palestinians are still living in refugee camps in Lebanon & Jordan 60 years later, than I can - I just didn't think it was on-topic.

Provide one Zionist document that says Zionism believes no other peoples should have universal sufferage.

Show me how the creation of Israel didn't disenfranchise Palestinians?

I don't care about the words that someone wrote in a declaration, I care about their actions after that declaration was signed. And the reality on the ground is that political Zionism has resulted in denying self-determination to the Palestinians.

[JB Globe]

Nowhere in any Zionist doctrine does it state that the self-determination of Jews, or universal sufferage for Jews denies the self-determination of Palestinians. It never has.

That may be true in theory, but in reality political Zionism has in fact resulted in denying another group their own self-determination. Often times things don't work out in real life they way they were intended in theory.

The reason Palestinians do not have a state is because they have chosen to pursue a position where it will not allow a Jewish state and a Palestinian state can only exist if a Jewish one does not.

Palestinians were never given a real choice prior to the creation of Israel. Put yourself in their shoes - how would you feel if colonial powers (Britain) decided amongst themselves that they were going to create a new state in your homeland whose laws and institutions would be centred around a religion which was a minority in the region (Judaism) and would allow millions of immigrants with a different culture than your own (mainly folks from Germany, Poland, etc) to come and become citizens? You'd feel threatened, disempowered, and angry and probably would want nothing to do with whatever "choices" were being offered if THAT was the starting point ("They just refused to make a choice - I gave them two bad options and told them the good one wasn't on the table, it's THEIR fault for not participating!)

As I've said earlier though, right now Palestinians are practical and reasonable people and studies have shown again and again that they would accept a two-state solution.

Its interesting though how you try revise history and pretend the above never happened and its simply Zionism that caused the Arab League to place Palestinians in refugee camps as political pawns to gult the world into undoing the Israel it could not prevent by war.

I never said Arab states didn't deserve much criticism. In fact, I didnt' say anything about Arab states in this thread? Why? Because it's about Zionism & self-determination. If you want me to talk about the fact that Palestinians are still living in refugee camps in Lebanon & Jordan 60 years later, than I can - I just didn't think it was on-topic.

Provide one Zionist document that says Zionism believes no other peoples should have universal sufferage.

Show me how the creation of Israel didn't disenfranchise Palestinians?

I don't care about the words that someone wrote in a declaration, I care about their actions after that declaration was signed. And the reality on the ground is that political Zionism has resulted in denying self-determination to the Palestinians.

[JB Globe]

He'll serve up Protocols of the Elders of Zion or Mein Kampf.

You know, half my Zaida's family didn't die in the Ha-Shoah so that Likhud-party hacks like yourself can call anyone who disagrees with their political ideology a Nazi. Using those references casually is an insult to our people.

Stop being an intellectual coward - if you don't have the capacity to respond to my arguments (you've been avoiding them for weeks) then don't say anything at all. Hurling one-liners instead just makes you look pathetic.

[HisSelf]

Actually not far off. I believe that it was almost empty and that many Arabs arrived as a result of economic development and, just as importantly, increased security and safety provided by the Jewish settlers.

Oh brother.