Dear Wim, Lawrence and all,
While I have been mulling over my reply, I see that the Mid-East thread has
been hijacked for other purposes. I hope people don't mind me bringing it
back on focus. For those of you more interested in philosophy, please cut to
my comments on self determination.
> I confess being biased against Israel. I'll try to justify that later on
in
> this posting. I have some ideas on a moral solution of the lack of peace
in
> Palestine too. Also later on.
>
> Being biased is sin ... according to SOM (being biased is not being
> objective), but is it also according to a MoQ?
>
Wim, dspite your declared bias, I indentify with many of your sentiments
I am reminding you that I am the last person you should trust to be
objective.
> I don't like the 'testing facts against original -or at least undisputed-
> sources contest' that has been going on in the 'Middle East' threads. The
> only really original and indisputable source is DQ, the cutting edge of
the
> experience of the people involved.
Ah, that would be mostly Lawrence, me, and to some extent Roger. Lawrence
has been the one who keeps harping back to the early 20th century foreign
policies of the colonial powers. I've argued with him on some of his facts,
but I also recognise that such arguments ignore the CURRENT experience of us
people involved.
> After the respective Quality Events this
> DQ is not accessible any more, not even for those directly involved
(Israeli
> and Palestinians), let alone for those indirectly involved (like Americans
> and Dutch).
> We only have static patterns of intellectual values left, conflicting
> histories, that were NOT ONLY formed by recent Quality Events BUT ALSO
> by years, decades, centuries of collective experience. A lot of Israeli
> claim they experience being terrorized by Palestinians, but to what extent
> has this claim, this static pattern of values, also been formed by
centuries
> of pogroms, of exile from their God-given country (according to their
myth),
> of being forced to protect their social patterns of values by socially
> isolating themselves from others inhabiting their countries of exile?
Here I strongly disagree. There is a reality here that I believe most of us
(both Israelis and Palestinians) experience, but would like to change. I
won't claim to being paralysed by fear, but I do have to worry about things
I shouldn't have to worry about - i.e. where I can go and where I can let my
children go. It has now got to the stage that the victims of terror are no
longer all anonymous, but invariably some are friends of friends. I can't
convey this reality to you, Wim. Perhaps New Yorkers got small taste of it
on 11th September 2001.
> A lot
> of Palestinians claim they experience being oppressed by Israel, but to
what
> extent has this claim, this static pattern of values, also been formed by
> crusades, by Turkish oppression, by British colonialism . . .
I am sure that the Palestinians also suffer an unpleasant reality that
NEITHER of us fully understand
Wim, you will forgive me (I hope) for editing out your comments about
comparing static patterns. This is for brevity only - I do not dismiss them.
I want to focus on your main point.
>
> I for one DON'T 'agree that Israel and the rest of the world need to carve
> out an independent Palestinian state' as you summarize 27/4 10:39 -0400
the
> views of those involved in the discussion thus far. I don't think a
> two-state solution will work precisely because -as you write 27/4
> 10:39 -0400- 'the only way that these two
> cultures can coexist harmoniously is if they have a relationship as
peers'.
Your solution of some sort of binational state is an idealists dream - great
on paper, but extremely difficult to realise.
Just look at what was once Yugoslavia, and look at what became of the
post-WW1 planning! While binational states can sometimes work, I know of no
case where one was set up to END a conflict. The opposite is true - it is
partition that is the inevitable "solution". If Israel and Palestine are to
advance towards partnership, the Palestinians have to be given time to turn
themselves into a real partner - economically and socially. I think that the
most practical way this might happen is via Palestinian statehood.
> An existing, entrenched state (Israel) will never relate equally with a
new
> state which is such a close, even intimate, neighbor, which starts out
from
> such a disadvantaged position and which has -to be viable- to compete with
> it for things like water and infrastructure (roads, harbors, airports,
> utilities etc.). It would have worked somewhat better if this Palestinian
> state had been created at the same time as Israel, but even then it would
> not have had a fair chance to become equivalent, given the backing Jews
all
> over the world gave to 'their' new state.
This is partly true, but the amount of support a few million Jews around the
world can give to Israel is miniscule compared to the massive wealth of
Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. I personally believe that had the
Palestinian Authority made a convincing effort at national development, the
investments would have poured in. However, with the course they have chosen,
the only real support they get from the Arab world is lip service.
> To be viable a state needs defendable borders. Given the present
> geographical distribution of Palestinians and Jews they can't both have a
> state with borders that they can defend against each other no matter how
> advanced the weaponry they acquire; no, ESPECIALLY if they BOTH acquire
> advanced weaponry no set of borders will ever be mutually defendable.
>
A binational state doesn't solve this problem. It will be years before the
citizens of Netanya, or Tel-Aviv or wherever will allow free entry to people
from Jenin and Nablus. Do you know that back in 1996 and 1997, Israeli and
Palestinian forces were conducting joint patrols (part of the Oslo
agreement)? I think that this is a way to BUILD partnership, not an
obstacle.
Mentioning Oslo brings me on the "start with the first brick" idea.
LAWRENCE objects, saying:
>But the first brick approach is what the peace process that has been
>employed for the last two decades has tried, precisely, as you suggest,
>in order to build trust. The brick usually chosen was that of 'security'.
>Why would this same approach work now?
This is the only approach that produced any results, though in the case of
Oslo, the result has been disappointing. I have an interesting argument with
a right-wing friend. He always claimed that following the Oslo process was
going to lead to war, while I claimed that abandoning the Oslo process would
lead to war. Well, guess what, we both claim to be vindicated!!!!
WIM
> I don't need to spend a lot of words I hope on the immorality of 'ethnic
> cleansing' as a solution. It wouldn't work, because the whole Western
world
> would rally round the Jews if the Palestinians would try to drive them
into
> the sea with the help of their Arabian brethren and the whole Arab or even
> Islamic world would rally round the Palestinians if the Israel would again
> occupy all Palestinian territories and expel the Palestinians.
Unfortunately, Wim, I think you are wrong that the world would do much.
Where was the world when the Hutus murdered 100,000 of their Tutsi
compatriots?
Wim, you go on with a wish list, based on mutual respect and cooperation
between Israelis and Palestinians. I share your wishes, but then you say
that you pin hopes on . . .
.
> - people like Jonathan who (9/4 21:49 +0300) start their history with: 'In
> 1947, the UN decided that the territory of Palestine then under British
> mandate should be split into a new Jewish state (Israel), a new Arab state
> and a internationalized area that would include Jerusalem.' Thereby
> implicitly accepting supra-national authority to grant or deny the right
to
> an 'own' state.
> In my opinion both Palestinians and Jews should be denied the right to a
> separate, 'own' state given their immoral behavior. I am reminded of
> Jonathan 13/8/01 14:50 +0300 comparing Palestinians and Jews with
squabbling
> children... Maybe the international community should first teach them to
> behave ... if we knew how ourselves...
>
ON SELF DETERMINATION
Wim, you have got me quite wrong. The "squabbling children" was not from me,
and I do not accept the right of "supra-national" authority to grant or deny
statehood. What do you think would happen if some international body were to
decide that The Netherlands should no longer exist? Lawrence and Pirsig both
point to Woodrow Wilson as a giant of the early 20th century - in fact, to
Pirsig he epitomises the emerging dominance of the intellectual. I will
remind you that one of Wilson's basic assumptions was the value of "self
determination". The idea of a supranational authority granting or denying
self determination is an oxymoron. It makes no sense at all.
What happened in 1947 was that the UN gave international recognition to a
the fledgling national institutions - the Yishuv, that was to become the
State of Israel. It didn't CREATE Israel - Israel created itself. The
national will, the "self" was there ready to claim nationhood. Without this,
there would have been no Israel - UN resolution notwithstanding. Had there
been similar will and resolution on the Arab side, I am sure that a
Palestinian Arab state would have come about. Maybe it still can!
Jonathan
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:14 BST