A state for Palestine?

[Errata]

As for them not hating each other, I guess I must have been asleep during the last 40-odd years.

And woken up with a 14 year old's interpretation of complex social and political interaction? We both know better.

Sure, sometimes it's hate. Sometimes its exasperation. Sometimes it's compassion and regret and irritation and rage and respect and smugness and fear and terror and most of all it's sadness. It's a complicated relationship. Because they fight doesn't make it hate. Hate is blind and unreasoning. And while certainly things have not progressed to either side's satisfaction, neither side is blind or unreasoning.

[Robert]

Have it your own way, Errata.

[Errata]

Have it your own way, Errata.

If I had it my own way, this would have been solved 70 years ago. There is meaningful discourse to be had on the subject, possibly even helpful discourse. But no one is served by the vast oversimplification of "They hate each other. Build a wall between them." If for no other reason than even that requires a definition of "they" and some consensus as to where to build a wall.

Which by the way, there IS a wall. A very heavily guarded wall. Many of them. They've been there for years now. It doesn't work. The enclosure philosophy that actually worked with Jordan so many years ago is no longer effective.

So if the next helpful suggestion is "Kill them all and let god sort it out", let me just go ahead and jump in and say that also has been tried. Not to mention it is the wet dream of every Egyptian administration since the foundation of Israel.

[Heinrich]

The Jews are the men who will not be blamed for nothing.

[Limehouse]

Firstly, Obama is not taking a Zionist stance on this issue. He proposes Israel revert to the pre 1967 borders. Ironically, this solution does not create a Palestinian state. It would establish an Arab state, one that would belong to Jordan.

This issue is so effing complicated it is mind boggling. First of all, you have to define what a Palestinian is, and that's not nearly as clear cut as it sounds. The majority of those considered to be historically Palestinians did not attempt to separate, or go into exile at the formation of Israel. They are Israelis now, and are fine with it. The majority of "Palestinians" who went into exile and fought in the various wars were not in fact Palestinian. They were Arabs. And there is a difference. A great many Arabs moved into Palestine during Ottoman and British rule, seizing land from Palestinians. These are the ones who fought the first Israeli-Arab war, and these are the ones who went into exile.

Palestine had not been self governing since before the time of Jesus. Which certainly means they are due for their own state, but there is no historical right. So why were the Jews worthy? Well, they certainly weren't any more worthy than the Palestinians, but no country was willing to take them, and the UN felt bad about the Holocaust thing. Which is no great reason, but that's how it happened. On a side note, the British were super pissed at the Arabs/Palestinians for trying to revolt. It was probably as much revenge as it was guilt.

When Henry VII seized the British throne, he had a right to it. He was a Lancaster. Unfortunately by that logic there were about a dozen people who had more right to the throne than he did. He claimed the throne by right of conquest. Which is a legitimate right. And that's the right Israel has now. Three or four times now large armies of neighbors have tried to invade or conquer. And Israel has always won. Arabs rose up and were conquered. Palestinians rose up and were conquered. Even if the UN had no right to grant statehood, they have earned it now.

And all of this is based on the assumption that no Palestinian intended state already exists, which even the members of the UN in 1948 could not agree on. Remember that the British controlled territory of Palestine was more than four times as big as Israel is now. Jordan came out of that area, I think Lebanon did as well, the West Bank had been set aside for an Arab state but Jordan seized it... all the while there is no historical significance to the Palestinians, it is simply a no mans land they have occupied. The area was intended as an Arab state, but Palestinians are not Arabs so that's a little confusing. Also there were many people who worked on this issue who thought that Jordan was being set aside for Palestinians. And if that's true, then a Palestinian state already exists, it just isn't Israel. Wouldn't that be a new complication?

If the majority of the people in the West Bank are Arabs, then in it would not be emancipation, it would be an invasion. I have no problem with self governed Palestinians. Arabs already are self governed, and they already have a homeland or five. I have no problem with the annexation of the West Bank, as long as the same courtesies are extended to the Jews living there as the Israelis extend to Palestinians and Arabs in the majority of their state. I think that it is disgusting that the Jews of all people should build ghettos for undesirables, but I don't get a say. But the pre 1967 borders don't help anyone, and this issue is too important to just throw some land at some people.

Palestinians have bad friends. They need to get rid of their bad friends. Hamas is not helping them, and doesn't have their best interests at heart. As long as other governments wonder if they are going to end up creating a puppet state for terrorists, they aren't going to get what they want.

Thanks Errata. That has certainly given me something to think about. Thanks again.

[Errata]

Thanks Errata. That has certainly given me something to think about. Thanks again.

It's a mess. I have quite a few Muslim friends of various origin, and we try to be respectful of what can sometimes be radically different views. But Avi, a Jordanian American Civil Rights Movement scholar is our truth-teller. He calls us on our misconceptions and misrepresentations. And he can because a: it's not really his fight, and b: he is the one that JUST came from that area, where the rest of us are more removed.

He said that in the Middle East, the Jews are seen the way the KKK sees black Americans. And we all can see the aptness of that comparison. But he said that the Palestinians are seen the way the KKK sees the Jews. Now, as a Jew, I know what that looks and feels like. And it never really occurred to me that before. Now in 20th century American History, there are any number of examples of Blacks and Jews clashing. I swear I know Jews who are still bitter about Harlem. We tend not to get along. Not because of any inherent dislike, but because historically we were often jockeying for the same jobs, the same neighborhoods, the same rights and respect level. But during the Civil Rights movement, all that was set aside. Not forgotten, evidently, but we all agreed that this one thing was more important. And we worked together for that time. Afterwards... well, it's not all nicey nicey now, that's for sure. But it seems entrenched in the older generations, so there's some hope that the rivalry will literally die out.

My fervent hope is that Israelis and Palestinians do what the Blacks and the Jews did in the 60s. Put it aside long enough to ensure that both sides get what they deserve as human beings, human rights and civil rights, a right to participate in the making of one's own future. After that if they want to go back to killing each other that's fine. But we know it is possible to say "I don't like you, but you are a person and deserve to be treated the way I would want to be treated. So I will help you find a way to do that." All you have to do is decide to not profit from someone else's oppression. Even if it means your death. Many Jews died in the deep south during the Civil Rights Era. And they knew it was a distinct possibility. But in their minds it was better than sitting back and reaping the benefits of a quasi-slave race. And it is. I just don't know how to get them to see what we saw so clearly then.