This idea that the British “had a right to give it away” is a new one on me, maybe because it’s such an outrageous idea. Shouldn’t a country belong to – oh, I don’t know – maybe the people who live there and have been living there for thousands of years? The idea that the Palestinians should have no say in the matter because the British possession was somehow more “legitimate” than theirs boggles the mind.
It might boggle your modern mind, but it’s your point of view that would have boggled the mind of prettty much everyone on Earth until, say, twenty years ago. Perhaps in the West, the taboo against conquest for expansion’s sake goes back a little further, but likely not further back than WWII. Lands have changed hands so many times that it’s impossible to declare all past conquests null and void.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, and the world’s unified response to Saddam Hussein’s attempted takeover of Kuwait, it is clear that Land Grabbin’ for Fun and Profit is no longer acceptable to anyone. However, that is the present and future. The past’s conquests cannot be undone. As of the time that conquest became unacceptable, Palestine was Britain’s.
I don’t know any Palestinians who are thousands of years old.
Hundreds of thousands of Jews were living in the country in 1948. Many of them were born here. Do you posit that they had less of a right to the land than the Palestinians? Because they were immigrants and children of immigrants?
Do you posit that they have more right? You do, implicitly, in supporting a Jewish state, as opposed to a Palestinian or non-sectarian one.
And for what it’s worth, I don’t know of any Jews who are thousands of years old either.
You can’t say Britain had a right to give Palestine away without saying that Britain had a right to Palestine in the first place. If you want to argue that Britain acquired it through legitimate conquest, I have to ask which colonial lands did Britain not acquire through legitimate conquest?
You seem to be offering a defense of colonialism, be it noted. And according to your argument, the British could have given the Jews anything – Nigeria, Ceylon, British Guyana – and it would have been okay, because the British were the “legitimate” owners, and to hell with the Nigerians, Ceylonese, or Guyanese who may have objected.
But just so I understand you, are you saying that Israel’s founding comes under the category of “Land Grabbing for Fun and Profit,” and would no longer be acceptable under our current mores?
Sal Ammoniac:
Conquest by an aggressor I do not consider to be legitimate. But if a nation (or an ally thereof which one has obligations to defend) is attacked, and by successfully defending itself against its attackers it comes into possession of lands controlled by the attacker, I cannot see it as an aggressive, illegitimate land-grab.
I am not defending the practice. However, I am pointing out that it was acceptable practice worldwide for so long that to determine legitimate aboriginal ownership of pretty much any place on Earth would be a) impossible, b) unacceptable to most if not all modern governments who rule over nations created thereby, even if it were somehow possible, and c) anti-Semitic to single out British Palestine, and therefore Israel, as illegitimate when no one has any intention (as per b) of applying the principal on a wider scale.
Two answers to that question:
- Yes, it would have been legitimate. Heck, they gave most of Palestine (i.e., Jordan, population over 50% Palestinian, and higher in the past) to a Saudi prince to rule over. Who’s arguing that Jordan is illegitimate, eh?
- Why would they choose to create a Jewish state in a place where the Jews didn’t yet live, if they were in control of an area (Palestine) that already contained hundreds of thousands of Jewish inhabitants, in addition to the well-known historical link?
No. I’m saying that most land conquest in general, which forms the basis for much control of land in a manner that “boggled your mind” comes under that category. Israel is at least two transactions removed from that (if not more):
- The British gave that part of Palestine to the Israelis
- The British obtained Palestine in a defensive war, not a war in which they were the aggressors.
They had a right to a country, side by side with ours, in 1948. They refused the chance. Things have changed since then.
I still think they have a right to a country. Just not at the cost of mine.
You don’t need any. Our right to this land comes from the present, not the past.
Then who had the right to the land? The Turks? After all, they ruled the country for 600 years. Or do you mean the actual inhabitants? Well, since the turn of the century a sizeable portion of those inhabitants were Jews, who settled here legally.
Well, of course they refused the chance. Even though the Jews had only 30% of the population, partition offered them 55% of the land! Amazing that the Palestinians rejected such a sweet deal, huh?
And if you’re going to say of the Palestinians, “I still think they have a right to a country,” what country are you proposing to give them?
cmkeller, I’m going to accuse you of having your cake and eating it too with your argument. You’re defending Britain’s right to give Palestine to the Jews, while not, as you say, “defending the practice of colonialism.” Just because you acquire a territory in a war – even a “defensive” war, if World War I can even be so termed – does not entitle you to give the territory away to some third party. Not by modern lights, anyway. Do you acknowledge at least that much?
-
That division was based on population distribution. A large portion of the Jewish area was the southern Negev desert, which isn’texactly prime real estate.
-
You seem to be asserting that violence - potentially genocidal violence - is a legitimate response to a bum deal. Am I correct?
-
The whole Partition was meaningless, anyway. A deal to which one side doesn’t agree and no outside power bothered to enforce is not much of a deal. The fact of the matter is, the Brits withdrew, a civil war broke out, the Jewish side mostly won. That’s it. Everything else is just words.
Now, are you claiming that the Jewish inhabitants shouldn’t have fought in this civil war? That they should have just packed their bags and left?
Bavaria.
SalAmmoniac:
Then allow me to clarify:
To defend the practice of colonialism would be for me to say that if a nation marched, unprovoked, into another and removed its government in order to rule over it itself, I would support the conquerors.
To recognize that sovoreignty over land has been acknowledged even in modern times as legitimate ownership (with all rights that a state of ownership implies) even when such ownership was come by in past eras by means that would today be condemned is not to say that it is, or ever was, a morally defensible practice.
No, I do not. If ownership of the land has international recognition, (and Britain and France’s mandate to run the Middle East was granted by the League of Nations) they can decide who it should go to when they wish to relinquish said ownership.
Wouldn’t a UN resolution count as “modern lights”? If not, what would?
Put it this way - the Palestinians have lived where they are for all of their lives (for the most part). The Israelis have lived where they are for all of their lives (for the most part).
The Israelis have a UN resolution establishing their country, with its attendent rights of citizenship. What do the Palestinians have that is equivalent?
Regards,
Shodan
This is, perhaps, one of the oddest claims I have seen made regarding the situation. The U.S., the EU, NATO, and even individual organizations administered through the UN all made it very clear prior to the election that brought Hamas to power that pretty much all financial and most political support would be withdrawn from the Palestinian state if Hamas was voted in to power. This was not some suprise that was pulled out of anyone’s pocket after the election. Following the election, there was a short period in which Hamas was strongly urged to drop their declaration to destroy Israel if they did not want the previously announced sanctions imposed–a demand that Hamas rejected as unworthy of their undying hatred of the Israeli state.
However, there was no time in which the Palestinian people were unaware of the straong and public declarations that aid would be suspended prior to the election. (Even if Palestinian radio and newspapers did not mention it–a fact I doubt–it was clearly broadcast from Israeli. Egyptian, and Jordanian sources.)
The very same resolution. Number 181. :dubious:
To the OP, and many posters, all this discussion about whose ancestors did what to whose just gets in the way and needs to be dropped, okay? There are strong, valid points both ways. The Israelis and Palestinians are where they are, and they’re not going, and they’re neighbors and are going to be neighbors for as long as anyone can foresee. Neighbors mutually *respect * each other and each others’ rights, on an equal basis, even if they may not feel equal. The discussion has to be about how both nations, both peoples, have to at least act that way, and how to make that happen. Centuries-old grievances have a way of dying out quickly if any generation feels less of a need to sustain them, right? Look at the Irish and English, for just one example. Or the younger Indians and Pakistanis. No, it isn’t easy - but it’s necessary, and nothing else will help.
Yep, them too.
Oh, come on! You know perfectly well I never “asserted” any such thing. Your acknowledgement that it was a bum deal is perfectly adequate here.
Your argument is so nuanced I’m having trouble following it. But you’re factually wrong at this point. The mandate did not equal ownership. On the contrary:
“The first group or Class A mandates were areas formerly controlled by the Ottoman Empire deemed to ‘…have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.’”
Quoted from here.
Your quote hardly disproves my argument. The text may not sound like ownership, but the British handed out scraps of land to Arab friends without a peep of protest from anyone, and “advice and assistance” ended up being total control of all foreign affairs. In effect, it was left to the discretion of the mandatory power whether or not the territory was ready for independence, as well as to whom the new state would be handed over.
Which is what I pretty much said: the British were in charge, and they had the power to give it away to whom they wanted.
Well, is Jordan an illegitimate country because the British handed it over to some foreign princeling? Is Egypt? Is Syria? Is Lebanon? Is Iraq? Is Algeria? Morroco? Libya? Tunisia?
All these countries were formed out of the wreckage of the British, French, and Ottoman colonial empires. What makes the boundaries of Libya sacred? In what way is Libya a “legitimate” country? What makes any country legitimate?
The United States comprises territory that was conquered from native american people. But the United States isn’t going to go away because of that fact. Neither is England, for that matter. England…land of Angles. The current state of Great Britain is the result of several thousand years of colonialism.
So, what should happen to the people who live in what is now Israel and Palestine? Which people should be expelled or killed to right the wrongs of the past?
Palestine can’t be a state unless they agree to the existance of Israel, simply because Israel isn’t going to allow itself to be attacked by Palestine. So one precondition for the establishment of a Palestinian state is that it recognize the state of Israel…that is, agree not to attack Israel. If they aren’t willing to do that, what incentive does Israel have to allow the state of Palestine to exist? Should they allow the hostile state of Palestine to establish itself on their borders? If a state of war exists between Israel and Palestine from the beginning of the establishment of Palestine, and Israel then destroys the Palestinian regime that attacked it, how is that different than Israel simply not allowing the formation of a hostile Palestinian state?
Maybe making your country in the middle of a Muslim powderkeg wasn’t the best of ideas. I’m sure there’s plenty of room in Utah. And hey, I hear Mexico is beautiful this time of the year… 