Am I a anti-semitist?

[Ned]

Ethelred, I believe your bottom line is that GB, which liberated Palestine, had no right to permit Jewish immigration without a vote (consent) of the local inhabitants, all of them voting as one, majority vote to decide.

However, I keep getting caught up with your term "Arab" lands. The "Arabs" were Feisal, Abdullah and their father Hussein, all "shieks" from Mecca and Medina. The people of Palestine were not under the rule of these shieks, nor did these shieks have an automatic right to rule Palestine just because their ancestors did ages ago. Nor did they have a right to rule Palestine because they were allies of the British.

The local inhabitants of Palestine were mixtures of Arabic speaking muslims, christians and Jews. The land was not "Arab," unless, of course you implicity subscribe to the notion that the shieks of Arabia had a divine right to be reinstalled as soon as the Brits liberated Palestine.

The crucial point, is therefor, whether the Brits had to get the consent of the "other" residents of Palestine when the Balfour declaration itself provided that Jewish immigration could not "prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine."

I still believe that the answer that does not presume "Arab" sovereignity is, yes. I do not believe the Brits had to get the consent of the other residents because of the reservation. The Brits, as far as I know, did not take away the civil or religious or any other rights of the local non Jewish inhabitants.

Ned

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ned
Ethelred, I believe your bottom line is that GB, which liberated Palestine, had no right to permit Jewish immigration without a vote (consent) of the local inhabitants, all of them voting as one, majority vote to decide.

No, just local control. However it came about. There was only British control though.

However, I keep getting caught up with your term "Arab" lands.

More like you try to avoid the concept.

The "Arabs" were Feisal, Abdullah and their father Hussein, all "shieks" from Mecca and Medina. The people of Palestine were not under the rule of these shieks, nor did these shieks have an automatic right to rule Palestine just because their ancestors did ages ago. Nor did they have a right to rule Palestine because they were allies of the British.

See your still playing who rules games. I am and have been talking about the inhabitants.

The local inhabitants of Palestine were mixtures of Arabic speaking muslims, christians and Jews. The land was not "Arab," unless, of course you implicity subscribe to the notion that the shieks of Arabia had a divine right to be reinstalled as soon as the Brits liberated Palestine.

Evasion. The Jews were a small minority even in 1922, five years after the Brits started encouraging imigration. The main inhabitants were non-Jewish Semites and the Jews that were there were already heavily European.

The crucial point, is therefor, whether the Brits had to get the consent of the "other" residents of Palestine when the Balfour declaration itself provided that Jewish immigration could not "prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine."

Of course the Declaration made two mutualy exclusive promises. As such even if had a legal value it contradicts itself. It HAS no legal value in the first place. It was a purely colonial action intended to aid the Brits. The British wanted a state that would be their ally. If you don't think so take another look at the war in '56. In an amazing piece of duplicitous diplomacy the Brits and the French got the Israelis to attack the Egyptians so they would have an excuse to take over the Suez to 'protect' it.

I still believe that the answer that does not presume "Arab" sovereignity is, yes. I do not believe the Brits had to get the consent of the other residents because of the reservation. The Brits, as far as I know, did not take away the civil or religious or any other rights of the local non Jewish inhabitants.

Well thats wrong on two counts. The Brits didn't have any right to make the Balfour Declaration. They didn't own the territory. It wasn't theirs to give. Plus they definitly did take away the rights of the non-Jewish inhabitants. The locals had every right to rule themselves. The French and the English carved it up among themselves and used the League to put a false stamp of legitimacy on their actions.

Even when the UN was involved there was NO representation by the Arabs. The Arabs had allready made it clear they didn't wan't a Jewish state in their land. They were ignored. That a rights violation. Don't play games by bring up a bunch of guys from the Arabian peninsula. If you feel that had no business ruling then the Brits certainly had far less.

[Ned]

Ethelred, Then I still think your position presumes the outcome and denies the Jews the right to live in their own separate state. Just because long ago they were conquered by the Roman, then by the Arabs, then by the Crusaders, then by the Turks does not mean that when finally they are free from the Turks that they again have to put back under the yoke and chains of Arab slavery.

Ned

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ned
Ethelred, Then I still think your position presumes the outcome and denies the Jews the right to live in their own separate state. Just because long ago they were conquered by the Roman, then by the Arabs, then by the Crusaders, then by the Turks does not mean that when finally they are free from the Turks that they again have to put back under the yoke and chains of Arab slavery.

Ned

Speaking of presuming the outcome.

For the Jews to have a right to a seperate state they would have to have a LAND of their own. They did not have that in 1917 or even 1948. It was Arabs not Jews that were conquered by the Turks. That you said it was the Jews shows you aren't dealing with the reality that the Middle East had not had many Jews since the Romans kicked them out. It was non-Jewish christian semites that were conquered by the Moslems. Same for the Crusaders. The city Jerusalem was mostly Arab when the Crusaders came not Jewish.

[Ned]

Ethelred, I don't think we will ever agree. So let's just agree to disagree. But just let me say that after our conversation, I more firmly believe than ever in the so-called right of self-determination. One people should not be forced to live under the rule of a completely different people. They should be given self government. They should be given their freedom, the famous last words of William Wallace. Ned

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ned
Ethelred, I don't think we will ever agree.

Well that is because you don't want to accept the idea that the Jews had no justification for creating the state of Israel on someone elses land.

So let's just agree to disagree. But just let me say that after our conversation, I more firmly believe than ever in the so-called right of self-determination. One people should not be forced to live under the rule of a completely different people. They should be given self government. They should be given their freedom, the famous last words of William Wallace. Ned

That fits the Palestinians anyway. The Jews are not one people, haven't been that for a very long time. There are Chinese(really one town on the old Silk Road) Jews, African Jews, European(Ashkenazy) Jews from and still mostly living in many countries, and Middle Eastern and North African(Sephardic) Jews. Only a small percentage of the Sephardic Jews lived in the area that now constitutes Israel for most of the last 1800 years.

There a more Jews living in the US than in Israel. They have a country, the US.

Long term the idea of seperate nations for seperate peoples is not a good idea. Its just a way to slow the killing instead of stopping the hate. The EU is a nice start on curing this hate. Tolerance is the answer not seperate states.

[Kropotkin]

I strongly agree with ethelred in theory. Creating states for all nations is in the long run not a good solution. In the long run nationalism creates more conflicts than it solves imho.

However, we must be realistic. In hindsight the creation of the Israeli state was probably a mistake both as an idea and the way it was conducted but at the time a jewish state as a solution must have looked as a good idea for mostly everyone (who had a say) at the time. Sometimes national states is a necessity, just look at east timor. Talking with the indonesian state about tolerance would be pointless.

Also, talking about tolerance to both arafat and sharon is probably futile. We have to hope that the next generation of leaders are a bit more mature, constructive and less violent.

Creating a palestinian state to make up for the errors made in the creation of the state of Israel is a less than perfect solution for everyone but we can't go back in time and create a state not based on ethnicity and religion as it was probably not even possible then.

[Az]

There a more Jews living in the US than in Israel. They have a country, the US

this is a stupid argument. It's like me saying there are more spaniards in south america than in spain. and they all know spanish , as their native language. most traditions remain. So what, now we should abolish spain?

I strongly agree with ethelred in theory. Creating states for all nations is in the long run not a good solution. In the long run nationalism creates more conflicts than it solves imho.

why should Israeli jews be ****ed up then , when other nation-states exist? it's easy to talk when you have a nation-state protecting you.

[Az]

That fits the Palestinians anyway. The Jews are not one people, haven't been that for a very long time. There are Chinese(really one town on the old Silk Road) Jews, African Jews, European(Ashkenazy) Jews from and still mostly living in many countries, and Middle Eastern and North African(Sephardic) Jews. Only a small percentage of the Sephardic Jews lived in the area that now constitutes Israel for most of the last 1800 years.

so then ethnicity is the definition of nationality? says who? and if so , Palestinians are not a nationality. neither are arabs.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Dalgetti
this is a stupid argument. It's like me saying there are more spaniards in south america than in spain. and they all know spanish , as their native language. most traditions remain. So what, now we should abolish spain?

That would be stupid because its not true. First they aren't Spaniards any more that I am Irish because I have some Irish ancestors. Second NOT ONE BLOODY SINGLE TIME HAVE I EVER SAID THAT THE PRESENT STATE OF ISRAEL SHOULD BE DESTROYED. Now stick that in your brain. I defy you or anyone else to show where I said such a thing.

I am sick and tired of being attacked for things I never said.

why should Israeli jews be ****ed up then , when other nation-states exist? it's easy to talk when you have a nation-state protecting you.

American-Jews have a nation-state. Its called the United States of America.

You don't get the picture at all. The whole thing is about one close minded Israeli on here making the ridiculous claim that if you don't think Jews had a right to a state in the Middle East you are automaticly anti-semetic. Which is complete nonsense. Jews did not have a right to a state in the Middle East when the country was founded.

What gave a bunch of European Jews the right to found a state on someones elses land? Besides might that is.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Dalgetti
so then ethnicity is the definition of nationality? says who?

Its one definition but its not a good one however I didn't say it in any case. I was pointing the Jews are not single group. Nationanalities usually are. Try and find a definition of nationality that will fit all those different people into it. The main connecting factor is religion. Secondary is that some their anscestors were most likely Jewish Semites. Again some of my anscestors were Irish Catholic. That doen't make me either Catholic or Irish.

and if so , Palestinians are not a nationality. neither are arabs.

I have not been the one claiming nationality for anyone. The Palestinians are Arabs by language, mostly Moslem by religion and Semetic by anscestory. They were up untill the 1948 the still the main inhabitants of what is now Israel. They were the vast majority of the area prior to 1917. What right did anyone have to take it from them? Again besides might.

[Az]

What gave a bunch of European Jews the right to found a state on someones elses land? Besides might that is.

well , many lands were owned by jews, purchased from palestinians. no jews were living on palestinian owned land.
jews arrived to the land , and were a third of it's population at the time. they didn't rule the land at that point.

Its one definition but its not a good one however I didn't say it in any case. I was pointing the Jews are not single group. Nationanalities usually are. Try and find a definition of nationality that will fit all those different people into it. The main connecting factor is religion. Secondary is that some their anscestors were most likely Jewish Semites. Again some of my anscestors were Irish Catholic. That doen't make me either Catholic or Irish.

it's more than religion, it's also oral tradition, and culture. jews in both east and west have a culture unique of their neighbours, and similar between themselves.

neither can you unite the palestinians as members of the same "race" . they have different colours of skins, for example. facial features of some are european , while others look more like the inhabitants of northen africa, which are also , european , but differ. There are people that one could ethnically consider arab, persian , european. It's not quite as clear, as with any other nation. Russians for example.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Dalgetti
well , many lands were owned by jews, purchased from palestinians. no jews were living on palestinian owned land.
jews arrived to the land , and were a third of it's population at the time. they didn't rule the land at that point.

Jews owned about twenty percent and non-jews owned about 45 percent. It was 30% which nowhere near the majority and all those numbers are from 1948 not 1917 when the main effort to form a Jewish state began.

Also that is evasion in any case. I asked a question and you gave this which is not an answer. Are you claiming that a recently imigrated minority had the right to form a state and the majority of the locals didn't have any say in it? And what about the case in 1917 when the main effort began although it had gotten started in the 1880's.

it's more than religion, it's also oral tradition, and culture. jews in both east and west have a culture unique of their neighbours, and similar between themselves.

Not the same as a Nationality though. The oral tradition is mostly based on religion.

neither can you unite the palestinians as members of the same "race" . they have different colours of skins, for example. facial features of some are european , while others look more like the inhabitants of northen africa, which are also , european , but differ. There are people that one could ethnically consider arab, persian , european. It's not quite as clear, as with any other nation. Russians for example.

I am not the one harping on nationality. I have only pointed out the Jews aren't a nationality in the same sense as anyother nationality. Most of the Palestinians are of primarily semetic descent, more so than the average European Jew. The Middle East is the route between Eurasia and Afric. Its not suprising that the local people have often mixed with invaders.

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by Dalgetti
why should Israeli jews be ****ed up then , when other nation-states exist? it's easy to talk when you have a nation-state protecting you.

I'm not supporting the nation-state in theory but I can hardly do anything about history. The state of Israel is included in history... Don't drag the debate down to chris62's level.

There's nothing that says that you have to live in a nation-state to be protected (or that a nation state will protect you). Look at Switzerland for example; they've managed to create a open and comperatively tolerant society without nation as a foundation for it's legitimcy.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
Look at Switzerland for example; they've managed to create a open and comperatively tolerant society without nation as a foundation for it's legitimcy.

IIRC, Switzerland is a nation-state.

[Kropotkin]

Well good luck with that one DionDoc. Even if a common language isn't a must for a nation the lack of that and such a decentralized state as Switzerland can't possibly be said to be based on a nation.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
Even if a common language isn't a must for a nation the lack of that and such a decentralized state as Switzerland can't possibly be said to be based on a nation.

There are many nation-states, such as Belgium and Switzerland, with multiple linguistic, religious or ethnic groups within them, without any one being clearly dominant. However, often a national identity has been constructed despite these differences.

[S. Kroeze]

Dear Ned,

Could you please answer this question:

Perhaps European and American Jews are/were superior to Palestinian Jews?

"Before the mass immigration of European Jews to Palestine, small clusters of Jews had for centuries lived in their recognized quarters in the towns of Safed, Tiberias, and Hebron, where patriarchs, sages, and saints were buried, and in the holy city of Jerusalem, site of the ancient Temple, the symbol of Jewish national unity and redemption. Years of loss had produced a ritualized memory of Jerusalem and a yearning for restoration to the city and the land. The religiously orthodox looked to God to bring the New Jerusalem into being. So long as these Jews comprised small, pious communities in a handful of towns, so long as they paid their taxes, deferred to Muslim authority, and made no show of their religion, they were tolerated and protected, if not always treated decently by Muslim governors and religious officials. That was to change when a "new kind" of Jew began arriving in numbers in the opening decades of the twentieth century."

"When the Zionist movement was founded in 1897 there were already 50,000 Jews in Palestine and 18 modern settlements of Hovevei Zion.(33) By 1914, on the eve of World War I, there were 40 to 50 Jewish agricultural settlements, and the total number of Jews was estimated at 80,000 to 90,000, or about 14 percent of a Palestinian population of between 600,000 and 700,000, overwhelmingly Muslim.

The Orthodox Jewish pietists of the Old Yishuv, living on haluka, predominated in Palestine until after World War I, when Zionist-sponsored immigration created a majority of the New Yishuv. Whenever they arrived, Jewish immigrants were not met with an easy life in Palestine. Between 1881 and 1914 as many as 50,000, one of two, left Palestine for the West. Despite these departures, Jewish population increase had a dramatic effect on Jerusalem. In the last quarter of the nineteenth century, Jews achieved a majority there, in 1914 numbering 45,000 in a city of 80,000.(34)

From its inception the Zionist movement in Palestine exacerbated relations among Jews in the country. Traditional tensions between Ashkenazim and Sephardim, and between Hasidim and Perushim continued. But now there was a new layer of contention. Orthodox pietists opposed the often outspoken secular nationalist ideology of Hovevei Zion. In 1888-1889 the pietists tried unsuccesfully to force the Zionist agricultural pioneers to observe the biblical edict of Shemmitah, which allows the earth to lie fallow every seventh, sabbatical year. The pioneers resisted religious pressure, knowing that observance of Shemmitah meant the ruin of their farms.(35)

The gulf between religious and secular Jews widened further when Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, the architect of the modern Hebrew language, criticized traditional Ashkenazi-Sephardi factionalism for undermining Jewish national unity. The pietists struck back by slandering Ben-Yehuda as a revolutionary and in 1894 arranging his imprisonment by Turkish authorities. Ben-Yehuda took sweet revenge by using his time in prison to begin writing the first comprehensive dictionary of the modern Hebrew language, one of the major achievements of the Zionist movement.(36)

The main Zionist-sponsored settlement of the land occurred on the coastline and in the lower Galilee, not in Zion itself or in Jerusalem, a stronghold of pious orthodoxy. The factional strife between Orthodox Jewry and secular Zionists continued through the twentieth century and abated only when both sides faced a common Arab threat."

(33) Neville J.Mandel, "Ottoman Practice as Regards Jewish Settlement in Palestine, 1881-1908," Middle Eastern Studies, 11 (1975), 38

(34) Israel Kolatt, "The Organization of the Jewish Population of Palestine and the Development of Its Political Consciousness Before World War II," in Ma'oz, Studies on Palestine, 221

(35) Ibid., 219. Also see Abramov's account in Perpetual Dilemma.

(36) Kolatt, "Organization"

"Allenby's entrance into Jerusalem(1917) was welcomed by Jerusalem's local church prelates -Greeks, Latins, Russians, Syrians, and Armenians- who were gladdened at the sight of the first Christian ruler to enter Jerusalem since the medieval Crusaders. But Sephardic Jews, who spoke Arabic and got along with the Turks, were none too pleased to see the passing of the old order. Their contentious brethren, the Ashkenazim, were of two minds: they could not cheer the arrival of a new gentile conqueror, but had not this conqueror defeated the wicked empire of Turkey, thus hastening (as the Prophet Daniel foretold) the day of the Messianic Redemption? The more secular-minded Zionists were, of course, elated by Allenby's entrance. News traveled fast among Jews. They had been led to believe that with the publication of Balfour's letter, Britain intended to establish a Jewish commonwealth in Palestine.

Muslims were cautious. Many were thankful to be rid of the imperious and venal Turks. The country had been bled white by the war. Much was expected from the British, who were known for their generosity. To those who had long memories, the sight of the British military was a reminder of the coming and going of conquerors. The British too would go in time. This land was not theirs. Muslims would tolerate Britain's trusteeship of the land as long as it served a useful purpose and as long as their own sense of ownership was not violated."

"London politicians had decreed their pro-Zionist policy, but the military officers in Palestine, responsible for administering that policy, determined that vigorous support of Jewish immigration and land purchase would only inflame Arab passions and make the job of government more difficult. They knew that resentment of Zionist activity predated the Balfour Declaration. In the late 1870s Arab villagers had complained about the new Jewish agricultural settlers who purchased land at high prices, evicted Arab peasants, refused to allow free grazing on their land, kept to themselves, and generally acted as if the country belonged to them.

When asked about their tensions with the Jews, Arabs were quick to point out that they had no quarrel with the community of traditionalist Jews which had lived in Palestine for generations; their concern was rather with the new Jews who had begun to immigrate to Palestine under later Turkish rule. The Balfour Declaration fueled existing tensions, giving them a more specifically political character. Certainly relationship between Arabs and Jews were not helped by one of Weizmann's statements, often quoted in the Arab press, that Zionism aimed to make "Palestine as Jewish as England is English"."

"Ben-Gurion may have believed that the Jewish national home could be developed without harming a single Arab child; but others, a small minority, took the view that Jewish immigration, land purchase, and national independence inevitably would lead to domination of the Arab society. The most prominent of these Jews was Zev Jabotinsky, firebrand of the Revisionist party, established in 1925. Jabotinsky made no secret of his ambitions to see a powerful Jewish majority ruling over an Arab minority, not just in Palestine but in Transjordan as well. The Revisionists were so called because they insisted on reinterpreting the original resolution of the First Zionist Congress, which called for the establishment of "a Jewish home in Palestine secured by public law." To the Revisionists, the word Palestine had to apply to Transjordan, because the Biblical patrimony from the time of King David extended eastward of the Jordan River, and because the British mandate included Transjordan as well as western Palestine. Thus Jews had every right and obligation to settle in Transjordan. The sharp difference between the General Zionists and Revisionists is seen in their attitudes toward the British decision in 1922 to cede Transjordan to the Emir Abdullah. For reasons of politics, the General Zionists acquiesced; for reasons of principle, the Revisionists organized in opposition.

If the Revisionists were on the far right of the yishuv's ideology of nationalism, the far left was held by the small party called Brit Shalom (Covenant of Peace), also established in 1925. Composed mainly of Jewish intellectuals, Brit Shalom, while endorsing the Zionist axioms of immigration and national independence, worried that Zionist development might lead to Arab dislocation. Believing that a Jewish state could not be imposed on an unwilling Arab majority, adherents of the party took the position that only a single, bi-national Arab-Jewish state was justifiable in Palestine. Criticizing Weizmann and his colleagues for overdependence on the British, Brit Shalom ideologues stressed the priority of Jewish-Arab relations. Better an Arab friend than a British patron was the right attitude. Unfortunately, save for a few farsighted Arab intellectuals, Brit Shalom found few supporters of binationalism among the Arab ruling elite.

On the margins of this dispute were the few thousand pietistic Jews, descendants of the Hasidim and Perushim who had immigrated to Palestine in the nineteenth century. Theologically they opposed the Zionists and the idea of the secular-based Jewish state, believing that the only true Jewish state would be brought into being by God in the day of the messianic redemption. Awaiting that blessed event, ultra-Orthodox Jews kept Zionism at arm's length but also depended on them for protection against Arab rioters."

"Jews too were wary of Samuel's efforts to promote Arab and Jewish self-government. As a tiny minority, they were anxious about being overwhelmed in a democratically based assembly or legislature. Jabotinsky declared candidly that if there were a democratic institution of self-government responsible to the "majority", the Jews themselves would either be prevented from entering the country or evicted from it. So it came as some relief to the Zionists that not they but the Arab leaders formally rejected Samuel's proposals for self-government."

(source: Thomas A.Idinopulos: "Weathered by Miracles",1998)

So let's just agree to disagree. But just let me say that after our conversation, I more firmly believe than ever in the so-called right of self-determination. One people should not be forced to live under the rule of a completely different people. They should be given self government. They should be given their freedom, the famous last words of William Wallace.

This sounds most sympathetic, BUT

• Muslim Arabs living in Palestine did NOT determine to be overrun by mass immigration of Europeans and to be expelled from their land
• Christian Arabs living in Palestine did NOT determine to be overrun by mass immigration of Europeans and to be expelled from their land
• Jewish Arabs -the Sephardim- living in Palestine since time immemorial did NOT determine to be overrun by mass immigration of Europeans and to be forced to live in a secular state controlled by Europeans
• Other Orthodox Jews -Hasidim and Perushim- living in Palestine since the nineteenth century did NOT determine to be overrun by mass immigration of Europeans and to be forced to live in a secular state controlled by Europeans
• Jews in Europe did NOT determine to be persecuted and murdered or to flee to a desertlike war zone
• Instead decisions were taken by the British, U.S. and other European governments -ALL dominated by Christians- and by a small, well-educated, secular European-Jewish minority that legitimized their conquest of Palestine on some ancient book they had brushed aside themselves

Sincerely,

S.Kroeze

PS: Another important question which you didn't answer:
Who guarantees that Israel will be a safe place for the Jewish people in the long term?

[Kropotkin]

Dinodoc: I would not define those a nation-states at all.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
Dinodoc: I would not define those a nation-states at all.

Most people would though.

[Kropotkin]

Then I don't agree with them, and I also doubt that most people would as you claim.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
Then I don't agree with them, and I also doubt that most people would as you claim.

On what basis?

[Kropotkin]

There's no common definition of the meaning of a nation. The word comes from heritage. What heritage is in this contex is also hard to say as language, culture and etnicity seldom go hand in hand. One way to see it (as you do I guess , pretty much) is that the nation is connected with the state as the basis for a collective identity. As people in Belgium and Switzerland share the same goverment (well OK, no one knows who's governing Switzerland ) and have a common football team they might from your perspective be enough to be called a nation. But as people are quite aware of a difference (there's a flemmish nationalist party in Belgium for example) and an other 'nation' I would not call them nation-states. In the same manner I don't regard Great Brittain as a nation but a state with three nations (kingdoms), Wales, Scotland and England.

Try calling a scotchman for english and have a nice trip to the ER.

[S. Kroeze]

There is only one Belgian: the king of Belgium!

[Kropotkin]

Yeah like Leopold II, charming chaps those belgians

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
There's no common definition of the meaning of a nation.

Nation: A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language

This is tangential to the definition of a nation-state.

[q]In the same manner I don't regard Great Brittain as a nation but a state with three nations (kingdoms), Wales, Scotland and England. [/QUOTE]

There are other examples of multinational states that are considered nation-states, ex. the USA.

[Kropotkin]

That's the definiton you got from a dictionary, that's not at all the same as a defintion shared by researchers in the field. And how the hell could a multinational state be a nation-state? That's not a definition of a nation-state I can accept.

edit: never mind the definitions but isn't calling the US, a federation of states, a nation-state streching things to far be any definitions?

[Ethelred]

We Americans call it a nation. It isn't a collection of nations. I am a German-Irish-Norwegian-Dutch-American(maybe some other stuff too) but American first. The others are what my ancestors were not me.

Its not a federation of states either. No matter how often the States Rights types try to claim such. Only one state was ever fully independent and that is Texas. Only thirteen were rebelling colonies. All the rest are former US federal territories. Think of the states as provinces and you will get a more realistic idea of how it works.

[Ned]

Kroeze, Thanks for the history. However, your final conclusion about eviction of non-Jewish “natives” does not flow from the facts. It is true that Jews from outside Palestine emigrated there, bought land and perhaps refused Arabs grazing rights and fenced their property as if it was there own. Buying property and erecting fences is not equivalent to eviction.

We do know that Feisal and Weizmann signed a deal on Jan. 3, 1919 that would continue to permit large-scale Jewish immigration into Palestine. Feisal at the time believed he was to be the King of Syria which was to included Palestine. Had he been permitted to be King by the French (and the Brits), I am sure that events would have unfolded in manner quite different than they did. There would have never been a question of a Jewish majority in all of Syria, TransJordan and Palestine. Nor would Jewish immigration have persisted if they became disruptive of general order an peace.

The history also demonstrates that the whole question of how Jews would integrate into Palestine was still a very open question just after WWI. No one at that time had a conception of partition. The radical fringe wanted a Jewish state over the whole of Palestine (including the districts beyond the Jordan) with apparently could only happen if the majority, non Jewish population would have no vote.

This debate occurred only because of the termination of both Turkish rule and of Feisal's rule, and because Great Britain was given only a Mandate which would expire eventually.

The British, the new Pasha, continued the Turkish policy of permitting Jewish immigration into the area. The Jews were natives of the area regardless of whether they were survivors of 1800 years of foreign conquest or newly arrived refugees from oppression. Even though the Jews were natives, the history demonstrates that the Brits were concerned to limit immigration so as not to inflame the Arabs. This they did, eventually causing even the Jews to turn against British.

The history also records that with the fall of Feisal, the Arabs turned hostile both to the British Mandate and to the Jews. (A large number of Feisal's army moved to Palestine from Damascus to incite the violence in an effort to reverse the decisions of the great powers.) The anti-Jewish, anti-British violence increased dramatically over the years. When the Brits pulled out in 1948, neighboring Arabs armies joined in, seizing as much territory as they could take.

So, we are now at 1947-48. The question is what to do now? How we got to the situation may because of a series of mistakes, but we have to live with the situation as we find it. The Jews live throughout Palestine but have a majority in certain areas. The Arabs, both in and outside Palestine, are extremely anti-Jew and are actively at war with them. The question, respectfully, is not whether they are resisting a Jewish imposition of sovereignty over an Arab majority or whether they are resisting a Jewish "theft" of the land. They seek to impose Arab sovereignty on the Jews.

When does a people have a right of "self-determination." I believe that under the circumstances the Jews found themselves in 1948, they certainly had that right. It flows from being distinct people who identify themselves as such, and who are or would be oppressed by their rulers to an intolerable level - from their point of view.

I would close with American's own Declaration of Independence. It sets forth many of the reasons why one people must be independent of the rule of another. When those reasons are satisfied, independence and self-determination are warranted.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

[Here follows a very long list of grievances.]

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

[Kropotkin]

Ethelred: Oh well we can interpet it as we like but It's not a nation-state. Americans might say that it is but that in itself is not enough to survive the test of a somewhat serious definition. That they call it a nation might be from a historical contex where nation was seen as the legal basis of every state. You could say that's a state based on the ideas and values of a dominating white, chritian population. the differences amoungst the white christians themselves however creates a problem with that interpetation.

As I see it a nation-state must per definition be based on one nation. There's no need for that nation to be old more than in a anachronical way (as nations always more or less is a lie based on myths) so in that way the US could be called a nation but that would be in a broader interpetation of the term.

We have to remember that the defintion of a nation differs a lot depending on whom you ask. You could compare it with the french (you might say that USA chares the french one) and german interpetation of being a citizen and a part of the nation. In France you're part of the nation if you're a citizen (that's not shared by all, Le Pen and many with him) while the german one says that a citizen must be from the nation. The German one sets much higher 'standards' for it and that's the kind definition I'm using.