Conflict

The gentleman who commented on my last post insists that the "Philistines", if they had only accepted the deals offered to them time and again (and I would wager that he thinks they were good offers), instead of rejecting them violently, would no longer be stateless. His solution now is: send them to Jordan.

This is an unproductive narrative. Transferring "the Philistines" to Jordan is a fancy way of saying ETHNIC CLEANSING. Ethnic cleansing=illegal. It was illegal when Hitler did it and when countless other regimes did it, and I don't think that Israel (or the U.S.) should get a get out of jail free card when/if they do it. Anyone who proposes such a thing should be charged with incitement of crimes against humanity; it is an act of hate speech. (And lest he or anyone think I have a double standard, I believe the same should hold true for those who believe that Israelis should be "thrown into the sea".)

Time and again, an argument is made that if the Palestinians had accepted the offers that were given to them (Peel Commission, UN Mandate, Oslo, etc.), they would no longer be fighting for their national aspirations. To some degree this is true: if hindsight were foresight, the earlier offers made to Palestinians were certainly better than what they are likely to get from Israel now in negotiations, which has consolidated its power in the international community and secured critical alliances with the U.S. (and to a lesser degree, the EU).

The greater question is: on whose authority can one country or governmental body determine the sovereignty of another people? The idea that the colonial power or an international body should have the privilege of determining for the inhabitants of an area what its boundaries are is a pretty anti-democratic concept. Why should the majority of inhabitants be denied the ability to continue to live on their land and be with their people in one country?

I also chuckle and grimace when I hear someone say that the Philistines/Arabs (they never say Palestinians) can just go to Jordan (or Egypt). A. Jordan and Egypt don't want them. B. They don't want to go to Jordan or Egypt. The Arab people are united in language (with regional dialectical differences) and may have similar cultures, but they are far from homogeneous and have long held unique social identities that vary by region, religion and social class. The Arab League, like the EU, might wish to join together for economic reasons, but they would still wish to retain their own national identity. Certainly if you asked a Saudi if they are the same as Jordanians, they would have a long list of how they differ, and how they have no desire to be a citizen of the other country. Palestinians have considered themselves uniquely Palestinian for quite a long time (since long before the Zionist movement began), and have strong ties to the same piece of land that Israel would like to claim. The million dollar question in my mind is not: how do you get rid of the Palestinians or Israelis, but how do you get these people to decide to build a shared future together?

Some people inevitably will start talking about how they can't live with "them." As someone who has the privilege of being able to travel to both Israeli areas and Palestinian areas, I can see how everyone is so much more alike than they are different. Everyone has the same dreams for their children's safety and well-being. Everyone wants freedom. Everyone wants to have the right to reach their greatest potential.

I believe with humility, honesty and hard work (and apologies for suffering and restitution for losses) there could be forgiveness and reconciliation. It's not a pipe dream of an idealist; it's the recognition of someone who sees the humanity on both sides of the Green Line.

Peace is possible, if you want it.

----------

This weekend while I was at the IPCRI conference, an Israeli woman said that she wants to make peace with Palestinians because she loves Israel. She believes that all people have a right to their own nation, and she wants to make peace with Palestinians so that they can coexist beside each other. The premise of this statement suggests that she believes that the only way that a people can have self-determination is if they have their own country.

I can understand what she is saying, but I don't think it is acceptable for the self-determination of one "people" at the expense of another. This sort of thesis doesn't acknowledge the existence and rights of the people who were living on the same soil when the Zionist movement began. My hope for this young woman is that she--and others, like the man who wrote in the comments--will find other ways of envisioning a future beside Palestinians; it may be too late for the two state partitioning of this tiny bit of land, and all are attached to it.


I also wonder about what it means when someone talks about the rights of a particular "people." Like the Arab "people", there is not one Jewish "people"; there are many Jewish people. Orthodox, Ultra Orthodox, Reform, Conservative, etc. and a large number who identify as agnostic or atheist, but culturally/ethically Jewish, and a wide Jewish Diaspora that includes people of many races and distinct sub-cultures. Is there one country that can embrace all of them as equals? If there is a country for a certain kind of "people", must someone who is part of that group uproot themselves from a successful life elsewhere in order to "return" to a country whose soil they have never touched?

I don't believe that it is necessary for "a people" to have their own country. We are all one people, and paradoxically, all unique individuals. What everyone needs is a home (although some of us may feel that we could be at home in many places). What is important is to live in a country that provides equal rights for all of its citizens, strives to ensure that their basic human needs are met, provides equal opportunity under the law, and adheres to the universal declaration of human rights.

Enough with the nationalism and insistence on privileging a certain kind of person. Equality for all!