I sent my second entry (What happened to the Zionist inspiration) on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to my uncle Michel, currently living in Washington, to ask him what looks biased, irrelevant, or unclear, in this first tentative draft. Why my uncle? I think that my uncle is someone who always strives to understand things beyond their simple appearance, and is the most suited person in my family to help me since he is less emotionally aroused about the issues than my family currently living in Jerusalem.
The point I will discuss in this paper concerns a relevant point outlined by my uncle.
My paper: "As evidence not envisioned by Herzl, throughout the history of the Jewish country, and from its very first day, the Palestinians, Muslims or Catholics, would never accept the creation of a Jewish state within "their country" (part of the Ottoman Empire before the British mandate).
"Uncle Michel's answer: "not quite true see the document I sent you. The opposition came mostly from Arab neighbors and the idea initially was one of a two state country. Also the exodus of Palestinians was often inspired by arab leaders see
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/refugees.html"
The idea for "Palestine"
To address this issue I would first like to do a brief recap of the agenda. I previously covered the historical Jewish presence in the land of Israel (first paper), the history of the Jewish diaspora, and the rise of the Zionist idea for a Jewish homeland in the 19th and 20th century (second paper). Christeen agreed to discuss the history of the "Palestinian" people, and how history made them become a people (or whether it is legit to call them a people). Before reading Christeen's research, I briefly googled this. The province of Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire until the end of the First World War, and the Treaty of Sevres, enacted the split up of the Ottoman Empire. The different provinces were ruled by different countries, and as we know, Palestine was under a British Mandate (from 1917). Bad luck for the "Palestinian people" of the former Ottoman Empire, they did not have much time to deal with the nationalist question; that is, history did not let them ages to philosophy on their "new identity" following the split up of the Ottoman Empire. Although there was already Palestinian nationalist organisations which emerged at the end of WWI; in Jerusalem, Februrary 1919, the First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations, which met for the purpose of selecting a Palestinian Arab representative for the Paris Peace Conference, adopted the following resolution: "We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds." However, after the failure of the establishment of the Kingdom of Greater Syria, a distinctive form of Palestinian Arab nationalism took root between April and July 1920. Following the French conquest of Syria (formerly part of the Ottoman empire), the mayor of Jerusalem, Musa Qasim Pasah al-Husayni, declared: "Now, after the recent events in Damascus, we have to effect a complete change in our plans here. Southern Syria no longer exists. We must defend Palestine". Therefore, following the split up of the Ottoman Empire, the "Palestinian" identity issue is urging as the Zionist ambition was becoming more and more influent (let's recall that the British accepted to work for a Jewish homeland in Palestine in the Belfour Declaration of 1917).
The 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for PalestineFollowing the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, which was planned to create an Arab state and a Jewish state side by side, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria attacked the state of Israel (known as the Israeli war of Independence). From my research, I learned that the Palestinian exodus was an idea essentially lead by the Palestinian leaders, who would clear the path for the Arab armies, and it was planned that the Palestinians would come back as soon as the armies would eradicate the new Jewish state. Therefore, my statement: "the Palestinians, Muslims or Catholics, would never accept the creation of a Jewish state within "their country"" is loose. However, I would like to speak about this with Christeen (we are meeting tomorrow), and we need to understand what was the Palestinian reaction at the time (how the Palestinian population felt about a Jewish state side by side a Palestinian state). If the Ottoman Empire would not had split up, the issue would had been much easier for the Palestinian Ottomans, they would find a home in the surrounding Empire…but they lost the historical "musical chair" game, and the surrounding Arabic countries, formerly co-citizen, were not that fraternal with the Palestinian refugees - Christeen would bring more details on this. The case for the Palestinian refugees was born, and how Israel would deal with it along. I believe we now have properly set the layer, and it is now time to look more precisely at the conflict between the Jewish and the Palestinian itself.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edit:
Here is the full email exchange between my uncle and me:My uncle's answer to my "What happened to the Zionist inspiration?" article (first email):Changes in ownership of land and changes in boundaries are not specific to Israel, so that situation should be put in context: look at the many, many, changes of borders in Europe, Ottoman empire, roman and greek empires, and very recently after 1870, 1918, South Asia in 1948, Africa in the 60s, Yugoslavia, etc… What makes the Palestinian issue – as sad as it is - such a lasting cause whch cannot find attenuation with time? Were all the other situations of refugees caused by historical shifts resolved? Were all other refugees compensated? Given a land? Treated as equals in the country they “lost” (by the way Lucie lost her house, her land, her properties in South Vietnam, when are the South Vietnamese in exile, going to get their country and assets back? When is CNN going to do a segment on this issue?
Look at the space of Jews, and Catholics and other religious minorities in Arab countries and question why there is so much undiverted attention to the issue of Palestinians in Israel and so little to the issue of the discremination against non arabs in arab countries. Where are the “doves” in Arab lands?
Why did the Arab countries of the region not welcome Palestinians, thus creating a major refugee issue in Israel?
How is Israel’s human right record compared to other countries in the region in terms of rights of minorities, role of women, democracy, openness of society, media and access to information, access to judicial redress? Is Israel the only country with walls and labor and security restrictions?
Suggest you acknowledge the importance to find solutions that reconcile Palestinians aspirations and Israel’s need for security and protection in the context of different demographics.
Good luck with the project… it is great one. As to me, I have hope that a two state solution, as foreseen at the creation of Israel, is feasible and will set the conditions for peace at last. There are no ways to settle rights and wrongs, simply a common interest to find peace.
My answer (second email):>Merci pour ces commentaires.
>
>J ai quelques points de desacord. Bien que les Juifs aient des racines historiques a la terre d Israel, on ne peut pas envisager que tous les peuples du monde, disperses par le cours de l histoire, revendiquent un etat souverain la ou un autre s est installe depuis bien longtemps. Comme le dit Herzl, les Juifs sont un cas parmis une multitude de diaspora (kurdes etc.).
>Donc:
>"Are you saying that people who have lost their land and are persecuted outside their lost land are not always justified in their quest to restore their rights to a safe land? When is such quest legitimate? Who legitimizes it?"
>Une telle quete a toujours un cout pour quelqu un, et c est toute la question derriere mon projet.
>Qui legitimise la creation d un etat? Je pense que le point de vue de mon projet doit etre omniscient : d un point de vue universel, l humanite (ou l UN) peut elle justifier pragmatiquement la creation d un etat de sorte que les couts subis par les populations locales soient au moins contre balances par le benefice de la nation qui retrouve un etat? Les exemples sont nombreux, le Tibet, les Kurdes, les Kossovards, et meme les Corses!!
>
>"Although, the upcoming Holocaust certainly would had strengthen the legitimacy of a Jewish state for whom?. why?" au yeux du monde (et de l UN)! Parceque nombre de pays impliques dans la guerre ont considere avec une dette envers le peuple juif apres l Holocauste.
>
>-(although the episode of the Holocaust might haved helped the moral evidence justification? for the need of a Jewish country indeed!).
>Indeed je ne suis pas sur, comme tu le disais, ton pere, mon grand pere Claude a toujours considere que les Juifs n avaient rien a faire dans un etat Juif, comme tu me l as dit.
>La seconde guerre mondiale et holocauste ont completement modifie l Europe . Je ne pense pas que les Juifs soient encore a risque en Europe, c est un argument partage par Simon Veil par exemple, qui considere que l antisemitisme aujourd hui en France n est pas un probleme, et l argument de la reminiscence de l histoire n est plus valable etant donne que le contexte des Juifs en Europe est a present radicalement different. Je me fais plus de soucis pour les arabes qui eux ont beaucoup plus de mal a ses faire une place dans la societe francaise.
>
>-J ai trouve que Herzl, Jabotinsky et Ben Gurion ont ete les plus influents dans leur temps. Si jamais il faut que je me penche vers d autres penseurs, donne moi leur nom et je me renseignerai d avantage.
>
>-why would they accept to be stolen their land! Are you saying that the land belonged to Palestinians or that Jewish claims based on cultural, historical roots as we as UN decisions were not legitimate?
>La province de Palestine n etait pas un etat mais un territoire de l empire Ottoman, il n empeche que les Palestiniens non Juifs etaient bien installes dans tout le pays, et Ben Gurion lui meme reconnaissait qu ils n avaiebt aucune raison d accepter l apparition d un nouveal etat dans "leur" terre (aux yeux des arabes palestiniens evidemment). Je ne parle pas de la legitimite de la decision de l UN mais la reaction logique des populations arabes.
>
>-You should acknowledge that the historical argument is to say the least complicated. C est a dire????
>
>-Were all the other situations of refugees caused by historical shifts resolved? Were all other refugees compensated? Given a land? Treated as equals in the country they “lost”
>Je me penche sur la question d Israel qui est deja tres compliquee! Ce n est pas parceque les autres pays ont fait pire que Israel a le droit de...
>
>-On s en fiche de savoir ce qu il se passe dans les pays musulmans ou arabes autour d Israel, ca n a rien a voir avec le probleme qu ils sont pires ou mieux qu Israel.
>Et qu ils n aient pas aides les Palestiniens prouve que le peuple arabe ne peut pas etre vu comme "un", et justement que la terre des Palestiniens est en consequence nulle part d autre que en Palestine!
>
>-Suggest you acknowledge the importance to find solutions that reconcile Palestinians aspirations and Israel’s need for security and protection in the context of different demographics.
>C est le resultat a terme, je commence tout juste ce travail avec une amie Palestienne, et on envisagera des solutions quand on aura deja bien cerne le sujet.
>
>Merci et bises,
>Jonathan
His answer (third email):Jonathan,
Le fait que d' autres nations ont ete forme au cours de l'histoire est un contexte important a ton etude - chaque fois il y avait une perte pour ceux qui etaient la avant, une consequence tragique du changement. On se focalise souvent sur Israel dans les salons bien pensants, ce qui a amene certains a parler d' antisemitisme nouveau, plus acceptable, car on ne parle plus de haine du juif, mais haine d' Israel. C' est aussi pourquoi il est tout de meme utile de mettre en contexte le traitement des palestiniens en israel et celui des minorites non musumanes dans les pays arabes, dont curieusement on parle moins et qu' on censure moins souvent. Tu dois au moins te poser la question de l'incroyable focalisation sur Israel dans les medias et les assemblees internationales, et te demander son origine, plutot que dire que toi aussi, ce que font les autres, tu t' en fous.
Le lien historique d' israel a la terre ne doit pas etre oublie. Oui il y avait des palestiniens, qui eux aussi ont une revendication a la meme terre, mais la revendication d' Israel est aussi legitime et historique (l' annee prochaine a Jerusalem). Le fait que l'ONU , le forum des nations ait au depart consacre la creation est un point important, meme s'il ne fait rien pour resourdre le probleme des populations qui vivaient sur la terre. Encore une fois, il est essentiel de noter dans ton etude que la creation d' un etat palestinien a ete envisage des le depart et soutenu par les fondateurs.
Dire que l' antisemitisme est maintenant sous controle me parait un peu facile, et que les arabes ont plus de mal me semble un argument bizarre, D'abord tu compares un peuple qui avait perdu sa terre (Israel) et qui maintenant l' a recupere a une population migrante qui a toujours des racines et une appartenance nationale. Deuxiemement beaucoup en Allemagne et en France pensaient que les evenements de 1933 allaient passer, que les Francais juifs seraient epargnes etc. Simone Veil ou mon grand pere avaient leurs opinions, mais la realite en Espagne en 1492, en France en 1940, en allemagne en 1933 a ete tres differente de ce que les optimistes avaient imagine. Donc on ne peut pas sous estimer la perspective de ceux qui ont vu dans la creation d' israel la seule solution.
L' attitude des pays arabes vis a vis des palestiniens est inacceptable - une mitigation des problemes de migration et creation d'etat a souvent ete l' accueil par d' autres etats culturellement lies aux refugies. Ton etude devrait au moins considerer la question de l' absorption, pourquoi les arabes ont prefere fermer leur frontiere et miser sur la destobilisation d' Israel a terme, et pris cette decision au mepris des destins indivuduels de ceux qui n' ont pu refaire leur vie?
Il n' y a pas de solution miracle, et le probleme des palestiniens en israel est aujourd'hui un probleme qui exige une solution, et de facon urgente, mais dans la mesure ou tu"essaies de voir le probleme sous tous ses angles, les perspectives ci dessus se doivent d' etre prises en compte, et serieusement.
Sur ce je vais rater mon avion si je ne pars pas tout de suite.
Michel
