RSS Feed MenuI remember having to write an essay in college on the question: “Is every nation entitled to a state?” If I had to rewrite the essay today, my answer would be: “Well, the world doesn’t seem to think so.”
The Tamils of Sri Lanka, for example, are not entitled to a state according to the world’s media and leaders. The Tamils have a recorded history going back to two millennia, and their literature is the oldest among Dravidian languages. Tamils have been referred to as the last surviving classical civilization on Earth. The Pallava script, a variant of Southern Brahmi used by the Tamil Pallava dynasty, was the basis of several of the writing systems of Southeast Asia, including the Burmese, Khmer, Thai, Lao and Javanese scripts.
Since 1983, the Tamils of Sri Lanka have been fighting for their independence, demanding that the “two-state solution” be applied to Sri Lanka. This week, the Sri Lankan government crushed the Tamils’ armed forces and killed their leader. About 20,000 Tamil soldiers and 8,000 civilians have been killed in the fighting since the beginning of the year. There are hundreds of thousands of Tamil refugees in camps. The suffering and living conditions in those camps are worse than in Congo or in Sudan. There are only a few hundred Tamil fighters alive, and Sri Lanka’s President has declared that he is determined “to finish this damn thing off soon.”
Iran congratulated the Sri Lankan government for “successfully defeating Tamil terrorism.” India asked to address the “root causes of the conflict in Sri Lanka.” UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said that “the legitimate concerns and aspirations of the Tamil people … must be fully addressed.” The United States declared that “now is the time for the government [of Sri Lanka] to engage the Tamils… to create a political arrangement that promotes and protects the rights of all Sri Lankans.” The EU called upon “the President of Sri Lanka to outline a clear process leading to a fully inclusive political solution, based on consent, equality and the rule of law”. For some reason, addressing the root causes of the conflict and protecting the rights of the Tamils does not include statehood.
So the Tamils are not entitled to their own state, it seems, just like the occupied peoples of Tibet, Kurdistan, Cyprus, Western Sahara, and Kashmir.
When it comes to the Palestinians, however, the right to statehood is axiomatic. The Pope was very vocal on that last week during his visit to Israel. He even declared that the Palestinians are entitled to establish a state in “the land of their ancestors” (who the hell those “ancestors” are still boggles my mind). President Obama repeated during his meeting with Israel’s Prime Minister this week that establishing a Palestinian state is a central objective of his Middle East policy.
The state envisioned by President Obama, however, is not the one envisioned by the Palestinians. For a start, it would be demilitarized. Sure. Seeing how successful Israel and the international community have been at keeping Gaza “demilitarized,” Mr. Obama’s vision doesn’t even pass the laughing test. But the real problem is that the Palestinians are not giving up and will not give up on the so-called “right of return.” The Palestinians talk simultaneously of the “two-state solution” and of the “right of return.” This is an oxymoron. Accepting the Palestinian definition of the “right of return” would turn Israel into a bi-national state with an Arab majority. It is incompatible with the “two-state solution.”
If President Obama wants to improve the chances of bridging the gap between Israel and the Palestinians, he should make it clear that the latter have to choose between the “right of return” and the “two-state solution.” Otherwise, it would mean that the Palestinians are entitled to statehood while denying the Jews’ right to their own nation-state, while the Tibetans and the Kurds, who do not deny the national rights of their foes, do not deserve a state of their own. In other words, that the criterion for deserving a state is the denying of other people’s rights.
If I had written in my essay in college that only nations that deny the national rights of their foes are entitled to a state, my teacher would have thought I was nuts –and rightly so. To which I could reply today: So is the world, apparently.
sinz54 // May 20, 2009 at 1:23 pm
We have no reason to help the Palestinians get a state.They don’t deserve it.The Palestinians are probably the only people on earth who were celebrating the 9-11 atrocity. They danced in the streets and handed out sweets.Not just once, but day after day following that attack. And when Associated Press cameramen tried to videotape it, they got death threats and had to be pulled out of there for their own safety.The Palestinians don’t deserve anything from America.
LeeHotchkiss // May 20, 2009 at 10:57 pm
The problem here is that the Palestinians have a right of return under international law. Israeli partisans seem to insist that the Palestinians give up these peoples rights before the negotiations start. More and more it looks like the Israeli’s who have no intention of a two state solution. Their insistence on constantly expanding the settlements seems to put lie to the concept the nations leadership ever intended a Palestinian state.Further Israel’s insistence that it has a right massively bomb a country in response to a minor military action by a rogue group means that demilitarized Palestinian is not possible unless they are able to get security grantees from a nuclear armed power such as Iran. Right now considering the demographic issues facing Israel and the decreased strategic position resulting from the Iraq and Lebanon wars, I think Israel is in at least as precarious state as Palestine. The issue of who deserves a state shows a hosts of hypocrisies. None of the other states mentioned had another state carved from by the International community. The fact that Tibet experiencing far more successful cultural genocide shows that there is nothing to be gained from nonviolence. I guess the main message is life isn’t fair.
gibberish // May 21, 2009 at 5:52 am
There are any number of peoples around the world who lack a state. Generally you only get one by seizing it. There only case of any nation receiving one because they “deserved” it: Israel. This doesn’t deny they have a right to a state but no more so than the Kurds, Bretons, various Native Americans, etc, etc, etc. Fact is they have one now and people with states generally keep themI don’t see how anyone can deny the morality of the right of return – however impractical – these people had to leave their homes and want to go back. Ethnic cleansing is rarely ethical even if it is usually irreversible
gibberish // May 21, 2009 at 5:55 am
And why the mystery over “ancestors”?If you went round asking Palestinians where there great, great grandfathers lived what would they say? Palestine probablyand the Jewish population of Israel? all over the place.
sinz54 // May 21, 2009 at 7:42 am
gibberish: Do the American Indians have a “right of return” to all of the continental United States?Do the Mexicans have a “right of return” to Texas and New Mexico?Sorry, Indians, you lost, we won. It’s our land now.Sorry, Mexicans, you lost, we won. It’s our land now.Land belongs to those who work hard to win it.For all you liberals like you, I suggest you look at a political map of the world, showing all the national borders.Except for natural borders like the English Channel or the Pyrenees Mountains or the Korea Strait, 95% of ALL the world’s borders were set by conquest and war. Including some borders of the United States.That’s the way it is.If Israel can hold that territory by force, it’s theirs, every bit as much as Texas and New Mexico are ours.
barker13 // May 21, 2009 at 8:12 am
Re: Sinz54; wrote 25 minutes ago –Sinz. I basically agree with you.Still…(*SIGH*)The question is…WHAT TO DO WITH THE PALESTINIANS…?!?!BILL
gibberish // May 21, 2009 at 9:09 am
point is Sinz the previous residents of Mexico or Texas are dead, the Palestinians are are sat in camps waiting to go home. The practicalities are that they never will go home – but the immorality of it all is obvious.Proper Liberals claim since it is immoral they should get a “right to return”. Other people say they aren’t going home and they work out some way of pretending to themselves this is moral. I say it is all totally immoral but they aren’t going home, tough. If I come round to your house and take it by force and somehow manage to keep it (persuading the authorities not to interfere) – whilst you are left squatting in your neighbours yard while I build a big wall to keep you out. My actions are immoral, but in practice you should probably go find somewhere else to live.Several million Palestinians are difficult to re-house and while they will never go home the Israelis will also never know peace, awkward.
dragonlady // May 21, 2009 at 10:11 am
The problem with the right of return is that it completely undermines the concept of national self-determination for the Israelis. It will no longer be a Jewish state. The UN original mandate was for two states. Did the Palestinians accept a state in 1948? No, they did not. When Israel offered the return all the lands it captured in the ‘67 war in exchange for recognition, it got the middle finger from all the Arabs. When Barak offered 95% of the land back, and compensated the other 5% with other territories, and gave the Palestinians East Jersualeum, Arafat refused. I think the Palestinians should have a state. But if they are unwilling to accept the existence of Israel, how moral is it for the US to completely disregard the security interests (existential ones, I might add) of the only democracy in the region? In exactly what majority Arab state do Jews, Christians, and Muslims all live under equal status?
barker13 // May 21, 2009 at 11:25 am
Re: Gibberish; 9:09 AM -Gib. Check your watch. It’s 2009.We’re talking GENERATIONS of Palestinian “refugees” in those “camps.”Anyway… again… and this time I’ll ask you… WHAT is to be done…???BILL
RLHotchkiss // May 21, 2009 at 1:20 pm
The problem is that whole concept of a guaranteed Jewish state flies in the face of almost all American values. We are uncomfortable enough with Islamic states, but at least they are overwhelming populated with followers of Islam. The idea that state should be guaranteed the right to maintain its Jewish nature in perpetuity regardless of the beliefs or ethnic background of its citizens just doesn’t fit in with American or European values. I understand the importance of this concept to Jewish people. But it isn’t a fair place to start negotiations. The reality is that you can’t get that kind of guarantee. And it seems the very nature of Jewishness is changing. Even if Israel was isolated from external influences it is unclear if the nature of Judaism would be recognizable to in a couple of hundred years. Judaism, though a continuing tradition has experienced radical changes, and Zionism itself could represent a fundamental transformation of the faith.
barker13 // May 21, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Re: RLHotchkiss; wrote 21 minutes ago –”The problem is that whole concept of a guaranteed Jewish state flies in the face of almost all American values.”And people who put ice in single malt scotch are barbarians who shouldn’t be allowed in a civilized home.SO WHAT…?!?! (*SHRUG*)For the sake of argument, let’s suppose we’re in agreement on the issue of America supporting a “Jewish State.” So what…??? What are you calling for? What’s your policy prescription in line with your belief?”The idea that [a] state should be guaranteed the right to maintain its Jewish nature in perpetuity…”Isn’t exactly unique. You’ve never heard of “Islamic” states? I mean… by law… they’re ISLAMIC – Islamic states.(I have heard rumors, though, that the Vatican is exploring conversion to Episcopalianism!)(*CHUCKLE*)”The idea that state should be guaranteed the right to maintain its Jewish nature in perpetuity regardless of the beliefs or ethnic background of its citizens just doesn’t fit in with American or European values.”(*SNORT*)Hell… “red state” values don’t fit in with “blue state” values! Anyway… ball busting aside… even taking your argument as definitive at face value… SO WHAT…?!?!What’s your policy proposal…???BILL
RLHotchkiss // May 21, 2009 at 2:10 pm
It isn’t a policy issue. It is a negotiation strategy. Israel currently seems to want to start negotiations from the point where a Israel is guaranteed to be Jewish state in perpetuity. I am saying using this kind of language isn’t helping with Americans or Europeans. This is time for some dog whistle talk.Promote the policies that lead to that goal with any of equal or better objects. Let is being an underlying subtext. Don’t make it the public face of Israel’s stance. I think that this result is understood by the Americans and Europeans as necessary to a lasting peace. But Israel shouldn’t try to force Us, the Europeans, or the Palestinians to explicitly endorse that goal. Especially before negotiations begin.
barker13 // May 21, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Re: RLHotchkiss; wrote 34 minutes ago –”It isn’t a policy issue.”Hang on… let me notify Secretary Clinton.(*SNORT*)Hey… if you don’t wanna address the question… er… directly… just say so.(*SHRUG*)”Israel currently seems to want to start negotiations from the point where a Israel is guaranteed to be Jewish state in perpetuity.”And so SecState Hotchkiss informs Israel that U.S. policy is…WHAT…?!?!”This is time for some dog whistle talk.”RL. I speak English. You apparently speak English. What the heck was that… Southern…?!?!(*CRACKING UP*)”Promote the policies…”SUCH AS…?!?!RL. I’m trying here; I really am. Perhaps we’re simply talking past each other. So… hmm… you’d like SecState Clinton or better yet President Obama publicly proclaim that official U.S. policy is that Israel must not be “the Jewish state” and that if the Palestinians – via the democratic process open to them via full “right of return” – for all intents and purposes “capture” the government of Israel they’d have the same sovereign rights as say Saudi Arabia (as a sovereign state) to declare Islam the official religion of Isreal and outlaw the practice of ANY other religion – violation of said laws resulting in punishment up to and including the death penalty?Hmm… you run that one by the DNC next national meeting.BILL
RLHotchkiss // May 21, 2009 at 6:03 pm
No, again, I am not suggesting any particular policy position. But I think Israel is trying to make the negotiations themselves dependent on the Palestinians agreeing to all demands before hand.I think they are mistaken if they believe that the world will wait around for the Palestinians to sat they recognize Israel as Jewish state before negotiations. This is necessary now, nor ever.The right of return issue is clearly going to be settled with virtually no Palestinians returning to Israel. Fair enough. But Israel seems to be asking that the Palestinians give this up for nothing, absolutely nothing.Israel whether it wants to admit it or not needs a two state solution. Those who say that Israel can wait things out for another 40 years are delusional.Israel can’t on one hand demand equitable treatment from the world and on the other hand demand special rights denied to everyone else. The United Kingdom is the only country I know were the official religion is the minority religion, and this is as historical relic.To achieve equality, Israel must forsake superiority. And, as a liberal I am troubled how nicely this dove tails with anti-affirmative action arguments. But there it is. Israel can’t demand that the world recognize it as unique island unaffected by international law and world opinion and at the same time demand that it not be hated.They need to keep the Jewish state in perpetuity stuff inside their own borders. It doesn’t play well on the world stage.
kroner // May 21, 2009 at 8:35 pm
As far as I can tell, our main priority in our policy toward Israel is reducing the animosity and violence. There’s also strategic interest in maintaining our ally in the region, but that objective is I think best served by furthering the first one. Now what is the best approach to forging peace? I’m not going to attempt to answer that, but what I can say is that the answer has very little to do with who deserves what, or what our moral imperative is, or whether it’s right to endorse a Jewish state. It comes down to the very practical problem of figuring out how to best please both sides given the situation, so that they stop killing each other. If that means giving one or both sides something that they don’t “deserve” then so be it.
barker13 // May 22, 2009 at 10:26 am
Re: RLHotchkiss; 6:03 PM –”I am not suggesting any particular policy position.”(*SMILE*) Nope. Apparently not. (*CHUCKLE*)”To achieve equality, Israel must forsake superiority.”Oooohh… Kaaaay…Ain’t gonna happen. Wouldn’t want it to happen. (Heck… I’m Episcopal and if and when the $hit really hits the fan and this country starts collapsing I want there to be an Israel to flee to!)(BTW… only HALF kidding with that last bit.) (*FROWN*)”…as a liberal…”Yep. (*CHUCKLE*) Got that.Anyway… I believe you were actually trying to discuss the matter in good faith and actually believe that platitudes and fuzzy warm feelings and good intentions will “find a way” to “solve” the issue.Me? I’m more of a policy guy… (*SHRUG*)We are in a sense talking past each other. We tried! Thanks for the conversation. (*WINK*)BILL
barker13 // May 22, 2009 at 10:27 am
Re: Kroner; 8:35 PM –Fair enough.You’re not wrong!(*WINK*)BILL
dragonlady // May 22, 2009 at 11:54 am
RLHotchKiss wrote: “The problem is that whole concept of a guaranteed Jewish state flies in the face of almost all American values.” Actually, it’s quite in line with Wilsonian national self-determination where people of a similiar ethnicity or culture can form their own state. How Judaism and their culture evolves is something for them to grapple with, but non-Jews in Israel receive equal treatment under the law and form their own political parties. Israeli Arabs are much freer in Israel than in any place in the Arab world. It is a fair question to ask that if the culture changes from an Jewish one to an Islamic one if Jews will really be treated equally.