New Nation Proposed in Oregon
I don't like those international analogies to describe the Middle East: "It'd be like Canada firing rockets at Buffalo, New York." But what I really don't like is the American refusal to understand why the Palestinians became pissed off back in 1947, and remain that way till this day. You get comments saying they must not be rational - they're religious fanatics. Now as an American, I have no right to criticize what essentially was a land grab. In fact as a human being, I can't criticize it. That's how the world was settled and populated. We took America from the Indians, so who am I to cast blame? "Might makes Right" really does explain the migrations of people on earth. It was a part of the process in getting to know our home planet. The only really irritating part is when people try and pretend it's something that it's not. By now, most land disputes have been settled and things are under some kind of rule of law. There are still some areas of contention like Kashmir between Pakistan and India, and whether Taiwan gets to stand alone against China, but in general this issue was settled 100s - if not 1000s - of years ago. So let's not make this a complete analogy. Let's make it a Proposal - a new idea that you can sign on to support if you want. Here goes:
The Native American Peoples have been treated poorly for hundreds of years. Indeed, their new museum in Washington talks about their Holocaust - the genocidal wiping out of millions of the Indians who were here when we arrived. What if we were to try and make that right and give them their own nation? Israel is around 8,000 square miles on the shores of the Mediterranean. Let's carve out a country in the Pacific Northwest. White people have only been here a few hundred years. Their claim is nowhere near the claim of Palistinians to living in the Middle East. Why not seize the land from here to the Coast and create a new country that includes Portland? Yes, it's true: Oregonians who own land in the area would be paying an unfair burden for the national pain inflicted on the Native American Indians, but those are the breaks. The Palestinians didn't cause the Holocaust in Germany, did they? I mean this isn't one of those FOX news things where a huge percentage of the American public believes the Palestinians were behind the Holocaust, is it?
Now, I have been in Portland for over 30 years. I have seen bitter battles over esplanades and trams. I have seen protests over whether or not to put in a McDonald's restaurant. Try and imagine how pissed off you'd be if someone seized your home. In our case, if we couldn't resist, we would probably move to other states or Eastern Oregon. Some might go to Seattle. But some might say, "Hell, no. I'm going to fight this," especially if they had nowhere else to turn. If that fight involved living in a refugee camp in poverty while the U.S. government gave the new state billions a year in weapons and aid that was used to bomb you while you sat in your hut, then you might even snap. You might even feel that the injustice was so great that the rage would drive you to do something crazy. Welcome to the world of the Palestinians - formerly from a place called Palestine that you can still see on the old maps. The biggest mistake Americans make about the Middle East is to assume that Palestinians are biologically different from other human beings. The truth is they are pissed off for the same reasons you would be pissed off. Make that the reasons you will be pissed off if this proposal goes through. As for the Palestinians: Announce to them if you want that it doesn't matter - that they will be ground down into submission, much as the Indians were. Might makes right, remember? But don't pretend this is something it is not. That's annoying. And meanwhile: Here's a map of the proposed new nation. If you like the idea, then start packing your things, and get out. It's moving day. Finally! A Homeland for the Indians! I sure hope you're okay with it.
posted by Bill McDonald @ 7:54 AM
27 comments
27 Comments:
I'm no expert on the subject, but I found this article from Joseph Farah interesting. I don't vouch for its accuracy, but as they say, there's always two sides to any story:
"Let me state this plainly and clearly: The Jews in Israel took no one's land.
When Mark Twain visited the Holy Land in the 19th century, he was greatly disappointed. He didn't see any people. He referred to it as a vast wasteland. The land we now know as Israel was practically deserted.
By the beginning of the 20th century, that began to change. Jews from all over the world began to return to their ancestral homeland – the Promised Land Moses and Joshua had conquered millennia earlier, Christians and Jews believe, on the direct orders of God.
That's not to say there wasn't always a strong Jewish presence in the land – particularly in and around Jerusalem. In 1854, according to a report in the New York Tribune, Jews constituted two-thirds of the population of that holy city. The source for that statistic? A journalist on assignment in the Middle East that year for the Tribune. His name was Karl Marx. Yes, that Karl Marx.
A travel guide to Palestine and Syria, published in 1906 by Karl Baedeker, illustrates the fact that, even when the Islamic Ottoman Empire ruled the region, the Muslim population in Jerusalem was minimal. The book estimates the total population of the city at 60,000, of whom 7,000 were Muslims, 13,000 were Christians and 40,000 were Jews.
"The number of Jews has greatly risen in the last few decades, in spite of the fact that they are forbidden to immigrate or to possess landed property," the book states.
Even though the Jews were persecuted, still they came to Jerusalem and represented the overwhelming majority of the population as early as 1906. And even though Muslims today claim Jerusalem as the third holiest site in Islam, when the city was under Islamic rule, they had little interest in it.
As the Jews came, drained the swamps and made the deserts bloom, something interesting began to happen. Arabs followed. I don't blame them. They had good reason to come. They came for jobs. They came for prosperity. They came for freedom. And they came in large numbers.
Winston Churchill observed in 1939: "So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population."
Then came 1948 and the great partition. The United Nations proposed the creation of two states in the region – one Jewish, one Arab. The Jews accepted it gratefully. The Arabs rejected it with a vengeance and declared war.
Arab leaders urged Arabs to leave the area so they would not be caught in the crossfire. They could return to their homes, they were told, after Israel was crushed and the Jews destroyed. It didn't work out that way. By most counts, several hundred thousand Arabs were displaced by this war – not by Israeli aggression, not by some Jewish real-estate grab, not by Israeli expansionism.
In fact, there are many historical records showing the Jews urged the Arabs to stay and live with them in peace. But, tragically, they chose to leave.
Fifty-four years later, the sons and daughters and grandsons and granddaughters of those refugees are all-too-often still living in refugee camps – not because of Israeli intransigence, but because they are misused as a political tool of the Arab powers.
Those poor unfortunates could be settled in a week by the rich Arab oil states that control 99.9 percent of the Middle East landmass, but they are kept as virtual prisoners, filled with misplaced hatred for Jews and armed as suicide martyrs by the Arab power brokers.
This is the modern real history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. At no time did the Jews uproot Arab families from their homes. When there were title deeds to be purchased, they bought them at inflated prices. When there were not, they worked the land so they could have a place to live without the persecution they faced throughout the world.
It's a great big lie that the Israelis displaced anyone – one of a series of lies and myths that have the world on the verge of committing yet another great injustice to the Jews."
Bill, your modest proposal has some merit, although I think I might move to the State of Jefferson. Better for certain crops, too.
Sorry I can’t get several pages on this idea from Joe Farah’s writings, but my tolerance for hate related opinions is used up for the day.
Look at an old map. See the country of Palestine? What happened to it? This quote is spin. I have seen the refugee camps myself. If there was nobody affected why did the Arabs immediately declare war?
By the way, there were much less white people here 100 years ago too, so I'm taking this as a Yes vote for giving Portland and the surrounding area up to form a new nation for the Indians.
Why did the Arabs immediately declare war? Anti-semitism perhaps?
Like I said, I'm no expert. But Farah does make a few valid points. Most peoples' perception is that all Jews lived in Europe and that the UN just instantly transported them all to an area that was occupied 100% by Palestinians.
Ahh, I wondered how soon it would be till the anti-semitism phrase would come up. At least no one said everyone in the new Jewish state would be welcomed with flowers as liberators.
Maybe the people in my proposall will rise up against the new Indian nation because they're anti-Indian, but I doubt it. I tend to think it will be because they don't appreciate losing their land.
The point is often made that these tribes pf the Middle East have been fighting for thousands of years. If that's true, it sure sounds like somebody was living somewhere. And for a lot longer than white people have been here. My guess is that had grown quite fond of the place. I'll go further. Maybe - after living there all those thousands of years - they considered it home.
So, are you going to try to tell me that Arabs in the Middle East are NOT Anti-Semites? I guess the Nazis weren't either in Bill-land. I'll have whatever you're smoking ;)
"Maybe - after living there all those thousands of years - they considered it home." Of course they did, but are you referring to the Arabs or the Jews?
Like was pointed out above, Jews were living in that region long before Israel was formed in 1947-48. But they were living as an oppressed majority.
It sounds like we have a couple of strong "Yes" votes for forming a nation here for the Indians. I'll let you know when we have enough, so you can start packing and move out.
The fundamental tragedy of Palestine is that the forces of choosing sides and squaring off keep winning. If as much effort were put into accepting reality and trying to figure out how to do the best we can (by we, I mean humanity) as gets put into ignoring whichever parts of reality our chosen side doesn't happen to like, it would still be a difficult, but possibly solvable, problem.
Palestine was neither a country nor a vast unpopulated tract of land prior to 1948. As the mid-century approached Palestine was a former territory of the disintegrated Ottoman empire under British administration as chartered by the League of Nations.
Home takes many forms.
Oh boy, anonymous, you have really touched a nerve here. Where and how do I begin?
People can look at the situation in Palestine with an appeal to the heart, as my brother Bill did by trying to picture us as the displaced ones (my sister says switch the words Palestine and Israel in the latest actions you're discussing and see how you reassess your support). Or you can use an appeal to the head as anonymous did, or rather tried to do. If you're going to appeal to the head, use facts please. Joseph Farah is guilty of revisionist history, as are so many defenders of the creation of the state of Israel. If you want to get more of the backstory, start by Googling "Balfour Declaration" and read the text of it. Here, I'll get it for you, it's short:
November 2nd, 1917
Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours sincerely,
Arthur James Balfour [British Foreign Secretary]
This declaration was given before the British army even occupied Palestine. It was not a promise given from sentimental motives, but with the aim of winning the sympathy and support of Jews everywhere for Britain’s war effort. It, along with the Sykes-Picot Agreement in 1916 (Google that too, it divides Arab territories between Britain and France) was concluded secretly after the British had already promised to support Arab independence in the region in return for Arab help in fighting the Turks (see Hussein-McMahon Correspondence, which took place from July 1915 to March 1916 between the Sherif Hussein of Mecca on behalf of the Arabs and Sir Henry McMahon, British High Commissioner in Egypt on behalf of the British Government). When the Arabs found out about these secret promises to the Jews, the British renewed their assurances of Arab independence. That was the start of the betrayal of the Arabs in Palestine by the Great Powers.
But back to the Balfour Declaration, note that it involves no more than a “national home” in Palestine, not the turning of Palestine into a “national home.” At the time, in 1918, according to a government survey of Palestine, Arabs numbered 644,000 (92% of the population) while Jews numbered only 56,000 (8% of the total). The undertakings in the declaration of, on the one hand, the establishment of a “national home” for Jews in Palestine while, on the other hand, safeguarding the rights of the existing non-Jewish majority already in Palestine are manifestly irreconcilable, as the British came to realize to their regret.
As for Jewish immigration and land purchase during the British Mandate (1920-1948) you may want to read up a bit more on that for yourself before accepting Mr. Farrah’s version of events.
Everything during that period had first to be cleared through the Zionist Commission. The British Administrator, General Sir Louis Bols, complained about the partiality of this arrangement and stated plainly that the Zionists, while officially claiming nothing more than a “national home”, would be satisfied with nothing less than a Jewish state and all that it politically implies. In 1921, a member of the Zionist Commission of Palestine, Dr. Eder, said “There can be only one national home in Palestine and that a Jewish one, and no equality in the partnership between Jews and Arabs, but a Jewish preponderance as soon as the numbers of the race [sic] are sufficiently increased.”
Against these Zionist aspirations, the British kept issuing statements of policy; first, that it had never been intended that “Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English” [The Churchill Memorandum, June 1922]; second, that Britain was responsible for safeguarding the rights of non-Jewish communities and acknowledged them as of equal importance to those of the Jews [The Passfield Memorandum, 1929]; and third, the White Paper of 1939 which became known as the MacDonald Memorandum and which I recommend you read in its entirety.
This paper was rejected and condemned outright by the Zionists, who launched attacks against British personnel and installations as a means of revoking the 1939 White Paper.
Many acts of terrorism were committed during this time by Jewish paramilitary groups (the Hagana, the Irgun and the Stern gang), culminating in the July 22, 1946 bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, in which the Government Secretariat was housed, resulting in the death of about 100 Government officials, British, Arab and Jewish. (The leader of the Irgun was Menachim Begin, who went on to be a prime minister of Israel.).
Following WWII and the Holocaust, pressure mounted to give the Jews a homeland, albeit at the expense of the non-involved Palestinians. The partition plan submitted in August 1947 to the UN violated the provisions of the UN Charter, which gives a people the right to decide their own destiny. By denying the Palestine Arabs, who formed a clear two-thirds majority of the country, the right to decide their own destiny, the United Nations violated its own charter. Nevertheless, due to intense Jewish pressure worldwide, with methods of coercion described by then-Defense Secretary James Forrestal as bordering closely on scandal, the UN adopted the partition plan. It recommended what should be done but not how. Violence erupted all over the region and the UN was alarmed to the point of possibly revoking or at least postponing the partition.
To prevent any postponement of the establishment of the Jewish state, the Zionists decided to take the law into their own hands and to confront the UN with a fait accompli. Thus began their campaign to eject the Arab inhabitants from their lands through fear, in the form of attacks launched by Hagana, Irgun and the Stern Gang. The incident that really accelerated the panic flight of the Arab inhabitants was the massacre of 250 men, women and children at the village of Deir Yasin. You probably have never heard of it, but Menachem Begin himself wrote that there would not have been a state of Israel without the “victory” of Deir Yasin. He was the leader of the attack, by the way, so don’t tell me about Yassir Arafat being a terrorist. So even before the official creation of the state of Israel, before the British left on May 14, 1948, the Zionists had started a war on the Palestine Arabs. During this six-month period, some 400,000 Palestinian Arabs were driven out of their homes and became refugees. In other words, more than half the Arabs who became refugees had been expelled or forced to flee before May 15, 1948.
There’s more, a lot more, and we ought to be better informed on it. It explains a lot about why the Palestinians may harbor some resentment against Israel, and against the US for backing it. The Israeli-Palestinian issue is the most important one facing American foreign policy today. It should be the key topic in our “war on terror” yet we continue to ignore it until it flares up again, as we are seeing this week. Unfortunately the United States, the only country that can do anything with Israel, continues to give it unwavering and unquestioning support, even when it violates international law (unlawful attacks on other countries, unlawful arrest and detention of Palestinian officials, collective punishment of the Palestinian and now the Lebanese peoples, targeted assassinations, attacks on civilian centers and infrastructure, etc.) and defies UN resolutions, especially with its ongoing and totally illegal occupation of Palestinian lands.
Anyway, anonymous, as with all things, consider the source and check it out for yourself. As for Mr. Farah and the “sources” he cites, I can’t really get worked up about Mark Twain’s disappointment, I think the Palestinians have a lot more to be disappointed about.
I'm going to count that last one as a vote against carving a new nation out of Portland and the surrounding land. Apparently such a move can not be accomplished without really hurting the Oregonians who live here. I hereby withdraw the proposal.
Funny, I thought Arabs were all over Palestine during the Ottoman Empire. There's a map created by T.E. Lawrence (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7e/Lawrence_map800.jpg) that shows his 1918 proposal for the boundaries of Palestine. The Ottomans maintained a railway that ran from Damascus (in what is now Syria) to Medina (in what is now Saudi Arabia). The Ottomans ruled Jerusalem until 1917 when it was captured by the British. Haifa is several hundred years old. Tel Aviv grew out of the nearby Jaffa. With the exception of Jerusalem, none of those cities had more han about 20,000 inhabitants at the turn of the last century; like most cities they've seen a lot of growth since 1900. It's no wonder that Mark Twain ran into hardly anyone on his tour 100+ years ago; you could have toured through much of what has become the the urbanized Western US at the same time and not seen a soul.
Great idea, Bill, but I'm against it if it's bloodless. Can you work in some atrocities against local politicians? Thanks.
Bill's sister, like I said, I'm no expert. Farah's article cites population information that is completely contrary to what you cite. You state the region's population was 92% Arabic in 1918, Farah states it was about 70% Jew, 20% Christian, and 10% Muslim. I don't know for certain who is right, and I strongly suspect that you don't either.
anonymous, where do you think all of the Palestinian refugees in other countries came from if they didn't leave Palestine? Are you suggesting that they just bred like rabbits or something once they'd evacuated to Jordan, Lebanon, and elsewhere?
If, as you say, Jerusalem wasn't of much importance to the Muslims, why do you think they kept fighting the Crusaders over it 1,000 years ago? Why do you think they care about it now? Is it your opinion that they're simply anti-Israel?
Your argument is just full of logical and historical holes.
I'll repeat what I wrote before: As a child growing up in the Middle East I saw Palestinian refugee camps. Saying these people don't exist sounds as crazy as the Iranian president talking about the Holocaust.
I would also add that I completely understand the Jewish People's desire for a homeland. If I had been through what they went through, I would be willing to do just about anything to get one, as well. The dangerous part is spinning this as though the Palestinians weren't screwed over in the deal, and that Israel is the victim. That leads to the talk I've heard recently about how irrational and fanatical the Palestinians are. If you don't understand why they have a right to be upset, next thing you know you are justifying wiping vast numbers of them out. Is that what you want? It worked in America versus the Indians.
These are fresh wounds. My hope is that several generations now, the immediate connections to being driven out of a land - the stories from a grandfather, etc...- will begin to fade and a resolution will occur. This week that appears to be wishful thinking, for sure.
Make that several generations FROM now. Never edit your comment while you're on the phone.
People who lived through the partition of Palestine as children are only in their 60s now. People who lived through the development of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza are a lot younger than that. I think the stories will be around a long time.
Southerners are still bitching about the Civil War and the dirty Yankees almost 150 years on. And didn't the war in Kosovo have a subtext of revenge for how the Ottomans humiliated the Serbs in the fourteenth century? The Muslim world is still kind of touchy about people like Bush using the word "crusade" for some reason that's probably lost in history.'
This stuff never ends.
That's the wishful thinking part.
darrelplant, I didn't argue that Jerusalem wasn't important to Palestinians, Farah did. I only tossed out a contrary opinion for discussion. I simply believe that with some issues, there are no absolutes
Anonymous, I congratulate you on your realization that we don't know what we're talking about. That's where primary sources come in. Read a lot, read a lot of different sources, and then decide for yourself. Informed discussion is wonderful.
Mr. Farrah, as you've also seemed to realize, is not an informed source, or else if he is, he's hiding it well.
While we're talking about who owns Palestine: Westerners think Jews are entitled to Palestine because of their ancient Biblical connection with it. Few people are aware how brief this connection was, what limited area it had, and how irrelevant it is to present-day ownership of that land.
The United Kingdom of Israel under the three Jewish kings (Saul, David, and Solomon) lasted from 1020 to 922 B.C. We're talking about a 100-year reign 3,000 years ago, but no one seems to find that claim ridiculous or even a stretch, whereas people dispossessed of their land during our lifetimes are told to get over it and move on.
Which brings me to that part in Farah's piece where he says the poor Palestinian refugees could be settled in a week by neighboring Arab states if they really wanted to.
Reality check: Think Katrina. Here in the United States, one of the richest countries on the planet, and with more than 3.5 million square miles of land, we have not been able to absorb our own citizens fleeing from the Gulf Coast.
They number anywhere from 350,000 to half a million people needing shelter, jobs and other services. Cities where large groups of evacuees have re-settled are hearing growing complaints from both the evacuees and the local populations.
Back in 1948, Palestine Arab refugees numbered some 750,000. Neighboring Arab lands would be Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq, with a total land mass among them of just over 650,000 square miles, mostly barren desert.
Those countries then and now are certainly nowhere near as well off as we are in these United States, and huge refugee populations are just as much a strain on their economies and infrastructures as we are finding the Katrina folks to be. I wonder if sixty years from now people will look back and say about us that we could have helped these Katrina people “if we'd really wanted to.”
And despite all the hardship and uncertainty, many Katrina evacuees still plan to go back where they came from because "that's home". Why should the Palestinians be any different?
P.S. Before we point fingers at others for not lifting the lamp beside the golden door, I don't remember the U.S. offering the Jews a national home here with us back in 1948.
P.P.S. And speaking of “national homes”, when Zionism began in the late 1800s under Theodor Herzl, the Zionists had not set their eyes exclusively on Palestine. Early attempts had been made by them to obtain Cyprus or the Sinai Peninsula from the British. East Africa and Argentina had also been considered as a “Home.” It was only when the “Palestine Faction” won in the Zionist Congress held in 1904, after Herzl’s death, that Zionist demands concentrated on Palestine. So much for the Promised Land thing.
You are correct in that the "history" of the region depends upon who the historian is. I think the point Farah was making is that the Jews have every bit as much right to that land as the Palestinians. And it was the British that held a mandate on the territory before abdicating it to the UN to create "Israel". According to Joseph Katz, "Palestine" has never been the name of a nation or state. It is a geographical term, used to designate the region at those times in history when there is no nation or state there.
The word itself derives from "Peleshet", a name that appears frequently in the Bible and has come into English as "Philistine". The Philistines were mediterranean people originating from Asia Minor and Greek localities. They reached the southern coast of Israel in several waves. One group arrived in the pre-patriarchal period and settled south of Beersheba in Gerar where they came into conflict with Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael. Another group, coming from Crete after being repulsed from an attempted invasion of Egypt by Rameses III in 1194 BCE, seized the southern coastal area, where they founded five settlements (Gaza, Ascalon, Ashdod, Ekron and Gat). In the Persian and Greek periods, foreign settlers - chiefly from the Mediterranean islands - overran the Philistine districts. From the time of Herodotus, Greeks called the eastern coast of the Mediterranean "Syria Palaestina".
The Philistines were not Arabs nor even Semites, they were most closely related to the Greeks. They did not speak Arabic. They had no connection, ethnic, linguistic or historical with Arabia or Arabs. The name "Falastin" that Arabs today use for "Palestine" is not an Arabic name. It is the Arab pronunciation of the Greco-Roman "Palastina"; which is derived from the Plesheth, (root palash) was a general term meaning rolling or migratory. This referred to the Philistine's invasion and conquest of the coast from the sea.
The use of the term "Palestinian" for an Arab ethnic group is a modern political creation which has no basis in fact - and had never had any international or academic credibility before 1967.
Anonymous could have saved some space here if he/she had just pointed us to http://www.eretzyisroel.org/
~jkatz/meaning.html where his description (word for word) is located. Or at least give more credit than a passing reference to the author when you copy this much of his work.
I'm going to repeat my original point because I see more and more agreement here: Palestinians are not being irrational fanatics. They exist, and they lost big in this deal. Whether or not you agree with how they reacted, it is completely understandable and human to be enraged when stuff like this happens to your People. I'll never understand how anyone can kill others just to make a symbolic point. I lost my best friend in that kind of thing, and I hate it. But it also got me thinking a long time ago about this sort of problem, and I know one thing for sure: When one side's behavior is attributed to some kind of inferior worth or sub-human tendencies, it's a short path to claiming they should be wiped out. That kind of talk is dangerous and it starts with the spin I'm hearing now. This isn't Good versus Evil. This is a Might makes Right situation and pretending it isn't leads to even more trouble than we're already in.
You'd feel pretty upset too if we drove you out of your home to make a nation for the Indians here in the Portland area.
laurelhurstdad, I properly referenced the author and merely tried to make it "flow" to the reader. The point was simply to point out an alternative point of view, and it would have been a pointless waste of time to reiterate every fact by re-typing it from memory. Sorry, I meant no deception. Next time I'll put everything in "quotes".
I think there should be some leeway here. I'm glad you wrote in and it's not like you're profiting from this.
I have pictures on this blog that i didn't take, but my peeps till me it's okay because it's fair use, not for profit. As for the stuff I write, that's all mine, and I'd never rip off a joke without saying where it's from, but that's my profession and it'd be wrong.
Hi! Just want to say what a nice site. Bye, see you soon.
»
Post a Comment
<< Home