Wolfgang,

how best to explain this? I suppose first off, I'm looking (quite open-endedly, I admit) at what kind of solutions can be found for the Palestine crisis. At first it all seemed quite clear-cut: the Jews were dispersed by the Romans after their revolt, they had a (very) historical connection to the land, and so it made sense for them one day to return to it and call it home again. They set up a democratic state and the rest is history.

But then I found there were inconsistencies in that story. As you put it "Who has the right to return in your eyes? The evicted/fleeing or also their offspring. For how many generations is there a right to return?" You seem to be saying (am I correct?) that after so many generations a people can't realistically expect to return to their one-time homeland, whatever the reasons for their original exodus. But isn't that exactly the case of the Jews, then? If their exodus began with the Romans back in 79AD, about 67 generations have passed (30 years to a generation) since then. This is a typical example of what I am perplexed by. So it's quite natural that the descendants of Jews who have been in exile for 67 generations to be able to come back and settle there, but not for Palestinians who've been in exile for a comparatively mere generation or two at most.

Doesn't this strike you as at least logically, if not morally, inconsistent?

I am aware that a small number of Jews were still living in Palestine, but the 'Right of Return' is what I am talking about here.

To answer your other main question - no, I am not saying I would prefer if the State of Israel did not exist. I am not a Neturei Karta etc.,! Sorry if I am giving that impression, but there are many logical inconsistencies. Teribus has said Golda Meir was right in saying there was no such thing as a Palestinian people. Well I suppose we have to have some name to connote the people who lived / live in Palestine. No, it is true they were not a nation, as I have said. But Golda Meir was trying to propagate the notion that this was a barren wilderness empty of people until the zionists came along to set up their state. If this were so, who could argue with them squatting empty land? But of course it's not true. The area was full of people - call them Palestinians or Martians or whatever you want - and it these people who were obliged to give up their houses and farms and homes for a whole wave of refugees that the League of Nations decided to park on top of them. (sorry about that, BBruce, the term UN just came to hand more easily, but of course you are right, it was in fact the forerunner to the UN).

Now of course what happened to the Jews was wrong (I don't think anyone is disputing that point) but surely that doesn't mean that two wrongs somehow make a right, and the human rights of the people living in Palestine at the time can be simply set aside for another groups. If that were so, it would imply that Palestinians (for want of a better word) are somehow further down the chain of evolution, and therefore less entitled to human rights. In other words, social Darwinism.

So from the outset there were logical and moral probelms with the creation of a zionist Israeli state. Personally I think the League of Nations wanted a simple one-size-fits all solution that didn't require too much thought or effort. The crisis we have today is partially the result of their ham-fisted attempt at state-making.

But that's not the whole story either. Zionism, is of course first and foremost, nationalism. Now there's nothing much wrong in being proud of your country and being nationalistic and wanting the best for your country. But, as we know from the examples of e.g nazi Germany and jingoistic Britain, rampant nationalism can lead to seeing all other peoples and nations as mere 'tools' or 'objects' or a means to an end. I believe this is what happened in the case of zionism, hence Ben Gurion's etc., comments. So the zionists wanted an ethnically and religiously pure state and were willing to trample the rights of anyone who got in the way of that. The zionists razed hundreds of villages inhabited by Palestinians (Martians, whatever....;-} ) and I have already mentioned massacres like Deir Yassin. They took over Palestinain homes, farms, businesses and so on. I don't think, as Dinavan pointed out, that this was exactly what the League of Nations had in mind. It's one thing to arrive as refugees, quite another to shove out the current population in order to create a homogenous ethnically pure state.

BTW - BBruce, yes, of course I think that any Jews expelled from Arab countries should be able to return to their homes etc., if they wish.

The arabs are not above blame either. A quick glance round shows most arab countries to be similar theocracies to Israel. But my point was, and still is, they do not claim to be anything else (Iran is even called the Islamic Republic of Iran) whereas Israel presents itself as a secular, western style democracy. But if it is a Jewish state that does not permit its overall Jewishness to be diluted, it is not entitled to make such a claim any more than Saudi Arabia is. That was my point when I said such a line of logic would in fact justify a Celtic-catholic Ireland or an aryan Germany.

Nor is it a democracy that protects all the rights of its citizens, whatever its constitution might claim. I hardly need remind you that the US constitution began "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal..." while at the same time slavery was flourishing (Jefferson had slaves himself). What the constitution hid, was that 'all WHITE men' are created equal. In the same way, I think we can understand the Israeli constitution as actually guaranteeing the rights only of Jewish Israelis. Discrimination abounds. Here's just one small example: you cannot repair your house in Israel without planning permission. If you are an 'arab Israeli' you cannot, for practical purposes, get planning permission. Thus, you can never repair your house and eventually it falls into disrepair in which you must continue to live. If you repair it without permission, you are evicted, plain and simple. Now Jewish Israelis, on the other hand, have no such difficulty. Moreover, if an arab sells his house to a Jewish Israeli, planning permission is automatically granted if requested. (And I'm not talking about Palestinians in the West bank, I'm talking about arab citizens of Israel).

Now, honestly, does this sound like a healthy democracy to you? To quote Hamlet "something is rotten in the state of Denmark"

So, I'm divided. On the one hand I would like to see a Palestinian state in the West Bank where they would be free to pursue theirn interests. At the end of the day, a few hard men aside, most people - arabs, too - just want to get on with their lives, go to their jobs, tend their gardens and raise their kids. My reservations are that:

. Israel has strangled the economic and cultural life of the Palestinian West Bank, and there is no guarantee it would not continue to do so.
. Israel has already colonised large swathes of the West Bank and criss-crossed it with roads Palestinians are not permitted to use. This would make it very difficult for any burgeoning state, and Israel is unlikely to withdraw its colonies unless put under severe international pressure.
. It still would not address the problem of discrimination faced by arab citizens of Israel, leaving them only with the choice of emigration to the West Bank. If anyone thinks this is good enough, then they ought to consider who it would look if the same thing happened in Europe or the States to Jews. Rightly, it wouldn't be tolerated. I hope we can also come to realise Palestinians are not some lesser life form down the food chain.
.Palestine would need huge investment, aid and infrastructure, being landlocked. Would it get it?

So, that leaves me with McGrath of Harlow's idea: create a larger State of Israel (which the zionists at any rate would be happy with) and put it under strong international pressure to live up to the spirit of its own constitution and ensure equal rights for all. It would be an Israel witha bigger landmass and more resources (such as badly needed water) but would have to be a state acceptable to all those who lived in it. Christians, Jews and Muslims all managed to share Jerusalem for ages more-or-less peacefully, and that is the way it should be with the three main monotheisms. The aim would be to truly enforce the secular nature of the state so no ethinc group or religion dominated. Muslims could have their mosques, Jews their synangogues and so on. Can it be done?

I am forced to admit that this may remain a dream and that an endless cycle of violenec is far more likely. It might just result in Israel annexing the land but continuing with its stste the way it is at present. If Israel continues with its policy of colonising the West Bank and dsicriminating against some of its own citizens, endless tit-for-tat violence (which leaves far more Palestinians than Israelis dead, IMO) is the legacy it will leave to its children and grandchildren.

Surely we are supposed to have moved on from all that after two of the worst world wars in history last century?

If the above idea were accomplished, we could then turn to the arab states and say 'look, this is a shining example of what we mean in the West by the pluralist multi-cultural society we so applaud. See? You have nothing to fear living together". The arab countries may not go for it, but at least they could not be so cynical.


Teribus: sorry, my post went on a bit as usual, so I'll have to get back to some of your points later. Very briefly, whatever about there not being a Palestinian nation / national identity back in 1948, there certainly is one now, as a result of the treatment they've received from zionist Israelis. And as I already observed, surely human rights and dignity do not depend on having developed a sense of national identity? ?

As for there being no such country as Palestine on the map - there was no such country as Israel on the map either until a few strokes of the pen brought it into being. It had already expanded BEYOND its mandated borders by 1947.