Gaza and the Liberal Conscience: Why We Cannot be Confused by History (Part I)


By Farish A. Noor

The liberal conscience is a rather peculiar thing. Right now, as Gaza is being bombed to oblivion yet again, liberals the world over are wrestling with their own consciences instead. Faced with the reality of a colonial state that is bent on grabbing more land for itself and which has systematically aided and abetted the creation of illegal settlements all over the occupied territories, liberals are still unsure of what to do, what to say and what stand to take.

We see this happening around us all the time. In cyberspace one encounters the response of the liberals time and again: They say and write things like “Yes, we know that what the Israelis are doing is wrong, but doesn’t Hamas have rockets too?” or “Yes we know that Palestinians have been killed but haven’t Israelis too?” or “Yes, we know that Israel is expanding its territory more and more, but didn’t Israel exist in the past and haven’t the Israelis the right to rebuild their nation?”

Much of this confusion stems from a skewered and manipulated understanding of history and an misunderstanding about what history can and should do for you. So in an attempt to assuage the tender liberal conscience and to show just why these liberals need to take a stand now, let us revisit the history of the region and more importantly understand what the discourse of history is all about.

History is a record of facts and all the discourse of history does and can do is remind us of the paths that we have taken and the actions that have brought us to where we are today. A discourse that is forever recounted after the fact, history does not have the agency to compel, rationalise or justify our actions in the immediate present. I emphasise this for the simple reason that we tend to assume a continuity of historical agency over time and a continuity of responsibilities over time that is simply not there: A German child born today is simply not responsible for the crimes of Hitler and the Nazis of the past, and for no reason can any young German citizen today be held accountable for the past of his/her country; any more than a young Brit is responsible for the British Empire.

Yet Israeli expansionism – which is reality has been nothing more than systematic colonisation – has been justified precisely on the grounds of such historical continuity, as if an Israeli born today is entitled to enjoy the rights and entitlements of Jews who lived thousands of years ago.

Now one does not and cannot deny the historical existence of the historical Jewish kingdom of King Solomon and David. Nor would one want to deny the existence of the kingdom, for that would amount to a denial and erasure of history. But there has to be a clear distinction between the historical kingdom of Solomon and David and the present state of Israel that came into being in 1948. The historical kingdom of Solomon and David existed at a time when the very notion of the nation-state did not even materialise yet; while Israel is a modern nation-state that was created in the wake of World War Two, and which has been seen and cast by many as a result of Europe’s moral debt to the Jews who were annihilated by the Nazis and Fascists in the 1930s and 1940s.

This does not however alter the fact that the creation of Israel occasioned a terrible moral rupture among the Palestinians who were there and the fact that since its creation in 1948 the modern state of Israel has behaved in a manner no different from the colonial states of Europe in relation to its Arab neighbours and the people of Palestine in particular. Israel’s record of colonising the lands of the Palestinians is a modern fact in the here-and-now, and not a historical fact residing in the ancient past. It is a living reality in the present and it has led to the brutal conduct of its troops in their own colonising efforts we see today.

To defend the modern colonising state of Israel on historical grounds would therefore be akin to saying that just because the Roman Empire existed then Italy today has the right to resume her former glory and conquer half of Europe and Africa. It would be like saying that just because the British and French empires existed then Britain and France also possess some historical right to expand their boundaries again.

Yet this fallacy has yet to be debunked for the rot that it really is. Should the extreme right-wing Zionist fundamentalists who currently run the Israeli modern state get their way, then their long term aim would be to re-create in modern times what was an archaic historical kingdom whose borders extend all the way into Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Arabia. The Liberal conscience that may have been persuaded by the bogus historical claims of Zionist propagandists and apologists should therefore see this for what it is: nothing more than a longing and justification for Empire and empire-building at its crudest and rawest form.

It is also the duty of the historian to remind all of us that we are not and should not be captives to history and the abuse of the discourse of history. The historical existence of the kingdom of Solomon has never been a matter of contention, for it is not the historical kingdom of Solomon and David that is sending jet fighters to bomb Palestinian schools and hospitals, sending tanks into the occupied territories and sending bulldozers to destroy Palestinian homes. These atrocities are being committed by the government of the modern colonial state of Israel, and it is the modern colonial state of Israel that deserves to be condemned for its colonial ambitions today.

End of part I.

  1. #1 by pulau_sibu on Tuesday, 13 January 2009 - 9:43 am

    Looking at the history, from middle-east to europe, it was always the strong one ate the weak one. everyone had a period of strong history. i am not sure what would europe be like after 50 years. the map keeps changing.

    about gaza, why countries like jordan and egypt do not want to open up the border? what is inside the islamic world? in addition to the fact that different fractions of muslims are killing each other, what is hidden there?

  2. #2 by Lee Wang Yen on Tuesday, 13 January 2009 - 10:24 am

    Suppose we accept Noor’s contention that the Isreali people today have no right to the land of Israel even though the are the descendants of the ancient Israelites.

    Now, do the Palestinians have the right to the land according to his principle?

    Who are the Palestinians? This is a controversial issue.

    For the sake of argument, let’s suppose for the moment that the Palestinians are the descendants of the ancient aboriginal inhabitants (Canaanites?) of the land. But why can’t we use Noor’s principle that the descendants of a particular historical people have no right to the land of their ancestors to argue that the Palestinians have no right to the land? Does this principle only apply to the Israelis?

  3. #3 by Lee Wang Yen on Tuesday, 13 January 2009 - 10:25 am

    oops… ‘apply only to the …’

  4. #4 by Bigjoe on Tuesday, 13 January 2009 - 10:30 am

    Well, if you want to say forget the past, you can’t choose and select only what you want. The reality is a state of Israel exist and denying the right to exist don’t work for all practical purposes. Sure they are untrustworthy ass-holes but who is out there and is it even smart for everyone else to get into their mess only they themselves can fix?

  5. #5 by ablastine on Tuesday, 13 January 2009 - 10:34 am

    Why all this emphasis on Gaza everyday. Almost every woman has been or are being gang raped everyday in Congo by their countrymen who have become animals and nobody thought it worthy of mentioned. 9 gunmen from probably Pakistan killed over hundred innocent and was there a mention here? I was just wondering after reading this confusing passage, if Israel is really that into colonising other country why is it still so tiny. It won the war against the United Arab Nations and why did it confine itself only in the land designated. Shouldn’t it claim more land? How sure is the writer that the land is given by God to the Palestinian so much so that Israel presence become a colonisation. How come God did not give land ot Israel when the Jews number in the millions. Since the Arab nations are so rich from their petro dollar, did they lift a finger to help the Palestinians? Israel excuse or reason for going into Gaza was to stop the rocket attacks launched from Gaza by Hamas. So if Hamas does not want Israel incursion all it needed to do was to stop those damn rocket attack. Why didn’t that band of terrorists do that? Instead they allow their children and civilian die by having rockets hidden in densely populated area. No I think it takes two to clap. Blaming Israel alone for all this is simply not fair.

  6. #6 by OrangRojak on Tuesday, 13 January 2009 - 10:38 am

    Well said Farish – except for the part about liberals. Have you been visiting the US again? Liberals don’t control armies, nor do they control states, mostly. Liberals regret the massive slaughter while wondering what to do. As a liberal, you can contribute to the humanitarian missions, write letters to your acquiescent, soliciting, or contributing government and publicly decry what’s happening, but then what?

    If you see someone copying and pasting apologies for slaughter, you’ve made a categorical error in describing them as ‘liberal’. ‘Liberal’ is not the same thing as the gonzo-style photographs of ‘Freedom’ spray-painted onto the side of American missiles. The apologists for what’s happening in Gaza are not liberals – as much as I hate categorisation, they appear to me to be closer in spirit to a dictionary definition of fascist.

    Neither side will recruit ‘liberals’ into a war between apologists for fundamentalism by ranting at them. Liberals are on the side of people who don’t know why they’re dying. We don’t why they’re dying either, and we also don’t know how to stop the deaths. If you have a practical suggestion, I’d be grateful if you’d publish it.

  7. #7 by Lee Wang Yen on Tuesday, 13 January 2009 - 10:40 am

    If the return of the diaspora Jews to their ancestors’ homeland is considered colonialism, what about the claim of the Palestinians to that piece of land?

    If these Palestinians are mostly Arabs from neighbouring countries, what should we make of their claim to the land?

    Can you show that the Palestinians are the descendants of the aboriginal inhabitants of the land?

    Even if we can show that they are. Are we saying that all the lands on this earth should be returned to the aboriginal inhabitants and all the immigrants should return to the lands of their ancestors where they were the aboriginal inhabitants? Are we saying that Malays should return to Indonesia, Yunnan etc, Chinese to China, Indians to India, etc, and thus return the land of Malaysia to the orang asli in East and West Malaysia?

  8. #8 by Lee Wang Yen on Tuesday, 13 January 2009 - 10:41 am

    oops… ‘…though THEY are…’

  9. #9 by Lee Wang Yen on Tuesday, 13 January 2009 - 10:42 am

    If the return of the diaspora Jews to their ancestors’ homeland is considered colonialism, what about the claim of the Palestinians to that piece of land?

    If these Palestinians are mostly Arabs from neighbouring countries, what should we make of their claim to the land?

    Can you show that the Palestinians are the descendants of the aboriginal inhabitants of the land?

    Even if we can show that they are. Are we saying that all the lands on this earth should be returned to the aboriginal inhabitants and all the immigrants should return to the lands of their ancestors where they were the aboriginal inhabitants?

  10. #10 by Lee Wang Yen on Tuesday, 13 January 2009 - 10:44 am

    Are we saying that most people in Malaysia should return to their ancestors’ lands and thus return the land of Malaysia to the orang asli in East and West Malaysia?

  11. #11 by computation on Tuesday, 13 January 2009 - 10:50 am

    This “essay” by Farish A Noor
    is thoroughly disgusting.
    It seems to me to be extremely skewed
    with pre judgement already made that
    whatever the israelis do is wrong.

    Farish clearly omits in this part of his so called
    essay the essential fact that Hamas
    did not want to extend the cease fire. Not only
    that but throughout the cease fire Hamas
    was firing rockets into israel in deliberate provocation
    despite the cease fire.

    Consider that Hamas does not keep its word
    and play fair by abiding by the rules of the cease fire
    and that they were the ones who did not want
    to extend the ceasefire already leaves me with
    no sympathy for them.

    A very twisted outlook makes one lose his credibility.
    If the palestinian people are foolish enough to vote in
    Hamas they should suffer for it. They should choose
    their government wisely. It was not israel which provoked
    them it was the other way round. The israelis maintain
    embargos on palestine to prevent the smuggling of weaponry
    into it. Consider then that Eygyt tacitly allows tunnels to
    be built from their side of the border and you will be confronted
    with this hideous two faced behaviour of the arabs.

    Farish says that the israelis are bent on colonising territories.
    I wonder why then after the six day war when the arab
    armies were so thoroughly routed and territories taken from
    them that israel returned them for the sake of peace.

    Farish is simplistic in his veiws. some territories are strategic from
    a military point of view as buffer zones.
    Witness how more than 5 arab countries were
    willing to gang up on one tiny country and you will understand
    why israel does not trust its arab neighbours.
    5 to 1 is bullying by any standards.

    Would the israelis ever trust the arabs to live in peace with them?
    i highly doubt it.
    if i were an arab i wouldn’t even trust other arabs.
    you only have to read about how when the eygptian
    air force was completely destroyed on day one of the six day war
    how the egyptians deceived jordan into entering the
    war claiming that the egyptians were routing the israelis.
    you only have to look at how ruthless and deceitful the
    arabs are to their allies to get a sense of the
    siege mentality the israelis have.

    i have never heard an israeli leader state their aim to wipe
    out any arab nation. on the other hand the hatred
    the supposedly islamic countries have for israel is
    openly spewed with threats and their desire to wipe ot israel
    bandied about freely.

    Farish conveniently says it is wrong to disregard
    “history continuity” to justify israels expansionism which
    he further claims catergorically to be “just colonialism”
    without saying why it is “just colonialism”.
    neither had he said where israel is expanding into. i suspect
    he does not or does not want to know the reasons for such
    “israeli expansion”
    Extrapolating from his call not to confused by history one
    can also say that no country should not be confined by
    historical borders. in other words israel should not be confined
    to some nebulous demarcation of its historial borders and
    should be allowed to expand its territories at the palestinian
    peoples expense if so necessary!

    Its clear that Farish has a twisted sense of reasoning.
    All his purported arguments against the israelis betray
    a willingness to pevert the truth that the israelis don’t
    want war. the israelis are a small nation surrounded by
    hostile nations. the israelis don’t want war. period.

    the arabs want to wipe the israelis out. period.

    the arabs never will. period.

  12. #12 by Lee Wang Yen on Tuesday, 13 January 2009 - 10:54 am

    Noor says:
    ‘But there has to be a clear distinction between the historical kingdom of Solomon and David and the present state of Israel that came into being in 1948. The historical kingdom of Solomon and David existed at a time when the very notion of the nation-state did not even materialise yet; while Israel is a modern nation-state that was created in the wake of World War Two…’

    Is there no distinction between the historical Malacca and other Malay sultanates and the present state of Malaysia that came into being in 1963?

  13. #13 by Lee Wang Yen on Tuesday, 13 January 2009 - 11:09 am

    Noor says:
    ‘I emphasise this for the simple reason that we tend to assume a continuity of historical agency over time and a continuity of responsibilities over time that is simply not there: A German child born today is simply not responsible for the crimes of Hitler and the Nazis of the past, and for no reason can any young German citizen today be held accountable for the past of his/her country; any more than a young Brit is responsible for the British Empire.

    Yet Israeli expansionism – which is reality has been nothing more than systematic colonisation – has been justified precisely on the grounds of such historical continuity…’

    From the unproblematic claim that young Germans today are not responsible for the crimes of Nazi, Noor makes a problematic generalisation that there is no historical continuity of responsibilities (and rights/entitlements), which yields his conclusion that the Israelis today have no right to their ancestors’ homeland.

    There is a complicated web of continuities and discontinuities of responsibilities and rights for a particular people in history. The fact that there are some discontinuities does not show that any continuity ‘is not there’. The fact that there are some continuities also does not show that there is no discontinuity. The argument in that article is far too simplistic.

  14. #14 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 13 January 2009 - 12:12 pm

    “History” is derived from the word “his story” : so it depends who is telling the story, his bias included in the story telling, as affected by cultural/religious influences, fears and anxieties etc…What are the objective facts? That is difficult to say.

    Basically where does one draw the line of who is entitled to what? Does going back to history help, if so how far back?

    Before present day Palestinians, there were the Jews (Jewish kingdom of King Solomon and David) and going back farther before that probably Philistines/Cannites settling there from what is present day Egypt and Syria…

    For which I think it is better to draw the line at the date of creation of Israel in 1947 pusuant to UN resolution 181 approved by 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions amongst then member countries.

    But even here there is a problem: Israel’s territory is not the same in 1947 due to UN partitioning of British mandated territory. Attacked by Arab neighbours, the Israelis embarked in various military incursions that included West Bank, Gaza and various other parts that they built and are still building Jewish settlements…

    So when one objects to Israel being colonial is it because it annexed further lands beyond the 1947 partitioned territory?

    Yes in part, but also no in sense that extremist Arabs object to the fundamental existence of Israel. Why? They don’t respect legitimacy of UN resolution 181 creating that state.

    You can argue that is unreasonable but one has to understand the US & allies (victor of World War II & Europe) basically “controlled” the UN then to create a state which Arabs, including Palestinians did not agree. But couldn’t do anything about.

    This is exacerbated by religious conflicts which inherently hard to resolve. When Israelis annexed Jordanian esatern sector of Jurusalem, it includes parts of an ancient city in which are situate the most revered shrine of Islam : the Dome of the Rock from which spot the Prophet is believed to have risen to Heaven for divine inspiration in his teachings. How does what resolve this?

    Then on the other part – asking Israel to give up all lands it occupied (other than 1947 territory), it is not willing too because it needs a buffer. One can’t dispute that Israel is a target of Arab animosity all around, so human beings, whether Jews or Arabs, strive for “security”, and Israelis feel having that “buffer zone” is absolutely imperative for its survival from attack. One can’t say Israelis are unreasonable because they face intermittent rocket attacks or suicide bombings!

    Palestinians are screwed because big powers have vested interest in the Middle East region and their own agendas (US, for example the Jewish lobby & Midle East oil) : so do the smallers powers, whether Iran, Syria, Egypt and even Hamas, their own interest using Palestinian plight as rallying cause….

    In such circumstance, how does one decide what are the facts, based on which are derived a correct moral judgment, and hopefully a solution? Everyone has a different moral judgment depending as I said on their cultural/religious inclination/bias.

    People can talk about international law, morality and the rest, but if all these cannot work, and they have not worked for over 60 year, the final solution (in conflict that canot be stopped no thanks to all the patrons of both sides with their self interest agendas) will be arbitered by who and which side has the raw military power – here we return to the law of the jungle – to obliterate the other, if co-existence, even under oppressed conditions – is not workable….

  15. #15 by OrangRojak on Tuesday, 13 January 2009 - 1:17 pm

    ‘No continuity of rights’ is elsewhere not problematic where there is a distinction made between ‘ancestor’ and ‘distant ancestor’. If I am to believe the ‘African Eve’ theory, I could presumably use the ‘continuity of rights’ argument to install myself and millions of hirsute, white-to-the-point-of-translucency relatives in a new nation-state in modern-day Ethiopia. Nobody (I have any respect for) would support such a claim. White people currently living in their parents’ homes in Africa, and the descendants of immigrants in Malaysia have claims that lie at the opposite end of the spectrum. Arguments that depend on degree of some quality and where the threshold should lie are usually only good subjects for quarrels. Most modern nations use a 1, 2 or 3G rule, where you cannot claim (rights such as) citizenship if you don’t have a right-holding ancestor within so many generations.

    Simplistic arguments aside, the time to argue about the rights and wrongs of establishment is long over. Israel is not the only ‘instant nation’ of the 20th Century: we could waste a hundred generations’ time and energy arguing about them. There is more than half a century of Israel-nation-fact. There are young Israelis being born into that nationality who have the same experience of ‘belonging’ as young people of any other nationality*. While there are still people living who feel personally robbed of something they believe is theirs, the call for revenge will be all the stronger. ‘Time heals all wounds’ on a national or ethnic scale could refer to bitterness (or even real loss) dying with the old. Many of the world’s current problems are, in my opinion again, directly caused by old people having one last attempt to settle their grievances. Many more are worsened by young people foolishly trying to settle their ancestors’ grievances.

    *The argument “You’re not from round here” – “No, You’re not from round here” has some special resonance for Malaysians. Sooner or later, all people using these arguments are going to have to agree on a compromise if the good of all is to be realised. The process of agreement is often frustrated and lengthened by troublemakers. There are two other options in these arguments: go on arguing about it forever, or, as we see in Africa today, the Middle East today and not so long ago in South East Asia, one side exterminates the other.

    Your choice.

  16. #16 by ablastine on Tuesday, 13 January 2009 - 1:51 pm

    It seem to me incredible that a person as learned and exposed as Farish can produce such a piece with so lob sided argument. His twists and turns, continuity and discontinuity- looking from whichever angle and however he cuts it simply lacks objectivity and parity. I suppose it is all about religion in the end isn’t it. We can never underestimate the power of this religion to cloud the mind. If this can be done onto Farish, I think nobody expose to Islam is spared.

    So it is OK for the Islamic Arab world and especially Iran to call for complete eradication of Israels and all Jews in the world numbering millions but not OK for the Jews to retaliate in self defence. I am sure most Muslims will now want and pray that all the JEWS in the world die and die from painful death. If they are smart they should have waited until Iran get the atomic bombs first before trying anything silly because Israel already have them. It is no use crying foul when you get whacked in return by poking you enemies behind. If you are not strong enough why provoke. So when Iran gets the bomb eventually it should lob it over Israel to evaporate the country so that the great and pitiful Palestinans can have their land and country back.

  17. #17 by OrangRojak on Tuesday, 13 January 2009 - 2:47 pm

    Wow look, I coincidentally agreed with Jeffrey. Next thing you know, we’ll be setting up a nation state in Malaysia called ‘Sensibilia” or something.

    While annihilation might have been good enough for a master strategist like John von Neumann, he probably wasn’t living in a sensible semi-d in Moscow when he suggested it. I think, Jeffrey, your ‘will be’ should be ‘is increasing rarely’.

  18. #18 by Lee Wang Yen on Tuesday, 13 January 2009 - 4:45 pm

    The UN had to, and certainly, did, take historical considerations into account when they drew up the 1947 partition resolution.

  19. #19 by Ling Mazen on Tuesday, 13 January 2009 - 5:05 pm

    I think the problem with warring states or individuals is the lack of a clear defination of the word sovereignty.Is there such a thing as “absoluteness” on sovereignty as far as the UN is concerned? Can someone enlighten me on the legal aspects of this matter?

    P/S I hope the war will stop when Obama steps into the White House officially on the 20th.

  20. #20 by jey on Wednesday, 14 January 2009 - 1:59 am

    My hats off to computation for an excellent piece of analysis!

  21. #21 by TheWrathOfGrapes on Wednesday, 14 January 2009 - 8:56 am

    /// To defend the modern colonising state of Israel on historical grounds would therefore be akin to saying that just because the Roman Empire existed then Italy today has the right to resume her former glory and conquer half of Europe and Africa. It would be like saying that just because the British and French empires existed then Britain and France also possess some historical right to expand their boundaries again. ///

    Well, if historical grounds cannot be relied on, then what about Ketuanan Melayu? Just because Malays claimed to be the first to settle in this land here, does not make them the rightful or only owner of the land called Malaya/Malaysia. The Chinese, Indians and Others who have been here for umpteen generations have equally valid claims.

  22. #22 by Lee HS on Wednesday, 14 January 2009 - 1:45 pm

    I think the argument of Farish Noor is shallow.

    From history when the Arabs were strong, they conquered Europe up to Bosnia. From the features of some Arabs, they look more like Europeans rather than the Arabs. During that period they must have taken a lot of European women back to Arab as wives.

    When a country is strong, the ruler will claim conquered lands belong to him. When the ruler becomes weak, the conquered lands will be taken back.

    So when Israel is established by the United Nation, why can’t Israel be accepted as a country and coexist in peace with the Arabs. If they cannot co-exist in peace then there is always wars.

    So when will it end?

  23. #23 by Lee Wang Yen on Wednesday, 14 January 2009 - 4:59 pm

    Jeffrey thinks that we should appeal to the UN resolution since appealing to history raises too many difficult questions.

    I agree that appealing to history raises a host of difficult questions. But the UN can only make a completely arbitrary resolution if it cannot appeal to history given the difficulties of these historical questions.

    Without appealing to history, what can the UN decision makers say if, let say, a group of Chinese demand an autonomous region in Israel with Ashkelon as their capital before they vote for the partition resolution? If they reject the demand, what can they say? They can only resort to arguments about history.

    So history is still relevant, even in the process of drafting the resolution. History continues to be relevant, as various parties continue to argue whether the resolution is fair when we take all historical evidence and other principles of land ownership into consideration. They will argue that the resolution should be subjected to such a scrutiny since it was first drafted on the considerations of such historical evidence and principles.

    I’m not saying that appealing to these will easily solve the problem. I’m just saying that they are relevant.

  24. #24 by Lee Wang Yen on Wednesday, 14 January 2009 - 5:01 pm

    oops… ‘…arguments FROM history.’

  25. #25 by undergrad2 on Wednesday, 14 January 2009 - 8:48 pm

    Sheesh..! You should take your logical thinking gibberish and stuff it.

  26. #26 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 14 January 2009 - 11:19 pm

    Promoters of UN resolution 181 would have (sure) made reference to history. Question is whether historical references made are justifiable or selective; and also whilst referring to history, the promoters had agendas extraneous to professed one.

    In referring back to history, again how far back, ancient history, modern history ? The status of state can be no if it were sacked by conquerors with its people cast in diaspora. In this way, as f ar as ancient history goes, Caananites lost land to the Jews (Jewish kingdom of King Saul, Solomon and David) and the Jews lost it to conquering Ottoman Turks, who in turn in modern history, suffered their empire carved by colonial powers, with Britain at end of world War I administering it as mandated territory first by Leaque of Nations, then after Word War II by its successor the United N ations (UN).

    If one makes references to sacred religious texts/Abrahamic Covenant and argues on the Promised Land, then it is not something I know much to support or contradict. So I prefer to rely on references to interntional law, which by [A] article 38.1(b)of ICJ Statute confers statehood or entitlement based on 4 criteria: (i) a permanent population with majority racially/culturally homogenous (ii) defined territory (iii) its own government & social and economic structure (iv) independent capacity to enter into relations of other states and recognised by those other states as a state with which they could have whether diplomatic or military engagements [B] UN resolution 181 legally by international law, and majority of votes (33 to 13, with 10 abstentions) created the state of Israel, which presently satisfies criteria of statehood listed in [A].

  27. #27 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 14 January 2009 - 11:21 pm

    I prefer to rely on this (reso 181) benchmark than history/theology . Even if one falls back on more recent history of last 800 years of Ottoman rule, there was no distinct Palestine state as a vassal controlled from Turkey/Syria. Prior to partition, and creation o f Israel, Palestinian Arabs might not have even viewed themselves as having a separate national identity but maybe a part of larger Syria to which they had closer cultural religious, linguistic, economic and geographic connections. So arguably there was also no seprate Palestinian state/people or a perception of separate national identity until galvanised by co-terminus creation of Israel by reso 181 partitioning.

    The power lobbyists, victors of war might have fallen back on historical justification where convenient but it was also other motives: the Soviets for eg after annexing large swathes of Eastyern Europe after Hitler’s fall wanted to encourage clearance of many Jews in Europe and supported their return and fin d historical/biblical reference helpful. American geopolitical considerations to have an ally in Middle East flushed with oil wealth had her own agenda.

    The Arabs, who suddenly developed a separate national identity due to Jews ocupying part of Jerusalem in which one of Islam’s holiest shrines is located, awakened to have then a Palestinian identity. It was made more acute by the fact t hat the partitioning and creation of Israel in their midst was a matter decioded by big powers which they had no much say, in contradiction of UN’s own professed principle of self determination!

    We’re not concerned about morality of causes of whether Israel should b e created because to do that one has to argue the benchmarks in history overlapping to theology. Sure the promulgators of Israel state – and those against refer to historical and even theological considerations but these might have been a convenient justifications in cover of their own geolpolitical and other agendas : so relevant or not, depending on which perspective… .

    If we’re concerned whether Israel exists, it does by international law’s criteria; if we’re concerned whether international law is right as adjudged by moral or historical bases , that becomes complex, and one wonders if it is necessary to probe in that direction for every nation that currently exists, given that it started existing as the other new states created with the dismantling of colonialism after world war II.

    For this reason I rather appeal to international law/norm whether Israel or Palestine exists as a separate nation / state and once by that benchmark Israel’s existence is incontrovertible fact, then I find little usefulness to go back to history or theology to justify or contradict that fact or whether international norms/laws were just, unjust to so create that state..

  28. #28 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 15 January 2009 - 5:31 am

    No, I don’t think we should appeal to theology. As I said in my response to Undergrad2, the mention of the Abrahamic covenant was just meant to support Justitia’s claim that Undergrad2 has made an inaccurate claim about God’s promise to Abraham.

    But history is relevant.

  29. #29 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 15 January 2009 - 5:55 am

    Jeffrey says:
    ‘For this reason I rather appeal to international law/norm whether Israel or Palestine exists as a separate nation / state and once by that benchmark Israel’s existence is incontrovertible fact, then I find little usefulness to go back to history or theology to justify or contradict that fact or whether international norms/laws were just, unjust to so create that state..’

    When many Muslims argue that the UN resolution which led to the establishment of modern Isreal is wrong and appeal to historical arguments to show why they think this is wrong, we should provide counter arguments from history to show them why the need to respect the existence of Israel is not merely something forcibly imposed on them by the big powers of the world. At the very least, we have to show them why history is not so clear-cut in supporting their case. Otherwise, many Muslims will feel greater indignation against those who recognise Israel when they think that the latter have no historical arguments to support what is essentially arbitrarily imposed on them by the superpowers they hate. Of course, some go further and argue that history actually leans more towards their opponent’s case.

    On a different note, Noor first denies the relevance of historical continuity. But he then refers to 1948, the so-called Zionist expansionism etc as if all these references make no assumption of historical continuity.

  30. #30 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 15 January 2009 - 9:00 am

    “many Muslims argue that the UN resolution which led to the establishment of modern Isreal is wrong and appeal to historical arguments to show why they think this is wrong”… Wang Yen

    I suppose “historical” means going far back in history well before 1947 partition.

    Just to share with you the insights of this guy Jason D. Söderblom of The Terrorism Intelligence Centre, Canberra. He cited four “core foundational reasons behind the Palestinian rejection of the 1947 Partition Plan”. The reasons didn’t go too far back in history but dwell more on merits/fairness or unfairness of the Partition based on circumstances and conditions existing at that time.

    I quote his 4 reasons:

    [1], “the Arab world perceived that the United Nations were not competent under international law to partition or otherwise dispose of the territory of Palestine against the wishes of the clear majority of its inhabitants.

    [2] The Partition Plan was perceived as having no legal validity.The Partition Plan was adopted by the General Assembly, not the Security Council. Resolutions of the General Assembly have the force of recommendations to member states of the United Nations but do not have any mandatory force.Therefore, the General Assembly vote to accept the recommendations of UNSCOP to partition Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish state did not mean that one or another state was being created over the objections of one of the parties.

    (3) The partition plan also violated a very
    basic principle in international affairs: that of self-determination of peoples, recognised by Article 1 of the United Nations
    Charter. The carving-out of 55 % of Palestine for the creation of a Jewish state and the subjection of part of the original inhabitants (who were not Jewish) to its dominion represents a fundamental violation of this aspect of international law.

    [4], the Partition Plan was neither just nor fair. The Partition Plan granted 55% of Palestine to the Jews, who at that time comprised only 30 percent of the population, and who owned a mere 6 or 7% of the land. Within this Jewish State there were to have been 407,000 Palestinian Arabs. The Arab State was to comprise only the remaining 34% of the land. The UN Partition Plan also ordered that the most fertile region, be given to the Jewish settlers. The remaining 45% of Palestine was to comprise a home for the other 70% of the population who were Arab.

    The major reason then the Palestinians rejected the partition resolution was on the grounds of its lack of fairness: it proposed to give the minority population an exclusive and hegemonic right to the majority of the land. In 1946, the total population of Palestine was 1,972,0000 inhabitants, comprising 1,247,000 Palestinians and 608,000 Jews, as well as 16,000 others.”

  31. #31 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 15 January 2009 - 9:20 am

    I suppose then these were the immediate reasons, however it is religious (than historical) : one has to side with members of the same brotherhood (ummah) than outsiders. It is always the case.

  32. #32 by jey on Thursday, 15 January 2009 - 1:04 pm

    That’s plain and clear Jeff. Why else would those in Bolehland go to such extent of burning flags to protest when similar “atrocities” elsewhere are shrugged off?

  33. #33 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 15 January 2009 - 1:20 pm

    One cannot be selective and arbitrary in his appeal to history. If someone thinks that history around 1948 is relevant to the dispute, other people will think that there is no reason to think that earlier history is not relevant, since history around 1948 is shaped by its earlier history.

    Of course, I agree with you that history is not the sole consideration. What I’ve been arguing is that history is relevant.

  34. #34 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 15 January 2009 - 1:49 pm

    Jeffrey says:
    ‘4], the Partition Plan was neither just nor fair. The Partition Plan granted 55% of Palestine to the Jews, who at that time comprised only 30 percent of the population, and who owned a mere 6 or 7% of the land. Within this Jewish State there were to have been 407,000 Palestinian Arabs. The Arab State was to comprise only the remaining 34% of the land. The UN Partition Plan also ordered that the most fertile region, be given to the Jewish settlers. The remaining 45% of Palestine was to comprise a home for the other 70% of the population who were Arab.’

    However, the bulk of the land carved out for the Jewish state consisted of the Negev desert, which was not suitable for agricultural and urban development at that time.

  35. #35 by Lee Wang Yen on Thursday, 15 January 2009 - 1:56 pm

    oops ‘… 1948 WAS shaped by…’

You must be logged in to post a comment.