I had a coffee today with an old friend of our family who is a Palestinian who was born and grew up in one of the great cities of the West Bank, graduating high school there in the early 1950s… That was shortly after the Jordanian King annexed the (previously Palestinian) West Bank to the East Bank land of (Trans-)Jordan that had been allocated to the Hashemites in the great post-WW1 carve up of the Arab-populated Near East.
In those post-annexation days, the official ideology was that “West Bankers” and “East Bankers” had all alike come together within the single happy family of “Jordan”.
Our friend had some politically colorful years in his young manhood there. But by the mid-1960s he’d decided to throw his lot in with the monarchy… and he stuck to that position, through Jordan’s “loss” of the West Bank to Israel in 1967 and even through the brief but lethal civil war that broke out in Jordan in September 1970, after King Hussein decided to expel the Palestinian guerrilla groups that were starting to sink some serious roots inside his kingdom. (Especially near the Jordan River.)
As he told me today, his judgment at the time was that “It would be far easier for us Palestinians to take our Palestinian state from Jordan than directly from Israel. So let Jordan get the land away from Israel and then we can discuss its future with Jordan.” Not a crazy judgment– but diametrically opposed to the tactics being pursued by Fateh and its allies at the time.
So he rose impressively high in the King’s service. But as he told me today, “About 20 or more years ago, the King started blocking Palestinians systematically out from access to the kingdom’s pathways of advancement.” Jordan is a very state-centered country, one in which the main way in which young men can get jobs or technical training or access to edication is through either the army or one of the other branches of the state…
So at that point (and I should check with him again, exactly when he thinks that started happening), he said that these pathways started being blocked to the Palestnians– who nowadays make up around 65% of the national population. “We have now had a complete social restratification here,” he said.
- The Palestinians in Jordan used to be the ones who had a good education, good skills, ran the companies, had access to capital. And the Jordanians were poor. Now, apart from a few very rich Palestinians who just look out for themselves, the opposite is true. It’s the Jordanians who have the state jobs, the education, the social status, all of that. And it’s the Palestinians who are poor. And the thing is, the Palestinians here don’t protest!
He had an explanation for that, too, saying the regime seemed to have done an excellent job of “divide and rule” among the Palestinians. “There is not one Palestinian community here; there are five,” he said.
- The first are the ones like me: people who came to the capital for jobs and advancement between 1950 and 1967. The second are the ones who’d fled here as refugees in 1948… The third group are the ones who came as refugees during and after the 1967 war– and even that group is divided into two: those who have rights to jobs and benefits, who have a yellow ID card, and those who don’t, who have a green card. The fourth group is the Palestinians from Gaza who ended up here. nd the fifth are the Palestinians from the Gulf– mainly Kuwait– who fled here during and after the Gulf War of 1991.
Some of those Gulf Palestinians had money and resources– but what they totally lacked was any concept of acting like a citizen– in terms of participating in the work of professional unions, or lobbying for their rights, or joining any political organizations… All they had was the concept of being ‘residents’, that they had learned from being in the gulf. I can tell you– I was there for a while, too. I know what it’s like. Every year you’re terrified that your residency rights will be revoked, and it just gnaws and gnaws at you, and you’ll do anything to please the boss just so you can get your renewal.
And they brought that mentality here, to Jordan. Even though they have Jordanian nationality and can’t be thrown out of here the way they were from the Gulf, they still think like that…
He noted that among the “Jordanians” (East Bankers), the regime has also played a clever game of divide and rule– but in this case, doing so among the reported 1,100 clans and tribes that make up the country.
- Besides, the ‘Jordanians’ have a fear of losing what they have now, in terms of access to resources. So of course they don’t want to see a democratic opening here, because then they would have to share more equally with the Palestinians.
And the Palestinians here have a fear of losing more than what they’ve already lost. So that’s why you don’t see them protest more, why you don’t see them doing any political organizing.
But on both sides, what the regime is able to play on, is a fear of loss…
Along the way there, I should note, the late King Hussein also made a significant change in the way he looked at the West Bank– the territory that had been annexed back in 1949 by his grandfather. Forty years later, in 1989, Hussein publicly divested himself of any claim to rule the West Bank, to represent its people, or to take responsibility for its fate. He did that in response to the “Declaration of (Palestinian) Independence” that Yasser Arafat had promulgated in late 1988. In 1993, when Arafat and the Israelis negotiated the Oslo Interim Accord, the Palestinian residents of both the West Bank and Gaza were given Palestinian ID cards and Palestinian passports. The Jordanian passports that West Bank-resident Palestinians had previously held were all taken away from them… So I think it really does matter some whether Hussein started his “Jordanianization” program of the army and the civil service before or after that point.
One other thing I noted about our conversation. Completely gone from our friend’s conversation was any use of the once-common terms “West Bankers and “East Bankers”, to denote those two different subsets of the Jordanian citizenry. Now, it was all “Palestinians” and “Jordanians” that he talked about… Implying, of course, that the people here of West Bank origin aren’t really considered to be “Jordanian” at all. Complex things going on…
Anyway, I didn’t have too much time to ask him about the party-political status of the Palestinians here. He did say he thought Fateh was a completely spent force… but I wish I’d probed him more on what he thinks of Hamas’s political organizing efforts here right now.
(I see that yesterday, a Jordanian government spokesman claimed that the security services recently intercepted a shipment of arms of explosives that, he claimed, Hamas was trying to smuggle into Jordan… and because of that, the kingdm has canceled a visit by Hamas Foreign Minister Mahmoud Zahar that was planned for today. This looks like a pathetic pretext– used, presumably, to hide the fact of the regime’s having caved in to US pressure on the matter, as Egypt also did, last Friday. The English-language
Um, “the (previously Palestinian) West Bank” ?
The West Bank was under Turkish (Ottoman) rule then the British Mandate. Then Jordan annexed it after the war of 1948. Are you claiming there was a Palestinian administration period between the end of the 1948 war and the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank? How long was it and who was in charge?
Wikipedia disagrees and says Jordan annexed it in 1948, like I had been taught. Was there a period of a few weeks between the British departure and the Jordanian annexation?
That same Wikipedia article goes on to describe the Jordanian annexation as happening in 1950. Perhaps that was the date of a formal declaration? In any case, there was no Palestinian administration of the West Bank, except for villages that ran themselves for a while.
WarrenW, before 1948 the area was known as Palestine… it was ruled under the British Mandate of Palestine… it had been many years since the end of Turkish rule there… the people who lived there carried passports marked Palestine and thought of themselves as Palestinians… The UN’s 1947 Partition Plan for Palestine had designated all of the West Bank (and several large chunks of what soon was incorporated into Israel) to be part of the Palestinian Arab state…
So your point is– what?
My point is that Jordan (which, by all definitions, is IN Palestine) expanded to take over the West Bank from Britain. Your choice of language could have led somebody to believe that the Jordanian expansion destroyed or replaced a native Arab government or polity, and I felt it worthwhile to clarify that this was not the case.
The Jordanian takeover did not make the West Bank any more or less “Palestinian” than it was before. Somebody who does not know the history could have been misled by your wording to think otherwise.
That the passports were were marked Palestine I do not dispute, this is true for both Jews and Arabs at that time. That they thought of themselves as Palestinians I do question. Everything I’ve seen suggests the local Arabs thought of themselves as Arabs, Muslims or possibly Syrians. There was, at that time, no Palestinian nationality for the Arabs as there is today. Palestine was, at the time, the name of a region the way the Middle East is the name of a region, or the Arctic. There was no Palestinian nationality, nation or identity. That is an invention of the 1960’s. That doesn’t mean it’s not legitimate now. The “Americans” took their name from the region where their country was located, as well.
There has been some talk lately of Jordan once again admistering or annexing the West Bank. The history should be understood if this idea is to make sense.
Is my point clearer?
Is my point clearer?
What is your point? It hardly matters whether Palestine was an Arab state, or whether the people living there thought of themselves as “Palestinians”. The fact is that they had a very strong local identity and attachment to their towns and land. History since 1948 has proved that, if nothing else.
Before Partition old time Zionists used to claim that the inhabitants of Palestine were “Arabs” with no particular connection to Palestine, unlike the Jews. This was an attempt to legitimize a Jewish takeover of the country. You’re not trying to make that point, I hope.
Helena,
Three points.
One: You said previously that you oppose attacks on Israelis. Yet, Israelis were blown up just recently – 9 killed – and not one word from you. That, frankly, is your true color
Two. Calling the area Palestine had nothing to do with Palestinian Arabs. Such people did not, for the most part, even call themselves Palestinians in 1948. They tended to call themselves Syrians or just Arabs. Jews called themselves – ironic as it seems now – Palestinians. So, you have your history wrong.
Note: there was never any Palestinian state. During the entire time of Ottoman rule, there was no demand for a Palestinian state and Palestine was not even separately denoted by the Ottomans. The same during earlier Arab rule. During British rule, there was little interest by Palestinian Arabs in a separate Palestinian state. Most Palestinian Arabs wanted to be part of greater Syria or just part of an Arab empire.
Palestinianism is a political movement that began, by and large, with Israel’s founding. The initial PLO charter defined Palestine by the British definition, not by Palestine’s historic boundaries. It defined Palestinian Arabs as part and parcel of the greater Arab nation and sought to be part of that nation. Hamas now takes that position, only it seeks a greater Islamic empire.
Now, I have nothing against Palestinian Arabs obtaining a state – if it helps end the dispute. If that does not help settle the dispute, perhaps they shoud become Syrians or Jordanian or Egyptians. At least they would be part of a viable state. Again, the goal should be to reach a settlement, not make up phoney history.
Third. During the decline of the Ottoman Empire – as its European empire came into disarray -, large numbers of Muslims, at least a million, were moved by the Empire – so that they would not be killed by the revolting Christian – from the Balkans and Greece into Asia Minor and what is now Northern Israel. Are such people Palestinians? If so, on what basis? And note: such people make up a substantial percentage of the people now called Palestinian.
History was not kind to the ancestors of anyone who now lives in what is now Israel. I do not see any basis to distinguish the suffering of one group from the next. What I see is a dispute which needs to be settled by compromise. What, frankly, are the Palestinian Arabs now doing to help resolve the dispute? What is Hamas doing? What did Arafat do to bring peace from 2000 to the time of his death? Not much.
“During World War I, Sharif Hussein ibn-‘Ali (Husayn bin ‘Ali), the Hashemite (or Hashimite) ruler of Mecca and the Hijaz, aided and incited by the UK (which somewhat hazily promised him an independent Arab state), touched off an Arab revolt against the Turks. After the defeat of the Turks, Palestine and Transjordan were placed under British mandate; in 1921, Hussein’s son ‘Abdallah was installed by the British as emir of Transjordan. In 1923, the independence of Transjordan was proclaimed under British supervision, which was partially relaxed by a 1928 treaty, and in 1939, a local cabinet government (Council of Ministers) was formed. In 1946, Transjordan attained full independence, and on 25 May, ‘Abdallah was proclaimed king of the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan. After the Arab-Israeli War of 1948, King ‘Abdallah annexed a butterfly shaped area of Palestine bordering the Jordan (thereafter called the West Bank), which was controlled by his army and which he contended was included in the area that had been promised to Sharif Hussein. On 24 April 1950, after general elections had been held in the East and West banks, an act of union joined Jordanian-occupied Palestine and the Kingdom of Transjordan to form the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. This action was condemned by some Arab states as evidence of inordinate Hashemite ambitions.”
http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Asia-and-Oceania/Jordan-HISTORY.html
WarrenW: My point is that Jordan (which, by all definitions, is IN Palestine)
Not to belabor this point, which I have mentioned before, deep into another thread, but this is not true. In particular the first modern definition of Palestine as a political unit – the British Mandate of Palestine, the civil administration that replaced the OETA (Occupied Enemy Territory Administration) in July 1920 – had the Jordan river as its eastern boundary, and entirely excluded (Trans)Jordan. The “first partition of Palestine” supposedly severing (Trans)Jordan from Palestine in 1921-22 is an amazingly successful fabrication due to Jabotinsky, which is taken as the truth almost everywhere, even in reference works and books on the period by left-wingers like Tom Segev and Ilan Pappe. As for the much too late dating of Palestinian political consciousness to the 60s, perhaps the problem is that (almost) “Everything I’ve seen” has been biased, with the aim of diminishing the legitimacy of one side? I’m glad to see this aim wasn’t entirely successful with you.
I am amazed at the way that WarrenW and Neal, who as far as I know are neither Palestinians nor Jordanians, who cite no sources whatsoever, and give no evidence of ever having talked to any actual living, breathing Palestinians or Jordanians, feel quite free to declaim with apparent “authority” on these issues… There was no Palestinian nationality, nation or identity, etc., etc.
I was reporting on a conversation with an actual Palestinian Jordanian, and framing that in the context of my own extensive and published research on Palestinian political history (including inasmuch as it touches on Jordan), which used countless interviews, documentary sources, reported observations, etc etc.
It strikes me that WW and Neal are using a very arrogant, dismnissive– I might even say racially silencing– mode of discourse when they make no effort whatsoever to ground their arguments in evidence provided by Palestinian (and some Jordanian) scholars, analysts, and political participants… But instead, they seek merely to impose their own interpretations of events onto the discourse in pursuit of their own ideological agendas.
And Neal, maybe in the heat of your self-righteousness you failed to take note of the title of this post? It doesn’t actually (gasp!) deal with Israel. I did comment on the recent terror attack in Tel Aviv in this other post.
It’s really simple. The PLO and it’s supporters like to paint a picture of a Palestinian nation being destroyed by invading Jews. It’s important not to let that myth take hold. The invention of the Palestinian nation was intended to counter and confound the nation of Israel, not to represent the local Arabs.
Helena’s description of the West Bank as “Previously Palestinian” in 1948/1950 is simply unsupportable and propagandistic.
Helena’s evidence did not cover the “Palestinian” nature of the West Bank, but the “politically colorful years” of one individual, and his recollections of the relationships between the West Bankers, East Bankers and Hashemites. It would have been more interesting if it had documented West Bankers life under the Hashemites vs life under the British, the Turks and the Israelis, but that’s just wishing…
Neal, can you answer us about your claims in your post above?
You twist the history for one side and you been selective in putting your clams all the time.
The PLO and it’s supporters like to paint a picture of a Palestinian nation being destroyed by invading Jews.
Oh, come on. There certainly was a Palestinian society that was destroyed by the establishment of Israel. It does not matter whether the people who lived there thought of themselves as citizens of a Palestinian state, which nobody claims existed.
Helena,
You have me saying things I did not say.
I said there was never a state of Palestine and that most – not all, but most – Arabs in historic Palestine, pre-1948 – thought themselves to be Syrians or just Arabs. You might read Benny Morris on this. Or, if you prefer a writer who looks hard for a Palestinian identity – something I do not deny but merely note it was not the dominant view of Arabs from Palestine -, read leftist sociolist Baruch Kimmerling. Or, you can read what some Palestinian Arab leaders say even now. For example, take Mustafa Barghouti:
http://www.newleftreview.net/NLR26605.shtml Note that he evidently lacked a Palestinian identity in his early years.
Now anecdotal evidence is not proof. On the other hand, note the ideologies he claims he was surrounded by – and, in this case, the various political movements were pan-Arabism, Nasserism, etc. Palestinianism is nowhere to be seen, until much later. So, what he writes is, in my view, rather representative.
Helena, mentioning an attack is not the same as showing sympathy for those attacked. Where was your sympathy. Nowehere to be seen, so far as I can tell.
You merely mention the attack but that was not your topic. Instead – quoting your initial sentence -, your concern was with the Israeli response. These are your words: “The Israeli government has decided it will try to take away from the four elected Hamas lawmakers who are residents of Jerusalem the ID cards that allow them to live in the city of their foreparents.” That, not the deaths of 9 people, was what mattered to you. Where these people reside, not 9 people dead, concerned you. It speaks for itself. You do not care if Israelis die. You care where Palestinian Arabs live. Or, in simple terms: You place property claims over life claims, which is a traditional conservative position.
Neal, can you answer us about your claims in your post above?
You twist the history for one side and you been selective in putting your clams all the time.
Neal, I just went downthread and Helena didn’t just mention the attack, she called it ghastly and makes it quite clear that she regards it as despicable. So in criticizing what you perceive as her misplaced emphasis, you gave a very misleading impression of what she’d written. It makes your argument more compelling, but if you have to do this maybe your argument isn’t all that strong. Also, regarding the “property claims” argument, the I/P conflict is largely about property claims. Israel steals land and has to use violence to hold onto it–even when they’re not actually killing people they impose great hardships on ordinary Palestinians just trying to live their lives. Palestinians object and use violence to fight back. Both sides commit atrocities.
Incidentally, if you continue to hold to your numerical standard on which atrocities merit our attention, you shouldn’t be complaining that Helena didn’t spend more time on the Tel Aviv bombing. You should be complaining that she isn’t spending much more time on much larger death tolls from genocide and easily preventable disease and malnutrition. The latest atrocity from one side or the other in the I/P conflict is hardly a blip on the radar screen by that standard.
Salah,
I believe – correct me if I am wrong – I was referring to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech. That appeared to be the gist of his stated reason for destroying Israel, namely, to send a message to Europe that the war to reclaim lands lost in Europe over the last 300 years had begun and would become plain when Israel was destroyed – thus, perhaps, scaring the pajamas off of the Europeans -. Such words are plain as day, in my view, in his infamous speech.
I can also say that he is not alone in the desire to state an interest in reclaiming lost lands. Such was also stated in Mahathir Mohamad’s (of Malaysia) infamously Antisemitic speech. He also said that the Palestine cause could serve as a force to unite all Muslims and, also, that Muslim regions need to re-arm in order, eventually, to reverse losses over the last few centuries. And there are innumerable other such speeches but the above are representative of a type.
Whether such are the views of Muslims in the street remains to be seen. I think it represents at least a good portion of what many Muslims think – how else to explain the very numerous speeches in numerous countries sounding that theme? -. In any event, if these prominent speeches are an indication, then many in the educated classes across the Muslim regions would appear interested in pushing that viewpoint for whatever reason including, perhaps, actually doing what is stated rhetorically.
In my view, such viewpoint is a lunatic viewpoint, especially coming from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a man who claims openly to have eschatological visions. Were there to really be, or if there is, an all out religious war, it would be a disaster for everyone. Starting a war of religion is, to me, lunacy.
Donald Johnson,
I complained that Helena thought it more important that some people lost there residence than that 9 people were killed. Show me – and here, I am ignorant but I have my impression – where Helena ever just challenges Palestinian Arab violence against Israel without balancing it against something. In this case, she balanced life with a property claim. That is pathetic.
Donald Johnson,
You write: “The latest atrocity from one side or the other in the I/P conflict is hardly a blip on the radar screen by that standard.”
Actually, on this point I agree entirely. I think making the I/P conflict central is not only the misuse of space that might be devoted to other conflicts, I think that those who do so are hypocrites of the worst type. And that is doublely the case for people who claim as, Helena does, to carry the flag of freedom (i.e. on the left). It disgusts me that she and I are both on the left as I think her views serve to silence problems that deserve central, not peripheral, attention. Rather, she sees the minor blip as a central matter.
By way of example, had the spotlight been turned onto Sudan – in the manner it is turned on Israel – in, say, 1996 and on, 2.5 million people, all now dead, might have a better chance of now being alive. Instead, we have wall to wall coverage of a blip on the radar for a cause. And much of the coverage cheerleads, as Helena does, for a cause (i.e. the Palestinian cause under its HAMAS leadership) which openly vows to commit genocide. And we have people spending time finding straws of hay in which some HAMAS person suggests – later to take back in Arabic – that maybe some day, some how, some way, there might be an accomodation with any non-Muslim leadership in historic Palestine. Such is news rather than millions of deaths elsewhere. It is disgusting and a complete betrayel of any imaginable leftist principles.
You have struck a nerve with me. Thank you.
Neal,
if you wish to turn the spotlight on the Sudan, might I suggest you lead by example and start posting endless, unreadable, logic-chopping, legalistic, ignorant screeds on the topic of the Sudan instead of that of Israel/Palestine?
bernard,
You might show me how you to post endless, unreadable, logic-chopping, legalistic, ignorant screeds.
Neal, the biggest issue of all (if we go by number of deaths) is the death of children from malnutrition and disease. That tops all currently occurring massacres put together. Since we’re daydreaming about what people should pay attention to, I’d say that would be at the top of the list. But frankly, if the US as a whole could be persuaded to put real resources into improving pubic health in poor countries, we’d probably also be the type of country that wouldn’t tolerate the genocide in Darfur and we’d also be the type of country that would put real pressure on both the Israelis and the Palestinians to reach a just solution. There’s no reason why the issues have to be prioritized, actually–if the US as a whole really wanted to, we could go a long ways towards solving some of the world’s problems and to a large extent it could be done without the use of military force. (Though in the case of Darfur, force would be required.) Meanwhile, back in the real world, we’re spending vast resources turning Iraq into the new Lebanon.
Now in my alternate universe where the US is doing good things instead of conducting unnecessary invasions, I think we’d have a lot more support inside and outside the Muslim world in dealing with the fanatics. (I don’t doubt there would still be some.)
But I don’t think you get anywhere lashing out at Helena. The I/P conflict has this huge symbolic importance to a lot of people on both sides of the issue and solving it would probably be helpful in solving other problems. In microcosm the I/P conflict represents much of what is wrong with both the West and with parts of the Arab world. You’ve got the violence, the lies, the hypocrisy, and there’s plenty of blame to spread around (though we could differ on which side bears more of it.) Solve this one and we might have that inspiring example for both the West and the Arab world on how to reconcile. Not that I’m holding my breath waiting for this to happen, of course. Just daydreaming.
Donald,
You write: But I don’t think you get anywhere lashing out at Helena. The I/P conflict has this huge symbolic importance to a lot of people on both sides of the issue and solving it would probably be helpful in solving other problems. In microcosm the I/P conflict represents much of what is wrong with both the West and with parts of the Arab world. You’ve got the violence, the lies, the hypocrisy, and there’s plenty of blame to spread around (though we could differ on which side bears more of it.) Solve this one and we might have that inspiring example for both the West and the Arab world on how to reconcile. Not that I’m holding my breath waiting for this to happen, of course. Just daydreaming.
I note that there is only so much attention that can be paid by people to world events. So, the excess attention which is given to the dispute regarding Israel is paid for in an underage of attention given to more pressing matters. Helena is particularly guilty of overemphasizing the conflict.
I do not think that what occurs in Israel has much at all to do with what is wrong anywhere else in the Arab regions. By that, I mean that were Israel to disapear today, the region would remain just as dysfunctional as it is now. It would merely have a different focus. Israel, if anything, is among the bright spots of that part of the world, notwithstanding the conflict with the Palestinian Arabs. Israel – whether or not it survives – will, over the long run, play the role of injecting energy into the Arab regions which will help shake things up toward, perhaps, a brighter future.
Addressing the rest of your larger comment, while I am not sure the US can really solve world hunger, we could and should certainly do far more than we do. My sense, however, is that the issue is not just distribution of food but poor politics in large parts of the world including, particularly, many of the places where people are starving. I am not sure that the US has the power to change how countries govern (and, if you doubt me, look at Iraq).
I harp on Sudan because the very people who scream most about Israel (i.e. Arabs) are the very people who financed a campaign of, by any standards, genocide, slavery and forced Islamization in Southern Sudan from 1983 to about 2000. Which is to say, money to support the Sudanese Muslims came from all over the Arab regions. Slaves from Sudan were sold all over the Gulf region. People not only starved in Sudan, but such appears to have been government policy in order to force people to convert to Islam – again, something which appears to have been supported by countries all over the Arab region, including people who donated money to the cause. And, there was a forced Islamization program, begun in the 1980’s, which effectively forced Christian and animist children to be schooled with an Islamic education. And, kids were taken from their parents and force converted to Islam. Adults, according to the UN, were also held and starved unless they converted.
So, I see major league hypocrisy. The above Islamization and genocide and slavery program occured over the period of more than a decade and included an openly declared Jihad against the Christians and animists as well as publicly made defense, based on Islamic principles, of the taking and selling of slaves. Arabs, with their backers in the West, then scream that the Israelis are monsters while, under their noses, horrors beyond all imagination are occuring.
And, note: somehow the above horrors escaped much attention in the West. The Left was largely silent on the issue. Governments were silent. Everyone was largely silent. I read the papers and I do not recall much about those horrors. And, silence was, in part, financed by people interested in making big oil money. So, we have alleged leftist, like Helena, taking the side of those with big money interests by playing up the Arab Israeli disptue. Hypocrites, whether or not they know it.
Nael,
have been supported by countries all over the Arab region, including people who donated money to the cause. And, there was a forced Islamization program, begun in the 1980’s, which effectively forced Christian and animist children to be schooled with an Islamic education. And, kids were taken from their parents and force converted to Islam. Adults, according to the UN,
Can you give us the link to UN reports about this story please?
John R:
This Wikipedia article on the British Mandate of Palestine also has Jordan as being inside the Mandate. If you have evidence that the map is wrong please let us know. From this point of view Ehud Olmert and Abu Abbas and King Abdullah are all equally “Palestinian”. At least by the standards of 1930 or 1950. The borders were not set by the 1922 Mandate Declaration by the League but a few years later by “The Powers”.
I think this and other references basically show that Helena’s aside describing the West Bank as previously Palestinian when it was taken over by Jordan is more misleading than accurate. I think Helena now realizes this.
Nowadays the meaning of “Palestinian” has shifted in usage to describe the Arabs the West Bank and Gaza, and to the Arab refugees of the war of 1948 and their descendents living in camps in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. I acknowledge all of that, of course. It is the revisionist attempt to invent an Arab Palestine of old to which I object.
No Preference:
Naturally, the people of the area, before Partition, had a great attachment to their land, religion, families, and so on. I doubt they had any attachment to the British Mandate of Palestine or to the idea of themselves being “Palestinian”. If you have concrete evidence to the contrary please let us know. This is not offered as “an attempt to legitimize a Jewish takeover of the country”. But to make the point that there was no country. Not even a failed state.
The decision of the League of Nations and the later United Nations to replace the vacuum left by the destruction of the Ottoman Empire by several smaller states after a period of transition seems to me to be reasonable and wise. The idea of separating the Arabs from the Jews also seems, in retrospect, to be wise. See also the article on the San Remo Conference in Wikipedia.
The brief period of European colonialism in this area only lasted about 20 years and was not of great importance. Egypt is another matter.
Neal,
financed by people interested in making big oil money. So, we have alleged leftist, like Helena, taking the side of those with big money interests by playing up the Arab Israeli disptue. Hypocrites, whether or not they know it.
Neal, I don’t know why you put Helena here in this story, honestly I never read from Helena defending any regimes or those “people interested in making big oil money”.
It is very surprise to me what you said.
As I believe Helena position more concerned the live of normal people in the war zones and conflicts in ME, I don’t see she taking any side, put what I read from your posts you are so sensitive and very similar to most Isles/Pro Israelis when some one talking about Arab Israeli dispute.
All we know those regimes ” people interested in making big oil money ” are perfectly well settled in their power with support and protections by big power from the west, the most Gulf countries get their independences in 1975, but from that time most of the security and intelligence forces headed by foreigners! I can say same in SAUDI ARIBA.
If you read many books about the relations of different US administrations with Saudis like “House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship between the World’s Two Most Powerful Dynasties” you will find who support those regimes therefore indirectly their bathetic behaviours especially on their own people and on their societies.
I found your post by generalised things and stories about Arab/Muslims smears some hate…. Its might you miss that fortune to be one of “those with big money interests” working with those regimes, otherwise I think you need to review your clams and do not generalised your case.
“You might show me how you to post endless, unreadable, logic-chopping, legalistic, ignorant screeds.”
Oh no, Neal! You have demonstrated beyond question that this is YOUR true area of expertise.
Salah,
I read the report. I do not have a copy of it. It is a report by the special reporteour. Perhaps it is online.
In my view, the most important reason, apart from the fact that Israel is a more hospitable country for reporters to visit and report on, that the Arab Israeli dispute is front and center while the nearly equally long but infinitely worse dispute in Sudan – going back to the 1950’s – is not is that Arab oil regimes – e.g. Saudi Arabia – supports the Sudanese Muslims while opposing the Israelis. Those who make oil central to their view of the world – in governments, etc. – keep the Sudan problem out of the news, to the extent possible. That, frankly, is the position of the world’s moneyed interests. And, large scale donation by Saudi Arabia to universities – and it is reported that 90% of all money to pay for Middle East Studies programs in the US comes from Saudi Arabia – tends to have a corrupting influence regarding the matter as well. Which is to say, people do not say mean things about their funders, the very way people paid by polluting industries argue that global warming is exagerated.
Now, it is, to me, unimaginable that people on the Left – although some have seen through the charade – could fail to notice that, so far as human rights are concerned, the countries they say little, if anything, negative about, such as Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Egypt, Pakistan, Iran, etc., have among the world’s worst records on treating people.
And, so far as treating minority groups, such countries may be the worst on Earth. Seeing that Sudan – and, at or near the bottom of the list of countries taking up the rear of the world as far as human rights are concerned is Sudan – managed to escape the attention of Leftists for multiple decades, I conclude that such people are, effectively, either dupes or they are willing conspirators with moneyed interests.
And, frankly, it is in the interest of moneyed interests to keep the Arab Israeli dispute front and center. Why? Because if that conflict were replaced with a discussion of what goes on in Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran, etc., with calls to disinvest in such countries related to their abuses (e.g. stoning people to death, kiling apostates, raping non-Muslims [although in Saudi Arabia, non-Muslim citizens is an oxymoron] without legal penalty, etc., etc., that would be bad for business.
Warren, I wrote most of the San Remo Conference Wikipedia article, including the information you refer to from it, but I did not get around to the British Mandate of Palestine one, which has significant and common errors. My earlier post on this matter here provides some relevant references. Like most maps of this period, the one there is insufficient and misleading, for Jordan and Palestine proper were at no time under the same type of British civil administration, nor referred to as one unit in contemporary British documents. Incidentally, Abdullah’s control of Jordan preceded the British recognition and consolidation of it by subsuming it under the British Mandate in 1921. It is thus not really historically accurate to imply that “Ehud Olmert and Abu Abbas and King Abdullah are all equally ‘Palestinian'” or that “the meaning of ‘Palestinian’ has shifted in usage.” This ties in with point mentioned in the main post that nowadays the idea of “East Bankers” and “West Bankers” as citizens of one Jordan has disappeared, being the exceptional situation stemming from the 48-67 period, and been rereplaced by Palestinian vs. Jordanian. So I also think that describing the West Bank as previously Palestinian when it was taken over by Jordan is more accurate than misleading. You object to “revisionist attempts to invent an Arab Palestine of old” rightly if this means a nonexistent state, but you should also object to revisionist attempts to belittle concretely evidenced Palestinian nationalism, or to fabricate historical myths, with an equally transparent present-day political motivation. You could take a look at a book of one of the authors Neal (oddly) recommends, Kimmerling and Migdal’s The Palestinian People : A History which starts its study of Palestinian nationalism with the revolt of 1834. The period of European colonialism in this area had the lasting and important consequence of the creation of Israel, which would have been unlikely without it.
John R,
If I understand correctly, all you are saying is that the definitions of Palestine and Transjordan were decided prior to passage of the Mandate for Palestine by the League of Nations. What this whole issue indicates is that the whole issue of an entity called “Palestine” was, at the beginning of the 20th century, a very imprecise and undefined thing.
John R.
I do not think it odd at all to note a degree of nationalism among Arabs from any given part of historic Palestine or even the greater region (e.g. Syria and Jordan and even Iraq). One can expect some degree of nationalism among any sub-population group in a period of great change and the people we now call Palestinian Arabs were a part of a such a sub-group of Arabs akin to the sub-group of people we now call Syrians and Jordanians.
However, my point is that such rumblings – which is pretty much what they were before Israel’s creation (and even up through the 1960’s) – were more background noise than a driving force among Arabs from Palestine. The dominant wind of politics (but not, at this point, an entirely sucessful one) among Arabs from historic Palestine was more Syrian Arab – but transnational in character – or transnational of the pan-Arab variety and the like.
In the wider region, popular politics that arose out of the decline and later fall of the Ottoman Empire was of the “pan” variety: pan-Arabism, pan-Islamic (not to be confused with Islam or Islamism) and later Ba’athism and Nasserism and now the politics of revivalist Islam (of which HAMAS is part). These versions of politics have excited the masses, to the extent that such can be discerned.
As for Palestinian Arabs today, the victory of HAMAS suggests strongly the return of a far more transnational politics, not nationalism. People dismiss documents such as the HAMAS covenant but that is a serious mistake. The documents clearly sets out a doctrine of governance. And it is clearly transnationalistic.
Time will tell if the governance of HAMAS will be of the pan variety or the national variety. And circumstance may hamper efforts at forging a more trans-like politics. However, the stated agenda of the HAMAS party is clearly transnational. Given HAMAS’ willingness to eschew the demands of the International community to adopt a more limited – dare I state national – agenda, the better bet, thus far, is that HAMAS will follow a more transnational model, trying to stay (unfortunately) true to their covenant.
Thanks Helena for the posting on Jordanian affairs and perspectives. It was a useful angle that I was not familiar with.
Neal, a few points–
1. The silence about African massacres goes a lot further than just silence about the Sudan. The US supported a number of the worst African dictators and we also supported a near-genocidal killer by the name of Jonas Savimbi for much of his career and very little of this got any attention. Human rights groups, which you criticize, are among the few exceptions. It’s odd that you single out the left for its silence on Sudan when, in the first place, much of the left has been pretty vocal on the Sudan in recent years (not that it has done any good) and in the second place silence about African atrocities has been normal, especially when there’s a US connection. By the way, there’s an odd habit people have of talking about the “silence” surrounding certain human rights issues when virtually everyone who has any interest in human rights has seen story after story about them for years. The problem in Darfur is lack of action–there’s been no lack of talking about it.
Incidentally, evangelical Christians have been talking about the Sudan for a while, but precisely because the villains are Muslims. They said nothing about African horrors more directly supported by the US.
2. The reason Israel gets so much attention in the US by leftist critics is because Israel gets so much aid from the US and misuses it for human rights violations. (Incidentally, Israel also has a long record of supporting notorious killers in Africa and Central America, for reasons I don’t fully understand,though in some cases I think they were doing America’s dirty work.) You criticize Helena for saying so much about Israel, but why not criticize the US for giving Israel, a relatively wealthy country, so much aid which could be better spent saving lives in Africa?
As for poor governance, we could go a long ways towards cutting death rates in Africa without having to solve every problem there. We didn’t have to turn Africa into a showplace of democracy in order to stamp out smallpox.
Donald Johnson,
I do not think you read my comment quite as carefully as you might.
First, I made a point of criticizing business interests and questioned why the Left, which claims to stand for freedom and against business interests that come at the expense of people, has been so quiet regarding Sudan.
I did not mention the US, as you note, but I also did not mention the silence out of many other countries, with the exception of Arab Muslim countries.
I mentioned Islamists and Arab Muslim countries because they are the moving party against the Sudanese Christians and animists and because elements of the Left, such as Helena, see Islamists and Arab Muslims through rose colored glasses and because portions of the Left have an informal alliance with Islamists. Or, in simple terms, I think such people on the Left as well as Helena are engaged in rank hypocrisy.
Second, I do not think you are quite correct that those interested in human rights have been all that interested in Sudan. I think Helena’s approach is typical. She is worked up about Israel but has relatively little to say about Sudan. Were she concerned about Sudan, it would be near the top of the list, largely displacing minor abusers like Israel.
Some – and you mention this – Christian groups, for whatever reason [and, I think, given the bloodbath, Christians really should be far more concerned than they are], have shown particular interest in Sudan. In fact, they have shown a lot more interest than people on the Left.
I also note that Christians have considerable justification to be concerned about the treatment of Christians in Muslims countries because Christians have been victims in very large numbers and have, as you may know, been fleeing from Muslim countries by the millions.
Professor Eric Reeves has made Sudan his project. And Professor Walid Phares has written quite a bit about Sudan as well. Charles Jacobs of the American Anti-Slavery Group has done a great deal of good work on Sudan – publishing articles in papers including, for example, The Boston Globe.
What I have not seen, however, is any substantial interest by the public, by newspapers, by college students or their professors, etc., etc. And, if human rights groups are interested, they have not been very good at broadcasting their concern. In fact, when I use to mention Sudan, pre-Darfur, to friends on the Left, I hear that such cause does not matter because that part of the world is benighted anyway. Call it a form of racism – which is what is really involved.
Such people, instead, tend to be worked into a lather about Israel. I think they are concerned about Israel because Israel is contraversial, because Israel is run by Jews, because Israel is connected with the US, because Israel’s position complicates the conduct of business with Arabs and because elements of the Left see their political salvation in making common cause with Islamists – notwithstanding the fact that Islamists favor essentially opposite values -.
As for the Jew haters on the Left – and given the manner of some of the rhetoric, I think Nietzsche had the matter about right. As he said – and I paraphrase -, the Antisemites should all be strung up. Actually, his word was “shot” but I do not like killing people – not even Antisemites – so I used a euphemism.
As for your comment that people are concerned more about Israel because the Israel is relatively rich and receives money – or, at least loan guarantees -, the US gives money all over the world, calling aid loans, military assistance, etc., etc. If we remove the label, you would see that Israel is hardly the biggest recipient of assistance. Not even close, in fact.
I think Germany is still the main recipient as we continue to station large numbers of troops in Germany – a far richer country than Israel – to protect Germany from a non-existent country, namely, the USSR. It is my impression that the economic benefit of US troops in Germany is on the order of many tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars per year. And, since there is no military threat to Germany from the USSR (or Russia), the main impact of our troops is economic.
In any event, Europeans, who give rather little to Israel, seems far more worked up about Israel than Americans, left or right, typically are. So, I do not think the issue is funding from the US. What I read on British papers is people angry about Israel standing in the way of European business interests – which Europeans hide under the term morality – with Arabs. And, given the vehemence with which Israel is discussed among Europeans, I think the fact that Israel is a country run by Jews is also a major, major cause for the concern among Europeans.
I should add, in Europe, where the aid goes largely to Palstinian Arabs, there is – and this is consistent with Israel being a Jewish country – little moral concern that the money funded a campaign in which the basic strategy has consisted of serial commission of massacres.
From what I have read on this website, the fact that the Palestinian Arab strategy focuses primarily on committing serial massacres does not seem to matter all that much to Helena either. She writes as if such terror were incidental to an otherwise honorable cause when, in fact, such behavior is central to the cause. I think she deserves criticism at the very least for betraying any semblance of liberal thought.
I do not criticize the US for giving aid to Israel because (a) I do not think Israel is a serious abuser of rights (i.e. I do not believe most of what I read in the papers – and the Jenin “massacre” (that did not occur) is perfectly illustrative of newspapers, at least in Europe, functioning as the propaganda wing of the Palestinian Arab cause) and (b) because I think Jewish nationalism is one of the world’s most important causes. I think the success of Israel’s cause is directly tied to the campaign to modernize the entire Middle East, if not the greater Arab region. I thus see nothing wrong with the US assisting a worthy – in fact, critical – cause.
Please note that I do not oppose criticism of Israel. I do, however, distinguish criticism from propaganda – which is what Helena seems to do -. And I distinguish even propaganda from those who hate Jews, of which the far Left unfortunately is the current main address where the haters can be found. Thus, your argument about whether Israel should be funded is perfectly proper and worded as a rational, not a propaganda or a hate monger argument, even though I think you are mistaken.
“Modernize” is always the favorite word of white imperialists.
The Native Americans didn’t have a “State”, see? So what our ancestors did to destroy their pathetic little villages wasn’t so bad. Like the “vaguely defined” Palestinians, those Injuns weren’t modern. They’re much better off modernized by us than being allowed to spend the last 400 years deciding for themselves what they wanted. (And no, most Indians aren’t rolling in casino money now.)
Neal, you remind me of the French Communists who supported Paris’ war against Ho Chi Minh because they wanted to deliver the French Empire intact to Joe Stalin’s brand of high-tech industrial progress.
Progress is never something done by one people to another. It’s a sharing of ideas for mutual benefit. If a non-white people subjected to Progress are stuck a century later averaging $2 a day in income then it wasn’t the people who failed sacred Progress, it was simply economic enslavement. Latin America, South Africa, India, the Philippines and Egypt have had their fill of that kind of Western-sponsored progress, and only those among their populations who acted whitest have gotten ahead at the expense of all others.
Thank God I’m not a liberal. Every day I pray for superior aliens to land on Earth and do unto white people what they’ve done to everybody else, destroy their culture, seduce their children, steal their resources and turn them into amoral morons hypnotized by alien TV fantasies. What’s the point of a “Left” now that the triumph of Judeo-Christian corporate imperialism has spawned humans uninterested in liberty, equality, or brotherhood, Neal?
super390,
You might explain your theory a bit better.
Here is my take on what you seem to be saying… The Islamic regions are perfect and have nothing at all to learn from anyone. Those who suggest any other possibility are imperialists – whether or not they are -.
Well, your view is not my view. I do not suggest that anyone force anything onto the Arab regions. My view is that the Arab regions benefit from Israel’s presence as Israel’s modernity, not Arab traditionalism, is the better path forward. In fact, Israel’s success will, in the end, be a source of great benefit to the entire region.