Mustafa Barghouthi was born in Jerusalem in 1954. He followed his, at the time, better-known cousin Bashir Barghouthi, into the Palestinian Communist Party (which Bashir B. was for a long time the head of), and studied medicine in the USSR. On returning to Palestine he established and for many years ran the Union of Palestinian Medical Relief Committees, a non-governmental network that– like the parallel network of Agricultural Relief Committees– provided vital support for the West Bank and Gaza Palestinians during the First Intifada, 1987-93.
In 1991 he was a delegate to the Madrid Peace Conference. In 1996 he ran unsuccessfully in the first elections held for the PA’s legislature. Over the years he became a strong critic of the large amount of corruption within the PLO. In 2002, he left the Communist Party, which remained affiliated with the PLO. (By then, it had been renamed the People’s Party.) Along with Gaza’s much-loved leftist leader Dr Haidar Abdel-Shafei, Edward Said, and Ibrahim Dakkak, Barghouthi founded a completely new nationalist movement called the Al-Mubadara al-Wataniya al-Filastiniya, the Palestinian National Initiative. Abdel-Shafei and Said have since then passed away.
In 2005, Barghouthi ran in the PA’s presidential election, coming in second only to Mahmoud Abbas with 19% of the vote. That was the PNI’s finest moment to date. The following year Barghouthi topped the PNI’s list in the PLC elections. He and Rawia al-Shawwa were both elected from the list. In 2003 and once again during the campaign for the 2006 election Barghoughi made a point of trying to conduct political activities openly in the city of his birth, (East) Jerusalem. But since the Israelis had long since revoked the special “permit” that all Palestinians require if they want to carry on living in– or even just to visit– Jerusalem, on both those occasions he was arrested. During the detention he suffered in 2003, which lasted some days, he was interrogated and beaten with a rifle butt, which left him with a broken knee.
… By a happy chance I met Barghouthi when I went to the fourth-anniversary anti-Wall march in Bil’in, on February 20. He was accompanied there by a spirited group of around 20 PNI activists waving the movement’s large orange flags.
Three days later I went to do a formal interview with him in the new headquarters of the Union of Medical Relief Committees, which were surprisingly opulent-looking.
“I’m very worried because our internal rifts are growing,” he started out saying–
This is due to a number of factors, of which the first is the transformation the PA underwent during the recent conflict[in Gaza]. It came under even more pressure from Israel to become a security sub-agent for Israel here. Why, yesterday the PA’s Interior Ministry even prevented the holding of a civil-society meeting scheduled for Nablus, that had been convened to discuss the role of the PLO. They tried to force the people organizing it to apply for permits to hold this meeting. This is completely new!
He also referred to an incident that occurred the previous day, when in broad daylight an IDF force went into the Sunoqrot candy factory in a part of Ramallah that is supposed to be under wholly PA control.
They stayed there from 9 a.m. through 1 p.m., and they gave all the workers there a thorough interrogation… I think they took one of them away.
You know what they say in Nablus, these days: that the Palestinian army controls it in the morning while the Israeli army controls it in the afternoon.
He spelled out that, ever since Salam Fayyad was named PA ‘Prime Minister’ in June 2007– on an emergency basis, following Hamas’s successful of fateh’s attempted coup against it in Gaza– it has been Fayyad who has made all the important decisions regarding the PA’s security forces.
Barghouthi said,
Fayyad has now retired everyone from the forces who had any relationship with the PLO. The new hires there are all very young– and the main requirement of them is that they should have failed the ‘tawjihi‘ school-leaving exam. We are seeing the transformation of the PA into a dictatorship.
He spelled out his judgment that
All the PLO forces are complicit in this because it is the PLO Executive Committee that provides the political cover for what is happening.
And meantime, Hamas has also oppressed our people and violated our norms of behavior. This all hurts me such a lot! I have struggled for twenty years for democracy within our national movement. Instead of which we now have two large forces in Palestinian life that are both undemocratic and illegal– plus, we are still living under Israeli occupation!
He talked a little about the decline of the traditional Palestinian ‘left’– that is, the alphabet-soup of secular Palestinian organizations that along with Fateh are all in the PLO. (And yes, that includes the Communist Party/ People’s Party that was his own former ideological home. He dismissed their significance, saying
Of course they’ve declined, because they’re not basically not saying or doing anything different from Fateh. But as for us in the Mubadara [PNI], we’re growing because we’re principled and independent, and we represent the ‘center’.
Our problem, though, is how to work without resources, because the PLO leadership gives handouts only to the PLO factions.
Still, I believe their systems of clientilism and nepotism can’t last forever.
He argued that, though the situation of the PA is difficult so long as it has to operate under the tight constraints of the continuing Israeli occupation, the PA could still deal with that challenge more effectively
by building a grassroots movement that would combine political and social work. That’s what Hamas did, and it brought them great political success.
He returned to the question of intra-Palestinian reconciliation:
We believe in the absolute unification of Palestinan ranks. Our main challenge is the ongoing Israeli assault on our rights and the Israeli plans to liquidate the Palestinian cause completely. What they’re doing in Jerusalem is a key indicator of this. That’s why it’s a crime for Palestinian politicians to perpetuate our internal divisions.
What the Israelis are doing is the worst form of apartheid in the world. No previous racist system created a whole segregated road system!
He said that recently he had been able to go to Gaza. (I believe this was in his capacity as head of the Union of Medical Relief Committees.)
It took time to absorb what I saw there. This was much worse than the destruction we all suffered in the West Bank and Gaza in 2002. The IDF had purposefully destroyed the whole of Gaza’s private sector on their way out: 351 factories had been exploded and bulldozed.
Why do the international community and the UN refuse to send an independent commission to investigate what happened? There has been an unprecedented level of international complicity in Israel’s actions.
He was pessimistic about the prospects of any useful peace negotiations with Israel:
There is no hope of negotiations. Israeli society as a whole has turned so strongly to the right. The recent elections showed the consolidation of Israel as a racist society…
We can’t expect a useful peace process with any of the possible line-ups in the Israeli government. The prospect for success would only be good if we saw Obama putting big pressure on Israel. this is difficult to predict, though I do see some positive things happening in the United States.
He said he thought the outgoing Israeli government had worked– with some success– to try to box Obama in on the Palestinian issue.
I hope Obama’s people have seen those attempts for what they are. I don’t expect Obama to do everything we need from him. But we can hope he does some things that are helpful for us– primarily, to start separating U.S. policy from always salvishly following Israeli policy.
He noted that, under the agreement according to which Salam Fayyad agreed to become prime minister in 2007, Fayyad controls both the PA’s security forces and its money. “Even Yasser Arafat never had as much power as that!”
Barghouthi’s recipe for success for the Palestinians was as follows:
First, we have to have a unified leadership. Second, we have to support the steadfastness of our people in the land, because they need to do everything possible to stay on it. Thirdly, we should return to organizing popular nonviolent resistance on a large scale. And Fourthly, we need a strong international solidarity movement.
… We need to return to the concept of being a national liberation movement and pursue that agenda even if the cost is the collapse of the PA.
… Our people need real leadership, not this pretence of self-government that we have now.
The two-state option is almost dead now; there is a clear possibility that its end is very near.
Oslo was the biggest mistake! Dr. Haidar, Edward Said, and I all opposed it…
His view of the present PA/Fateh leadership was simply that “The older generation should step aside.”
Regarding Hamas, his view was that there not really any significant internal divisions within it:
Hamas is a very strongly unified movement. yes, they do have more moderate and more extreme trends within it, but they have an effective structure of collective leadership that reconciles all those differences.
And then, they really don’t have any corruption in their ranks. Their only corrupt practice is their desire to place their own people into all the positions that they control. But at the personal level, they live with the people and are not corrupt.
Also, they have the worldwide Muslim brotherhood as a strong protective shield around them. That is a big difference between them and Fateh. When Arafat was under that long Israeli siege in the muqata’a he was all alone… Indeed, he told me during those days that he realized that Oslo was a trap.
He spent a few minutes recalling the role that he had played helping to broker the (as it turned out, short-lived) Mecca Agreement that Fateh and Hamas concluded in February 2007.
These days, though the gap between their agendas is even wider than it was in 2007. The gap could only be bridged if Abbas would see that there really is no hope in endlessly continuing the negotiations with Israel. I have already publisly asked him to declare and end to the negotiations and an end to the security coordination with Israel. All we have so far is that he announced the suspension of the peace talks pending the formation of the new Israeli government.
Barghouthi spelled out that under the terms of the current security coordination between the PA and Israel,
Palestinian security forces are under standing orders to hide whenever the Israelis come into the areas where they are patrolling [in the areas designated ‘Area A’ under th Oslo Agreement.] But then, if they get caught by surprise because the Israelis have not given them advance notice that they’re coming, then the Palestinian forces have orders to put their guns on the ground and turn their backs on whatever it is the Israelis are doing.
Abbas and Fayyad could change those standing orders, yes.
He noted that the dimensions of Israel’s war on Gaza had created a
fantastic new mobilization of solidarity with the people of Gaza– among Palestinians, including secular Palestinians, from all around the world. Young people everywhere are organizing in new ways. When I was in San Francisco recently, 1,200 people came to my lecture!
He expressed strong support for a campaign to impose sanctions on israel for its practices in the occupied territories: “Only when Israel starts to hurt from its apartheid policy will things change.”
Finally, I asked Barghouthi what he thought the U.S. government should do to try to improve the situation. Here was his response:
Firstly, it should separate US policy from Israel’s policy. The interests of the two countries may coincide in some respects, but they are far from identical.
Second, the US should mount immediate pressure on Israel to freeze all settlement activities completely. Both the Road Map and Annapolis required this. Everyone agrees a settlement freeze needs to happen!
That’s why I put this as the basic pre-condition for the PA to resume any form of negotiations with Israel. Quite simply, there has to be an immediate decision to freeze all settlement activities.
… Third, Washington needs to accept the idea of a Palestinian unity government.
Fourth, Washington needs to accept the rights of the Palestinians to democracy and the exercise of democratic practice. It should certainly work for the release from Israel’s jails of the PLC members elected in 2006 and give an assurance they would not be rearrested. We also need to have strong US support for new Palestinian elections.
And it’s important, in the new elections, that we include the Palestinians from the diaspora, because it’s very important indeed that we have a complete restructuring of the PLO.
On the longer-term future of the settlements he said,
Now, I know there’s a game whereby the Israelis claim that some settlements are ‘legal’ and therefore it’s okay for them to expand them. It is not okay. Israelis and their friends in the US need to understand that you can either have settlements and no Palestinian state or a Palestinian state but no settlements.
All settlements have to be removed. Period. Okay, if some settlers prove that they legally own the land they’re on and they’re ready to stay there as Palestinian citizens, they could stay.
They’ve already taken 80% of our water resources! How can we possibly have a viable state if the settlements stay and we still have the Wall cutting right through the state’s land?
The only alternative, if they don’t want to remove the settlements, is to admit that it’s not possible to have a viable Palestinian state, and therefore not possible to have a two-state solution.
Once we strip away his rhetoric, it comes down, at least for me, to this statement by Dr. Barghouthi:
I do not see how this ideas is any better than the similar idea of the Israeli demagogue Avigdor Lieberman. Barghouthi divides people by whether or not they are a Palestinian Arab. He determines citizenship essentially on that single basis. That is essentially what Lieberman proposes. So, we have an Arab who wants to live only with Arabs and we have a Jew who wants to live only with Jews.
One can come up with arguments on either side, as Dr. Barghouthi does, with his “if they can show they own it rhetoric.” Of course, he adds that those who remain must want to live in a Palestinian state – a Palestinian Arab loyalty test.
Barghouthi wants his all Arab state with no Jews but expects Israel to take in Arabs. So, he is a hypocrite, thinking that what is good for the goose is not good for the gander. That is worse than Lieberman.
Any of us can design an argument that rationalizes or justifies his position. The bottom line, however, is where all of this ends up. On his thinking, we would have a racially pure, Judenrein state.
The end game in this dispute will, as Benny Morris argues rather persuasively, be either one all Arab state or one mostly Jewish state with a small Arab minority. To deny that the Arab side’s goal is racist while accusing the Israelis, in the same breadth, of being racist is to lie. So, Dr. Barghouthi’s statement should be understood as it really is and not sugarcoated.
N. Friedman,
That is just crazy – what you read has no relation at all to what Cobban wrote. Where to even start?
Arnold,
It had to do with what Barghouthi said. Read his words. I have correctly interpreted them. He says he wants a state with only Arabs.
No, N., that is NOT what he said. What he said was exactly the opposite of what you claim he said. He said that settlers, who are not Arabs, but who are Jews, could become citizens of Palestine and continue to live in their homes.
And, of course, because your knowledge is limited to only what you want to think you know, you are unaware that not all Palestinians are Arabs, and they are certainly as entitled and as welcome as their Arab fellow Palestinian to citizenship and residence in the Palestinian state.
N.:
Do you honestly think a reasonable person would interpret that statement the way you interpret it?
Arnold and Shirin,
I think that the only reasonable interpretation of his words is that he advocates a Judenrein state.
First, only those who can show what he deems to be legal purchase are potentially eligible to stay. That, almost surely, means nearly no one. Second, of those who could show legal purchase, he says they must want to be a citizen of the Palestinian Arab state – which is what Lieberman says.
Now, there may be justifications and rationalizations for such position. But, at the end of the day, the end result is that his approach leads to a state with no – or nearly no – Jews. And, such is almost surely exactly what he meant.
Sure, N., and up is down, down is up, white is black and black is white, too. I get it! It’s opposites day.
We all have to realize that N Friedman’s opinions are most likely not genuine, as he/she is most likely affiliated with the Israeli Absorbtion Ministry and is most likely a member of its ‘army of bloggers’.
Read about it here.
His/her posts should end with a disclaimer to that effect.
I have accused him/her of this once before, and having seen no rebuttal from him/her, my suspicions have been strengthened. If this is the case, N Friedman’s posts should not be taken seriously and, if possible, completely ignored.
Dear “faylasoof”,
Why is it that when faced with opposing views, anti-Israel posters rely on the canard that such views must be the product of some Zionist organization or Israeli ministry, because, after all, it’s perfectly obvious that no one in their right mind could independently hold such opinions!!
Perhaps N. Friedman has not responded to your charges because you are a wingnut!
He said that settlers, who are not Arabs, but who are Jews, could become citizens of Palestine and continue to live in their homes.
Where exactly did he say that?
Faylasoof, don’t know about the “army of bloggers” thing, but certainly N. Friedman’s comments should not be taken seriously because they make no rational sense and are divorced from fact and reality.
Come on, JES. Don’t be so disingenuous. It’s familiar from you, but it became boring quite some time ago.
Shirin,
If we go by Dr. Barghouthi’s quoted statement, what would happen to a Jew who would wish to continue living in a Palestinian Arab state but did not want to be a citizen of that state? And, which Jews could stay even if they desired to become citizens of that state?
You may prefer to believe that your pet liberation movement is not racially charged in its agenda. But, that is simply not so and Dr. Barghouthi’s position is, as expressed, less racially charged than are the statements of many, many other leaders in the Palestinian Arab liberation movement. I should add: all liberation movements are, by their nature, charged in favor of the group to be liberated and, in most cases, against some other group. That is in the nature of such a movement.
One reason why the racism that is rife in the Palestinian Arab movement is not as much discussed – even though it is in plain view for anyone with eyes – is that such movement is described in terms of colonial theory and the like. Such theory provides a rationalization that seemingly “explains” the racism as something else. Those who would be forced to live with the results, however, would experience the event as racism, exactly as the term is defined in the dictionary.
Shirin,
I repeat WHERE EXACTLY DID HE SAY THAT in what Helena quoted. Stop finger wagging and explain to us where, in the English statement (You do, after all speak English?) he even remotely says what you claim he does.
BTW, I suggest you take a look at the Palestinian Constitution for a definition of the “Palestinian Nation” and the legal basis of the Palestinian state – Arab, Islam and shari’a law.
Why not ask him for yourself N.Friedman, instead of relying on missives and trying to connect dots that simply aren’t there? Barghouti did not get into specifics here and you have misrepresented his quote and what it entails also and you are really looking for something from nothing.
This comparison between settlers in the West Bank possibly gaining citizenship in a Palestinian state as against to Palestinians who ALREADY has citizenship in Israel is disingenuous and legitimates what is illegal in every view of law imaginable. The fact is that if certain settlers, Jewish that they are, do not wish to be removed then their status of Israeli citizenship could/would remain and they would either be Palestinians with dual citizenship or permanent residents IF THEY WANT to live in a state that has a majority of Palestinians has NO separate law for settlers to remain above the law here. What you are essentially asking for is for the settlers to (a) keep their land (b) keep their Israeli citizenship and (c) keep their championed states over Palestinians.
I don’t really agree with Barghouti that settlements have to be dismantled. Nothing has to be dismantled. All that infrastructure can still be used by the Palestinian state.
Barghouti is giving them a clear choice. Nowhere does it say “this land is for Arabs only”, even though you imply he suggests it. (There are Arab Jews too as well as non-Arab Muslims and Christians and Jews. Wouldn’t that make it all the more difficult to paint this as a uniform state purely for racist reasons.) Also another distinct difference is that these settlers were/are used by another state to prevent a Palestinian state, and unlike the Israeli Arabs, are NOT original inhabitants of the land and are essentially new migrants, plenty of them from the U.S. What’s more remarkable is that Lieberman is asking for an oath that testifies to Zionism, an ideology that marks dispossession and refusal of a nascent state called Palestine, giving more justification for further discrimmination in future against non-Jews. Barghouti did not specify on what he meant (like you did by reading his mind), but from what I can read from it, it seems to be a question for the settlers if they want to be part of a state that they are equal citizens with Palestinians, the very people whom they have abhorred for decades.
Can they give up their luxurious living, living off the state of Israel in Palestine?
Why not ask him for yourself N.Friedman, instead of relying on missives and trying to connect dots that simply aren’t there? Barghouti did not get into specifics here and you have misrepresented his quote and what it entails also and you are really looking for something from nothing.
This comparison between settlers in the West Bank possibly gaining citizenship in a Palestinian state as against to Palestinians who ALREADY has citizenship in Israel is disingenuous and legitimates what is illegal in every view of law imaginable. The fact is that if certain settlers, Jewish that they are, do not wish to be removed then their status of Israeli citizenship could/would remain and they would either be Palestinians with dual citizenship or permanent residents IF THEY WANT to live in a state that has a majority of Palestinians has NO separate law for settlers to remain above the law here. What you are essentially asking for is for the settlers to (a) keep their land (b) keep their Israeli citizenship and (c) keep their championed states over Palestinians.
I don’t really agree with Barghouti that settlements have to be dismantled. Nothing has to be dismantled. All that infrastructure can still be used by the Palestinian state.
Barghouti is giving them a clear choice. Nowhere does it say “this land is for Arabs only”, even though you imply he suggests it. (There are Arab Jews too as well as non-Arab Muslims and Christians and Jews. Wouldn’t that make it all the more difficult to paint this as a uniform state purely for racist reasons.) Also another distinct difference is that these settlers were/are used by another state to prevent a Palestinian state, and unlike the Israeli Arabs, are NOT original inhabitants of the land and are essentially new migrants, plenty of them from the U.S. What’s more remarkable is that Lieberman is asking for an oath that testifies to Zionism, an ideology that marks dispossession and refusal of a nascent state called Palestine, giving more justification for further discrimmination in future against non-Jews. Barghouti did not specify on what he meant (like you did by reading his mind), but from what I can read from it, it seems to be a question for the settlers if they want to be part of a state that they are equal citizens with Palestinians, the very people whom they have abhorred for decades.
Can they give up their luxurious living, living off the state of Israel in Palestine?
Joshua,
I disagree with your interpretation.
I think Dr. Barghouthi’s statement is entirely in line with traditional Palestinian Arab nationalist rhetoric that feigns a willingness to tolerate Jews … but basically somewhere else. The same sort of language appears in Article Six of the old PLO Charter: “The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians.” As Article 20 provides: “Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.”
Likely otherwise, Dr. Barghouthi would not include the part about being able to prove ownership – which probably means that the person must be able to trace ownership to before “the Zionist invasion” – and why he would require such a person to be a citizen of the Palestinian Arab state (as such persons “will be considered Palestinians”), not a citizen of Israel in a Palestinian Arab state.
Note that Arafat’s negotiating position included provision that Arab areas would have no Jews – again, basically defined as those Jews who are not “considered Palestinians.” And Hamas envisions, if we go by the group’s covenant, that certain non-Muslims can remain, but only in the shadow or wing – depending on what translation you go by – of Islam, meaning most likely that any such people would have to remain in accordance with terms of the Pact of Umar.
Frankly, it is not that common in my experience to find a Palestinian Arab of the nationalist, rather than religious, point of view who have completely walked away from the rhetoric of the traditional Arab view that Jews should be treated merely as invaders – and, if possible, expelled (or, on Hamas’s formula, expelled or exterminated). While that does not mean that Palestinian Arabs will not agree to a different settlement, the preferred position notes what is in such people’s hearts.
The effort to paint Barghouti as a racist , based on “Okay, if some settlers prove that they legally own the land they’re on and they’re ready to stay there as Palestinian citizens, they could stay” is really comical. This is the perfectly normal procedure that applies everywhere in the world: If you don’t own some land, you don’t have a right to live there. And if you refuse to abide by the laws of a country you are in, you will be deported or worse. But if he wants Palestine to be a normal country he is a racist! Reverse things – Israel not letting Arab thugs kick Jews out of their homes with lethal force and stay there extraterritorially makes Israel anti-Arab racist? Yeah, right.
First, only those who can show what he deems to be legal purchase are potentially eligible to stay. That, almost surely, means nearly no one. So he agrees with the academic and juridical consensus, that nearly no settler is in any way legally entitled to be there. That makes him a racist?
Yes he wants Palestine to be Judenrein of the Jews who have no right to be there. You know, Antarctica is Judenrein too – quel horreur, must be a lot of racist penguins there! Removing settlers is essentially making Palestine Diebenrein (Thief-pure). The overwhelming majority of settlers are on land which was stolen at gunpoint since 1967, to which there is no prior claim. There is very little property in the West Bank and Gaza which belonged to Jews in 1947. The estimate of the Jewish population of the 1947 proposed Arab state in Palestine (excluding Jerusalem) was a whopping 1,000; The partition plan boundaries, which Israel greatly enlarged in 1948 were drawn precisely to cover Jewish population concentrations. The WB & G is but half that area, and 500 people in 1947 is probably an overestimate (have never seen an official number) . Everyone else but the heirs of these 500 on the tiny scraps of their property, any state is perfectly within its rights to evict whenever it wants to. If saying Barghouti is not a racist, while Israeli policy is flamboyantly racist is a lie, well, then I am proud to “lie” – it’s what is called in the reality based community “pointing out obvious truths.”
J K,
People have no particular right, as of nature, to live in any specific locality. The right to live in a locality is a matter of local politics, not of innate right. That is true for Jews just as much as Arabs.
This is the perfectly normal procedure that applies everywhere in the world: If you don’t own some land, you don’t have a right to live there.
It certainly is not!! There are a hell of a lot of Muslims in Europe today, for example, who don’t own any land.
Very disingenuous, mot to mention deeply flawed argument, JES – as if you did not understand JK’s point.
Those Muslims who are legally living in Europe all went through the normal, accepted procedures to gain entry into and residence in the countries they are living in. If they did not, they are subject to deportation, and in some cases criminal prosecution.
Those Muslims in Europe who do not legally and legitimately own the property they are living on did not force the owners off of it at gunpoint, or use some other twisted pretext to remove the owners so that they could live there. They are there by mutual, voluntary agreement with the owner, and are paying rent or providing some other compensation to the owner for the use of the property. If they did force the owner off his land, or if they are not compensating the owner as mutually agreed, then they are living there illegally and illegitimately, and are subject to eviction and possible penalties, which the State will assist the owner in accomplishing.
As you and your ilk are so fond of pointing out in defence of Israel’s policies, states have a right to decide who enters their country, how long they may stay, and whether or not they may reside there, but you seem to want different rules for a Palestinian state.
Shirin,
First, the typical European has had no say at all in who is allowed to immigrate to Europe. That was something done by people who thought it a good idea to bring in foreigners to do the dirty work or, if the Euro-Arab Dialogue agreements express real agreements, then for purposes of the EU building a joint civilization project with Arabs – something never remotely contemplated by the average European citizen who knows hardly a thing, if anything, about such agreements.
Second, Europeans certainly did not accept that the foreigners would come in and demand that Europe change itself to accommodate the social preferences of the immigrants. Now, so far as I am concerned, the immigrants are within their rights to demand whatever they want but, be that as it may, taking the view that the immigration was done with the consent of the governed is contrary to fact.
Second, some of the leaders of the immigrants have argued that Europe ought to be ruled by non-European Muslims. That, you can be sure, is not something that Europeans expected or agreed upon. Again, I think that those who migrate have every right to play politics but, on your telling, the immigrants are all acting as good Europeans – which is simply not true. As Mullah Krekar indicated in Sweden, with reference to birthrates and Muslim politics, the Muslim way of thinking is stronger than the European way.
Third, you complain that the Israeli state does things it, on your view, ought not do such as placing people where you think they ought not be. But, of course, in the real world, states do what they want, without regard to what populations think. And, it is politics which determines who owns land. In your prospective Palestinian Arab state, evidently land would be owned almost exclusively by Arabs – just like Jordan with its laws that prohibit Jews from immigrating and becoming Jordanian.
in the real world, states do what they want, without regard to what populations think. And, it is politics which determines who owns land. In other words, might makes right, and lets just have the law of the jungle. What cause does anyone have to complain about Hitler’s fun and games in Europe; after all, it was just politics, and he “determined” that only Germany owned land in Europe, and that Jews had no right to own anything in Europe, not even their lives.
What is wrong with an Arab state where land is almost exclusively owned by Arabs, if they are the ones with legitimate titles, both under domestic and international law. Is it racist antisemitism that Jews don’t own most of Iceland or Cambodia?
Friedman’s stuff about Muslims in Europe is entirely irrelevant. Of course, by “own” I included “had a lease on”, or had legal residency too.
Very disingenuous, mot to mention deeply flawed argument, JES – as if you did not understand JK’s point.
Who’s disingenuous, Shirin? What I was arguing with was JK’s argument that most states require ownership of land in order to become citizens. That’s simply false.
BTW, JK, I notice that you have now modified your personal definiation of “own” to include other methods of land tenure that generally aren’t included under “ownership”.
From the Hamas point of view (and judging from the Fatah Draft Constitution, I think it’s the same), the catch here is that virtually all ownership of all land in the areas conquered by the Muslims is vested, immutably, in the Muslim waqf. From Article 11 of the Hamas Convention:
The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Moslem generations till Judgement Day?
This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Moslems have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Moslems consecrated these lands to Moslem generations till the Day of Judgement.
So, whether or not a Jew, or another non-Muslim, can “own” land is highly questionable, which makes your point, JK, completely irrelevant and moot.
As you and your ilk are so fond of pointing out in defence of Israel’s policies, states have a right to decide who enters their country, how long they may stay, and whether or not they may reside there, but you seem to want different rules for a Palestinian state.
Not at all Shirin. The Palestinians are perfectly justified in deciding who enters and has a right to citizenship in their state, provided Israelis have the same right.
J K,
My argument is that there is no cosmic justice in land ownership. That was my point, not the one you assume I make.
And, the analogy to Muslims in Europe is a pretty good one, if you examine it in any detail.