|
Edited on Thu Nov-11-04 02:33 PM by durutti
And by "educated", you apparently mean swallowing biblical myths and Israel's propaganda without the slightest bit of critical thought. It is not we who "oppose Israel JUST BECAUSE the right wing supports it" (a fallacious statement itself, but one I'll touch on later) but rather you who feels the need to believe everything any hardline Zionist says. I won't speculate as to the reasons.
Up until around 500 years ago, there were no nation-states in the modern sense at all. There were city-states and there were tribes and confederations of tribes, but no nation-states, a nation-state being defined by a common territory, commom means and manner of communication, common measurements and currencies, and so on. The nation-state was born with the liberal-democratic revolutions of recent centuries and reflected the need of the nascent capitalist class to establish the aforementioned features for business purposes. Thus, many nation-states started off as a colonies.
Thus, Israel did not exist as a nation-state. It existed as a tribal kingdom. And the tribal kingdom called Israel that did exist was quite different from the one described in the Bible. For starters, it was small. Not only did it not stretch from the Tigris to the Euphrates -- it didn't even encompass all of the area that would come to be called Palestine or even all of modern Israel. And there's not the slightest evidence that a united kingdom of Israel ever existed -- Israel and Judah were probably always separate states. Furthermore, other peoples dwelled within both of those states, interbreeding with Hebrew-speaking peoples. The cultures of these peoples impacted the Hebrews and vice-versa. (It's also worth noting here that enslavement in Egypt seems to be a myth, and that the Israelites really just arose -- just like the area's other inhabitants -- from the indigenous population.) There really was not a distinct Israelite identity.
Israelites began to trickle out of the area well before the Babylonian conquest. Many more left after that conquest, and some were captured and taken away, particularly those from ruling families. And of course, some remained. It wasn't until this period that Judaism and Jewish identity developed.
As you correctly noted, the area was named Palestine after the Romans conquered it. What this fact is supposed to have to do with anything is beyond me. Do you think that God somehow picked out tracts of land, gave them names, and said, "This is what you are, now and forever"? All nations are born of social, economic and political developments. Palestine is no different.
Obviously, Palestine was eventually conquered by the Arabs. And they knew it as Palestine. You can read many texts from the Middle Ages referring to it as such. Its residents regarded themselves both as Arabs and as Palestinians. (Palestinians are ethnically distinct from other Arabs, descended as they are from other peoples who'd occupied the area as well, including Hebrew-speaking peoples.) Palestinians developed their own dialect and their own traditions, which remain today.
In the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, bourgeois revolutions took place throughout Europe, establishing actual nation-states. Arabs began to take notice. Under Ottoman rule, there developed Arab nationalist movements. Palestinians began to develop national consciousness; they saw themselves both as Palestinians and as part of a larger Arab nation. The development of this nationalism was intensified by the influx of Zionist settlers.
After WWI, Palestine became a British mandate -- that is, a colony. And so their nationalism ceased to be just Arab nationalism and became Palestinian nationalism. Especially since the 1960s, the movement has emphasized "Palestinian-ness".
Palestine is real. If you deny this fact, then you also must logically defend Iraq's right to invade Kuwait; and you must also insist that the existence of the U.S., Canada, most African states and most Central and South American states is morally impermissible. Furthermore, you must recognize that modern Israel is at least as much of an invention of colonial powers as Palestine. For that matter, you must recognize that Palestinians are, on the whole, probably more closely related to the ancient Israelites than many Jews.
Of course, it doesn't really matter if you call it Palestine or not. Call it part of Arabia. Regardless:
1. Palestinian Arabs were driven from their homes by war and ethnic cleansing in 1948.
2. Palestinian Arabs have a right to return to their homes.
3. All individuals should have equal rights, irrespective of race, religion, ethnicity or nationality; and all peoples have a right to self-determination.
The acceptance of at least a two-state solution follows logically from these precepts.
Now, as for the last part of your message: the Democratic and Republican parties both unequivocally support Israel's apartheid policies. It's been that way for decades, and doesn't look like it will change in the near future. Furthermore, both libertarians and paleoconservatives have taken issue with Israel; and the left that's taken issue with Israel exists largely outside of the Democratic Party.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
