Response

by Nouri Lumendifi (Algeria)

In friendly response to an Israeli friend about a previous post.

It is a simple verifiable fact that there was *not* a Palestinian state before the creation of state of Israel. There was also *not* a Palestinian nationalist movement before the creation of the State of Israel. In fact, there was no such movement up until 1967, the year in which the territories passed from Jordan to Israel. Population on that territory didn’t even thought to demand their very own state up until later. In that case, what is left for us to call “nationalist” in all the “movement” that was going on? The desire wipe Israel of the map? That was never unique to Palestinians, not even to Arabs (what’s with Ahmadi-Nejad’s promise to do just that).

There were demands for autonomy and there was an entity called Palestine, and Arab and Palestinian leaders called for its independence. Palestinian nationalism is a variant of Arab nationalism that is (as are all other Arab national sentiments) young. If you read Mehran Kamrava’s The Modern Middle East (University of California Press, 2005), he clearly documents the birth and maturity of the Palestinian national movement (pp. 83-88). The earliest articulation of Palestinian identity came as far back as 1914 It is an undeniable fact that there was a Palestinian territory up until 1948 and that the people there regarded it as their home and had a local identity separate from Jordanians, Egyptians, Lebanese, and others, though still within a common Arab context. There was no militant movement for a Palestinian state until Palestinians viewed it as being necissary, a similar situation to other Arab national movements. There was no Algerian state, no Kenyan state, before those peoples demanded that they be given independence. In addition this statement does not address my argument that the age of a nationalism does not discount its validity. It simply re-states a flawed and false view that Palestinians did not have a separate identity (or “exist”) before 1967. The Palestinians wanted a place for their nation to exist, in whatever form, long before then. Even if what you believe were true, it’s irrelevant to the situation because Israel and the Palestinians have committed to a two state solution with Israel and Palestine independent next to one another. The demand is there, it has been recognized and therefore is valid.

to suggest that people did not had ethnic identities or did not value self-governance is to ignore the obvious. The only difference is that before it was much harder to create large states and as a consequence same nation was often split into many states. Even then they were often affiliated or even answered to one “king of kings”. Moreover, because larger countries are possible today, the “melting pot” effect works much better then before. Look at English and Scottish for example. Scots used to fight bloody wars with English to remain independent.

Nationalism in the way it is thought of today did not arise until modern times. Any historian will tell you that. Nationalism and ethnicity are not the same thing. National consciousness is recognized by every scholar of nationalism as being a modern convention. The idea of a nation-state based on ethnicity or language never came about until the 1600′s, previously religion or dynasty justified states. Very few peoples used the idea of a “nation” to justify a regime. The reason nations were spread over various states was because they didn’t believe they were nations. They didn’t become nations until some poet or politician told them so.

Furthermore I did not suggest that ethnicity did not exist or was of no consiquence. Ethnity has always existed, and so has xenophobia. Nationalism has not though. Also, the difference was not that it was harder to make larger states, indeed it was much easier (just look at the size of European states today and the empires of 200 years ago). Most ethic peoples did not thnk of themselves as nations and therefore did not unite. Why do you think that the Germans and Italians took so long to become one? Because there was no national identity damanding for them to do so. There were small pockets of nationalism-like sentiments, but nothing like the romantacism and political conscious that arose in the 1700′s and 1800′s. Furthermore, if you examine the Roman Empire, the Russian Empire, and the Chinse dynasties, none of these were ethnic communities. They were collections of tribes and ethnicities ruled by nobles or generals of just as many ethnicities. Rome ruled various peoples, Armenians, Numidians, Jews, Greeks, Iberians, Gauls, Italians, Assyrians, etc. One became Roman by becoming a citizen, regardless of ethnicity. It was a civic compact, very much like Americans, Britons, Australians, Indians and Canadians have. Being American isn’t about ethnicity, its about citizenship. Nationalism is quite different than civic loyalty or patriotism. It’s a primordial entity that is closed because of birth ties. Americans don’t call their Founding Fathers “nationalists” for a reason. They call them “Patriots”. Palestinians call the men of their national mythos nationalists. Russians weren’t members of a national state until after the fall of the Soviet Union, when the different regions of the multi-national/ethnic empire broke apart into nation states. They were for most of their history peasants. The same with the Chinese, even today under the communist government. All of the great empires of the past were multi-ethnic states, whose legitimacy was not derrived on an ethnic basis. It was about the family that ruled, the members of the gentry, etc. That’s the difference between nationalism (which is manifested in a country like Germany, Italy, the Russian Federation, the PRC, etc) and the feeling of knowing that there is something different between you and your neighbor but still being ruled by the Hapsburgs. Only recently did some states become legitimate solely on the basis of the origins of their people. That is why historians say that nationalism didn’t come around until modern times. Ethnicity is one thing, nationalism is quite another. I personally view ethnic based exclusive nationalism as backward, and prefer civic patriotism (much like what is enjoyed to an extent in Israel, and certainly in the US, Canada and Britain).

As for the Scottish example, xenophobia has always existed among peoples fought against invaders in the same way the Scotts did. It was basically a conflict among nobles until recent times when nationalist ideologies were made available to the common people. Until recent times the justification for conflicts was about the demands of the dynasty or the ruler, not the people. Nationalism transfered the concerns of the elite to those of the masses and bound peoples together in a very different way than before. Nationalist historiography tends to ignore this and makes the contention that nationalism is primordial or ancient. It’s not. People used the term “nation” to refer to nobles or educated classes (ie not the whole population by any means) until the 1700′s and 1800′s (something that peristed until the 1900′s in some parts of eastern Europe). Nationalism is no older than what most people consider to be the “modern era”.

if group of people calls itself a nation does not automatically grants that group any particular rights, including having their own country. Yes, sentiment of people matters, but so do sentiments of other groups of people. There is a need to be reasonable. If this line is breached, all sorts of nasty things start to happen. I can easily make up a band of say 20 friends, call it a nation, and demand to be granted sovereignty on my real estate where my “nation” is the absolute majority. Am I entitled to it?

I addressed this in my post.

It is not the obligation of the world to bend to every nationalist demand, but there is little variation in the level of legitimacy among different sorts of nationalism. When there is, it is the result of the severity of those demands, or their viability.

That means that if it is not geo-politically or economically viable for you and your homies to make your 20 Man State, then there isn’t really much of a reason for people suport it. Where’s it going to be? How big? Certain questions must be asked first. But your demand for 20 people to live together is no less valid than that of Kurds for their own state. The only difference is numbers and other such particulars. If you can’t find anywhere to put your nation, you’re going to be a stateless one. If you do find one and you and most of the rest of the world commit to putting it there, more power to you, go for it.

While the claim that Hamas was elected because Fatah was corrupt is true, this is still no excuse for voting for Hamas. Was the line of thought of voters something like “we sure do not desire the destruction of Israel, but if that is the price for stopping corruption of our own elected officials… it is probably worth it”? If corruption was the only reason Hamas was voted for, why didn’t other parties arise that promised to stop corruption *without* destroying Israel? And if they did, why didn’t people voted for them? Low brand recognition? I think the answer is clear. Destruction of Israel, like so many polls besides the elections show, is high on the agenda of majority of Palestinian population. Very sad.

Most polls show that the majority of Palestinians favor a two state solution and do not desire the destruction of Israel. That said, all politics is local. And yes, the other parties that didn’t call for the destruction of Israel had low brand recognition. Hamas didn’t run on a “Destroy the Jew!” platfrom, it ran on an anti-corruption platform. The other parties that promised to stop corruption were the ones in power! They were allied with the established groups. Other candidates (that didn’t want to destroy Israel) were locked up in Israeli and Palestinian prisons as well. There is such a thing as effective campaigning as well (Hamas, having a militia, was probably able to “convince” a lot of other people to take down a few posters here and there, or to not run at all), not to mention that as a religious party, Hamas is seen as being a bit more trust worthy than a bunch of Marxists. Whether or not we on the outside think that’s fair is irrelevant because we can’t vote in their elections. Sure, most Palestinians probably don’t like Israel, but I seriously doubt that they thought a vote for Hamas was a vote for destroying Israel.