Paris book fair opens with row over Israel

Riot police are out in force today for the opening of the annual Paris book fair. They are not there to calm the latest French literary spat but to prevent trouble when President Shimon Peres opens the show, which this year is hosting Israeli writers as guests of honour. This may be more a news item than a blog post, but I want to record it, in the absence of much media attention.

About 10 Arab states and Iran have cancelled their attendance at the annual showcase of the French publishing industry. The Hebrew-language theme of this year's fair, which coincides with the 60th anniversary of the creation of Israel, has upset the Muslim world and drawn criticism from some leftwing French writers and rights organisations. 

Writers' unions in usually Francophile Egypt, Morocco, Algeria and Lebanon have refused to take part in the event because they say that it condones a country that violates the rights of Palestinians. The Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization called on its 50 member-states to stay away because of Israel's "atrocities, oppression and imposed starvation and siege against the Palestinian people."

Some French commentators have also joined in deploring the invitation, especially the failure to invite Israeli Arab-language writers.

Arab boycotts of Israeli events are hardly new. What is surprising about this one, near the heart of Paris, is the lack of indignation from the usually vocal French literary establishment.

The near silence has prompted a few  Left Bank figures to criticise their colleagues for their silence on a matter that goes to the heart of freedom of expression.   

In Le Monde, Oliver Rolin and Olivier Rubinstean, a publisher and a writer, deplored "the deafening silence from the whole community of writers and publishers who are taking part in this fair." The pair also regretted the fact that "most Arab writers are calling for the boycott of a country that they say is guilty of crimes against humanity" while they and their states turn a blind eye to crimes and the breach of rights in the Muslim world. 

Bernard Henri-Lévy, the celebrity thinker, has weighed in, calling on the radio for the public to attend the show en masse as a protest against the boycott. "I hope that the people of Paris will demonstrate through their presence that they refuse the logic of boycotters and book-burners," he said. "This is a case of states taking writers hostage," he added. "That those in Europe who feed this tendency carry a terrifying responsibility."  [Here's his tirade in today's Libération].

A few Arab writers have said that they will come despite official instructions to stay away from the Paris Salon du Livre and the Turin book fair in May.  Writing in his blog about such boycotts, Tahar Ben Jelloun, the Moroccan novelist, said: "Criticize the policies of a state. Criticize a novel on its literary merit. But don't mix up the two things and create even an even bigger lack of understanding."

Organisers of the fair say that they are dismayed by the Muslim action. Serge Eyrolles, its chief, said that Israeli writers had been invited, not their state. "I am not a government minister. My job is to bring literature to readers. I am very surprised by how political this is getting," he said. Most of the 40 Israeli writers who are attending are advocates of a Palestinian state. They include David Grossman, Amos Oz, A. B. Yehoshua and Aharon Appelfeld.

Israel's ties to France have strengthened since the arrival in office last May of President Sarkozy and his shift away from France's traditionally pro-Arab policy. Sarkozy, whose mother is part Jewish, is caricatured in parts of the Arab world as a closet Zionist. Peres is the first foreign leader to pay a state visit to France under Mr Sarkozy's presidency, which began in May last year.

Comments

[Daisy]

Is the fair celebrating Israeli writers or the founding of the State of Israel? One is a worthy literary celebration, the other is a jarring political statement (sixty years of the existence of Israel has meant sixty years of statelessness for the Palestinians). It sounds like the fair's organisers are trying to play it both ways and that's unfortunate. What they should have done was try to bring together writers of Jewish and Muslim heritage to do what politicians are incapable of doing and that is to bridge the divide between the two cultures.

Charles, please don't ever quote BHL on any subject regardless of what he has to say! If ever there was an argument against free speech, it's BHL (and Sarko)!

[azloon]

Re BHL

come on, Daisy, remember what Voltaire said,

[Richard]

I don't see why a book fair should have to adhere to some kind of political orthodoxy. It's freedom of expression that is paramount.

[Becca]

Actually, the Palestinians were given a state in 1948, Daisy. They attacked Israel, lost, and lost it through that and later wars.

[qwerty]

BHL was a guest of honour once at a "Conférence Berryer" in the Palais de Justice, where he proved, to my surprise, that he's capable of laughing at himself. So I now find him slightly less annoying than I used to.

Charles: the Conférence Berryer is worthy of an article on your blog. It's where aspiring lawyers slug it out against each other, NOTHING is barred. Totally uncivilised.

[Terry]

Funny that so many of these countries that stomp on their own citizen's basic rights including the right to vote and freedom of speech. Their treatment of women are appalling. Yet, France shouldnt bar the former president of a democracy where arabs have the right to vote.

Hopefully, France wont buckle in.

[Daniel Strohl]

"Here's his tirade in today's Libération]" (CHARLES)

LOL!

I have read it. It has failed to turn me into a regular Libération (and BHL) reader .)

The last sentence of BHL's "tirade" is rather funny, even if probably it was not intented to be so.

"Charles, please don't ever quote BHL on any subject regardless of what he has to say!" (DAISY)

LOL!

Daisy, "BHL (and Sarko)" vont apprécier d'étre mis dans le même sac .)

[Romain]

Definitely a "faux pas" to mix the book fair with a political Israeli celebration. They had it coming.
There is an interview of Shimon Peres in Le Figaro where he states :"No country has helped Israel like France did". A far cry from the clichés relentlessly hammered on France.
It also sheds a new light on De Gaulle's statement :"Ce peuple dominateur et sur de lui"

[Monika]

>>>Tahar Ben Jelloun, the Moroccan novelist, said: "Criticize the policies of a state. Criticize a novel on its literary merit. But don't mix up the two things and create even an even bigger lack of understanding."<<<

That were exactly my thoughts when I started to read your article.

The thickheadedness and the boycotting Israel for boycotting-Israel's sake by these states is just dull and weakens any argument they may bring in against Israel. Who would pay attention to the grumblings of an old grumbler?

Not to mention that these don't care much for human rights themselves as many commenters already mentioned.

[Jason]

Let the arabs not go to the book fair. Better for the readers.

[Jorg Andersen]

It's obvious that the Muslim states -- great defenders of human rights -- would see this as a provocation. But I am disappointed that the French left cannot bring itself to condemn the boycott for what it is-- an affront to the world of ideas and the spirit. where is Voltaire ?

[Barrie Garfinkel]

Dear Daisy -
Please get your facts straight....
Historically, about 600,000 Arabs fled Israel after surrounding Arab countries warned they would destroy the Jewish state in 1948. Some Arabs also were driven out by Jewish forces while they were trying to push back invading Arab armies. At the same time, over 800,000 Jews were expelled or left Arab countries under threat after Israel was founded.
Thank you

[Actu75]

Russia, China, massiv defenders of human rights, have been invited before and no boycott occured. Rightfully: as China's or Russia's previously, Israeli litterature, not the Israel state is the Salon du livre's guest of honor.
Critics point out a political confusion betwin the litterature célébration and the historical anniversary of Israel's foundation.
Should the organisers have chosen any other year to focus the importance of Israelis writers? And had any other year been chosen (wich would have been an abusrd decision in terms of potential public interest in the event)would the 2008's boycotters have joined in?
The argument only apparently makes sense and it also reveals an untold motivation: many boycotters refuse even the principle of Israel's existence.

[Lily]

« many boycotters refuse even the principle of Israel's existence. » (Actu 75)

… while these conflicting parties are expected to cooperate under the roof of a new Mediterranean Union. It was one of Sarko’s prestige projects and has now found approval in its scaled down version to include all EU member states. EU member states are currently elaborating details at the EU summit in Brussels (to Britain’s dismay (?), since British media don’t seem to cover much of it).

EU leaders have come to an agreement. This leaves us wondering, however, whether the interests of those most affected, i.e. Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Lebanon Libya, Morocco, etc. forming an economic union that is associated with and receives funding from the EU, will truly feel united within or due to that union.

[Ros]

I thought Charles' article was interesting but why oh why must he always bring out the same thought (I was going to say "idea" but I suppose it's not an idea) i.e. "The near silence has prompted a few Left Bank figures to criticise their colleagues" - I live on the Left Bank (much condemned by Charles) & can confirm that everyone "over here" are not intellectuals and many have not even read a book!

[It's just a figure of speech, Ros. In French too, as you know. When they talk about 'le petit monde Germano-Pratin' they don't mean that everyone around Saint Germain-des-près is a writer or publisher. CB]

[Ros]

Forgot to add that the main idea in the 5eme arr. tomorrow is to get rid of Tiberi & his wife who having waited for 10 years, may be going before a Tribunal very soon for the
"faux électeurs" trouble (perhaps I'm not allowed to say that here)? See http://www.denistouret.net/constit/Tiberi_Xaviere.html

[dot king]

"Actually, the Palestinians were given a state in 1948, Daisy. They attacked Israel, lost, and lost it through that and later wars." (Becca)

What a very strange interpretation of modern history - the land was called Palestine and the Palestinians lived there until the creation of Israël "The Promised Land" (an this accoriding to a major work of fiction).
On old maps with title "The Holy Land at the Time of Jesus" (hanging in a classroom in the school where I work) Iraël does not figure - it is a 20th century creation.

The Palestinians became a stateless nation at that time - of course they fought back.

[qwerty]

I lived off rue du Cherche-Midi for a short while, and within a few days I had encountered Michel Field, Olivier Duhamel, Richard Bohringer and Lou Doillon. Moreover, the 6th is overrun by publishers, authors, and 70 year old long-haired pseudo-intellectuals passing the time in Café Flore (probably a habit they picked up in 1968). I don't particularly have anything against them, but I'd rather not live in an enclave where you run into a minor celebrity every time you go out in the street. Boooring.

About Palestine, Israel: the land was under Ottoman rule and then became a British mandate, so the status back in 1947 was pretty hazy as far as I know (AFAIK?)

[Terry]

The reason why the left is so pro-arab is that the left's worldview is not different from them. Much of the arab world (or at least it's "governments") is totalitarian and anti-christian. No wonder leftists are sympathetic. Most arab governments dont believe in freedom of the individual but control by elitists, be it religous or otherwise.

Dot King, I think it is you who need the history lesson. Qwerty just gave you one.

[john o'doe]

The Germans have effectively strangled the ill-conceived Mediterranean Union at birth. It will not receive community funding and will be quietly forgotten after the French EU presidency.

[john o'doe]

While Paris intellectuals are getting indignant about Israel, there are protests in Tibet about the Chinese annexation of their homeland.
On his recent business trip to China, Sarkozy declared that France recognises that Tibet is part of China but hoped there could be more freedom for local culture or somesuch. Once that was out of the way he could get on with the real matter of signing nuclear power contracts.

[dot king]

About Palestine, Israel: the land was under Ottoman rule and then became a British mandate, so the status back in 1947 was pretty hazy as far as I know (AFAIK?)
(QWERTY)
Dot King, I think it is you who need the history lesson. Qwerty just gave you one.
(TERRY)
I heard just today at 13.30h on "2000 ans d'histoire" that the British had previously been thinking of "giving" what is present-day Uganda to the Jews as their promised land, but that the idea was scotched. And that a Jewish leader (sorry I was in the car, no way of making notes) at the time of the Dréfus case was trying to drum up support to get Jews a Promised Land and had a lot of support from young Jewish people from all over Europe, especially Russia obviously, because of the massive Pogroms they regularly suffered their. It was also said that this leader famously announced that if it took another 2000 years for Jews to have their Promised Land, then so be it, but they would have it.
So I got a history lesson after i'd posted, which gave me extra info, but didn't make Becca's comment any more correct. Up to 1948, what is now Israël, was called Palestine and Palestinians lived there. Some Palestinians were Jews, some Christians, most Arabs.
Nor does what I wrote go against what Qwerty says, she gives additional information. Thank you Qwerty, I welcome it.
Israël was created after the WW2, a Promised Land away from Pogroms and the Shoah, but taking over Palestine and creating a nation of people with no political voice or power in the world was a huge mistake.
Responsible for an on-going hostilities and periodic war.
And less importantly, the boycott of a book-fair.
No doubt there'll be someone who can go into better detail than I can, no history specialist, and anyone can always listen in to "2000 ans d'histoire" (France Inter today) en décallé if they doubt any of what I say above.

[Lily]

"The Germans have effectively strangled the ill-conceived Mediterranean Union at birth. It will not receive community funding and will be quietly forgotten after the French EU presidency."

No:
http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/mittelmeerunion14.html
(sorry, in German)

In other words, there will be a Mediterranean Union - with EU funding, but it doesn't operate along Sarko's original ideas but in association with all 27 EU member states.

[Valentin]

"While Paris intellectuals are getting indignant about Israel, there are protests in Tibet about the Chinese annexation of their homeland.
On his recent business trip to China, Sarkozy declared that France recognises that Tibet is part of China but hoped there could be more freedom for local culture or somesuch. Once that was out of the way he could get on with the real matter of signing nuclear power contracts." - JOHN O'DOE

Quite so.
While we can say that Taiwan for instance is a part of China,
whoever travels to Tibet will see that that's a separate nation in its own right, and China is (and behaves like) and occupying power.

[Adrienne]

Dot King, I should just like to note that that "major work of fiction" that you cited that lists Israel as the Promised Land is (also) recognized as a sacred text by Muslims (i.e., the majority of Palestinians and other Arabs).

Obviously that doesn't make those claims of sacred origin or authority true...but you rather sounded as though you thought it was just a Jewish work of fiction, conveniently concocted late in history. Jews also have a long history in the area. It's more complicated than one group being there OR the other.

[Terry]

Dot King said:

"So I got a history lesson after i'd posted, which gave me extra info,"

Here's an idea....get the history lesson BEFORE you post next time.

[Monika]

Terry: I think your last post was unnecessary.

Concerning the Mediterranian Union:
Actually it will, following the tagesschaulink, be a continuation of what is already done today. A sort of further coordination with the mediterranian countries.
For me the MU was a means of Sarko-France to get a place where France can play the only number 1 while here in the EU he has to share this role with others.
Btw I really do believe that such a Union as proposed by Sarko would have damaged the EU considerably in the middle and long term. France would have shifted its interests away from Europe (while still hoping to recieve subsidaries from Bruxelles). This would have meant that European projects will have more problems with a driving France away, it would occasionally create interest conflicts between the EU and the MU and finally would lead to a power loss of France in Europe. As we say here: 'you can't serve two lords' or 'one cannot dance at two weddings at the same time'.
Btw. since Sarko is in power we over here percieve that he gives a d*mn on the German-French relationship. This too will weaken France in Europe and is already doing it because Germany will have to look for other partners.

To the discussion on Israel:
I always thought and always think that referring to a so-called ancient right on land is bs. If this were an acceptable manner the Native Americans should claim back their country and it should be given to them. Probably we Europeans should give back the continent to .... mh whom? Since we immigrated all from somewhere in Asia.
That is: the creation of the state of Israel is a fact one likes or dislikes. But anyone who thinks he has the right to destroy this country is as wrong as anyone who wants to steal the country of another. There are people born in Israel who don't know anything else and who rightly consider Israel as their home. Now to try to take it away is as much as an injustice as it was when the land was taken from the Palestinians. Because of course it was an injustice to the Palestinians and it still is where settlers settle on Palestinian ground without permission of the Palestinians. But you cannot undo an injustice by commiting new injustice. That is not acceptable. A way has to be found how the Palestinians can be given land to ease a bit the injustice they suffered without committing further injustice. I know it'll be a difficult task and it will be even more difficult to get the Palestinians to accept that the injustice they suffered cannot be undone completely.

[christopher muir]

So, now it's the future of book fairs that is at risk. All I can add is, as the managers of Bear Sterns would doubtless agree, that there's trouble, trouble everywhere...

[dot king]

"but you rather sounded as though you thought it was just a Jewish work of fiction, conveniently concocted late in history. Jews also have a long history in the area. It's more complicated than one group being there OR the other."
(Adrienne)
I didn't mean it to sound like that - for me - and anyone else who doesn't adhere to any religion, the Bible is a book.
Saying this doesn't mean that I don't respect people who practice one religion or another, or who adhere to a faith without practising. Far from it.
I agree with Monika, you don't undo an injustice with yet another, but the consequences of the dispossession of Palestine should have been foreseen. In the light of what we now know, the same mistakes should be avoided in the seeking of a solution, which should be political and humanitarian, not on religious divides.

[Terry]

Monika:

It was very necessary. Before one utters her opinion, she should at least understand the historical background. At least if she expects it anyone to find it persuasive.

The fact is that the palestinians (arabs) were also given a homeland in 1948 beside Israel. Rather than peace, they chose war. They lost. The situation they find themselves is one of their own doing. They continue to make the wrong choices all the time. Their beloved leader Arafat stole all of the money given to them, ironically, by Europeans. They could have had 98% of their land back under the last proposal. They chose intifadah instead. As Eban said, the palestinians have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Israel gave land for peace with Egypt. It will do so with the Palestinians decide to give a little.

I would like to see Palestinians have democracy. I would also like to see Syrians and Egyptians and Jordanians and Saudis have political rights and property rights. I find it most revealing that lefties never seem to apply the same standard to Israel than these other countries. Hmmmmmm.

[dot king]

Terry, whatever you say. You are the master of fairness, reason and good solid human values - anyone can see that.

[Monika]

I think, Terry, you miss the point. Before the creation of Israel the land was occupied by Arabs (under British rule and before that under Ottoman rule, remember Lawrence of Arabia).

Fact is that the Arabs were given approximately 50% of this land in 1948 which equals to tell them that they had to give 50% away. Well, to you it may seem to be fair. Most people won't share this point. It wasn't fair either to take the land of the Native Indians either btw.
Unless people at least reckognize this injustice peace won't be possible.

Your point of view is imho as single-minded as of those lefties you accuse of just this.

[Dominique]

Terry says :

"Rather than peace, they chose war. They lost. The situation they find themselves is one of their own doing. They continue to make the wrong choices all the time."

"They"? All of them! The 6 year old born in 2002? he choose war in 1948! In the next 100 years, there will alway be people like Terry who close the problem into a definitive, a final "they choose war in 1948". Who's this "they"?

I am sorry Terry, but words like yours lock people into a identity of victim and lock any conflict into some kind of "eternity freeze" that only leads to war and hatred.

"You have a problem? ask those of 1948!!"

[Valentin]

Monika:
"which equals to tell them that they had to give 50% away"

This is debatable. Were Arab inhabitants forced to move out? Not from what I know, but maybe I'm wrong.
Was there any local instance to be asked opinion of at the creation of Israel as a state? One may of course argue that if it wasn't, that was thanks to Western colonial policies.
It remains that Israel is still today the only democratic country in the region, and that no arab country is a democracy - and this, long after the end of colonialism, which can raise an eyebrow.

[Valentin]

MONIKA:
"Unless people at least reckognize this injustice peace won't be possible."

If we look at the situation of the the eastern corner of North America before New Amsterdam was founded (a few thousand people forming a stone age type of society) ... Well... while one can regret the heavy handed events, the existence of New York can hardly be subject of apology or regret.
Injustice? I don't know. Their lands were taken alright. Except that they never considered them as "theirs".
It's of little use to project our values on peoples to whom they're totally foreign.

[Valentin]

"I find it most revealing that lefties never seem to apply the same standard to Israel than these other countries."

Quite so. French lefties cry out "fascists" each time an illegal immigrant is being sent back to his family. Yet if one takes a close by look at their attitude towards Israel, one might be quite horrifyingly surprised.
(or not: the "complicated" past of some French left personalities too could raise an eyebrow)

[Terry]

If it was Cuba at the book festival, the lefties wouldnt say a word. I wonder why? Lefties tend to support totalitarian governments (you know the elitist ones who think that the masses need to be governed by the smarter ones).

In 1948, there was no ottoman empire, no israel, no palestine. The countries of the world voted to create separate countries. So, that gave them the right to kill all the jews in israel MOnika, Dot?

[dot king]

In 1948, there was no ottoman empire, no israel, no palestine. (Terry)

So there was a nameless country on the map then? And all the people who lived there just happened to call themselves Palestinians because it's a nice-sounding word?
Wow! you know I didn't know that. That's a Revelation, that's what that is.
Cor blimey, guv, no answer to that one.

[Monika]

Nice try, Terry!

One of your rhetorical tricks, your last sentence. You try to make everyone believe that was just that what I said or meant. Obviously you know perfectly well that I would deny that which would make me appear that I finally agreed to your thesis.
And I don't care if there was a sort of state before the British foreign rule ended there. As a matter of fact this land wasn't empty. There were people who lived there for generations.

VALENTIN:
"It's of little use to project our values on peoples to whom they're totally foreign."

I don't like this statement (no personal attack meant!). To me it seems always as an excuse to justify former sins. Obviously our democratic values and appreciation of human rights are not shared by many countries or groups. Well, if we now have to judge the Taleban by their values ...
And I stick to judging people of another time by modern time values. Otherwise the inquisition would be something morally acceptable. The only thing one can do is to understand why people acted then the way they did. But it for sure that the Native Americans were quite sure about the issue then.

[John Gregory Flinn]

"Arab boycotts of Israeli events are hardly new. What is surprising about this one, near the heart of Paris, is the lack of indignation ..."

As I recall this coincided with the recent Israeli sustained attack on Gaza as some sort of retribution for the continued Hamas rocket attacks (with a new delivery system?).
There was a large disparity in the numbers killed or injured by this Israeli attack compared to those by the Hamas rockets, which may have reminded some (of those silent) of the Nazi-Germany ratios during WW2 under similar conditions.

The Israeli-Palestine conflict is principally about land and its ownership.
All the allusions about democracy, non-democracy, Muslims and Jews may well be true but will figure little in the final resolution.

Neither side can make an agreement.
The big players on either side are perhaps at the root of the problem. As long as money is poured into the status quo - effectively sustaining a militarily defeated nation, and securing a regime unwelcome to most of its neighbours - there is little incentive for the two combattants to strike a deal and adjust to reality (of the region).

I've always seen Israel as the US's weakness - not so much an 'achilles heel' more like its right leg!
It may have it disengage somewhat before a solution can be found.

[qwerty]

Look at the other countries created artificially after the war, with or without a UN resolution, what's happened and what's happening there:

- Lebanon, a pure artifact, torn by civil war since inception
- the breaking-up of Tito's Yugoslavia
- East Germany

There are no clear-cut, black/white, right/wrong situations. Anyway, I'm thankful I was born devoid of a "sentiment national" gene.

[Monika]

Qwerty:
"There are no clear-cut, black/white, right/wrong situations."

THAT's exactly my point!
But emotions are always going high on this issue and with it the tendency to put the blame on one side only ...

For me, a quarrel takes two.

[Valentin]

Monika,
I'm not sure the way you speak about past injustices is the perfect way of showing that "there are no clear cut, black white, right wrong situations".
On the contrary, you say Israel was an artificial state, and land was taken from the arabs. You're taking sides.

"As a matter of fact this land wasn't empty. There were people who lived there for generations."

So I'm asking my question again, for whoever is more knowledgeable on the mattter:
were there Arabs forced to move out when the Israeli state was created?
Was the land really taken away from ones to be given to the others, the newcomers?
Were not Israelis thrown out themselves, forced to move all through the history from one place to another? How can one say their claim to their country is void and artificial?

Qwerty,
I'm not quite sure that Lebanon is an artificial state either. Lebanon existed from antiquity. Lebanon is mentioned in the oldest books and in the bible. The Lebanese themselves claim themselves to be a nation, different from Syrians. Being a melting pot of several races and religions doesn't make it an artificial state.

(East Germany might be less artificial than one suspect: it was not far off from the old Prussian kingdom)

JG Flinn:
I spoke about democracy, meaning that this matter would be much easier to deal with if on the arab side the partners were not dictators, terrorists and tyranical kings, but true representatives of the people, with a will to make peace rather caress Arab pride at all cost.

[Valentin]

Monika:
"And I stick to judging people of another time by modern time values. Otherwise the inquisition would be something morally acceptable."

But these values were not relevant in those times, for those people!
I repeat, Indians had not the same sense of property as europeans. They didn't feel or act as owners of their land. They were living in a society that some hippy reprentatives might well admire btw :)

How can you judge French middle age society by today's values of democracy or women rights for instance? Putting it in terms of good (us today) and bad (them back then, for not giving those rights) doesn't make much sense imo.
And my favourite example: How can you judge canibals for their habit of eating their defeated enemies?

There's a certain almost perverse joy in the western world today in self-flagellating about all ever happened in history. Slavery is another example. They all practiced it all over Asia and Africa (some still do), yet Europeans should be "sorry" for the "harm inflicted on the african nations". Ok, it was wrong, it has ended. But it was perfectly in the moeurs at that time in those places; see it as some injustice or wrong done to them? Not so sure.

[Monika]

"How can one say their claim to their country is void and artificial?"

As void and artificial as any similar claim. What would happen if the Germans that were driven out at the end of ww2 would claim back the land? And in the case you'd say that was their own fault (that's another debate and I don't take a side here on this issue with my statement): what about the Poles who were driven out of former Eastern Poland by Russians?
If you think your thought through, the New Zealanders shall give back the country to the Maori, the Australians theirs to the Aborigines, the Americans should hand it back to the Native Indians, we Europeans should draw out of Europe because several thousand years ago we took this country from others. You could go on like this.
And I come to the conclusion that you, too, look at things in a quite black and white manner. You are obviously not able to admit from your pro-Israelian point of view (and I myself consider me as a pro-Israelian and I support the right to exist of this country) that the Palestinians suffered from a decision forced upon them. It is easy to say in one's own cozy chair that they should have accepted joyfully a decision taken thousands of miles away with a huge impact on their lives that put another foreign rule on them. Why should they bother with what happened 2000 years ago? They lived there for generations.

[Maggie G]

So I'm asking my question again, for whoever is more knowledgeable on the mattter:
were the arabs forced to move out when the Israeli state was created?
Was the land really taken away from ones to be given to the others, the newcomers? (Valentin)

Good question, Valentin. I don't know the answer, but this is what Barry Garfinkle said above:

Historically, about 600,000 Arabs fled Israel after surrounding Arab countries warned they would destroy the Jewish state in 1948. Some Arabs also were driven out by Jewish forces while they were trying to push back invading Arab armies. At the same time, over 800,000 Jews were expelled or left Arab countries under threat after Israel was founded.

[dot king]

This might clear up some points a to what happened in Palestine in 1948 and before. the links within this article give more than one side of the story.

http://www.mideastweb.org/misrael.htm

[Monika]

Very detailed info, Dot. Thanks.

[Valentin]

Monika:
"As void and artificial as any similar claim. "

There are claims and claims. I'm speaking about the particular case of a nation driven out and spred all over the Eurasian continent. This is not comparable with the silezian germans or eastern poles, hungarians of Transylvania, or Germans in Alsacia. These situations are part of the european puzzle; we're not speaking about little patches of border territory, but about a WHOLE NATION chased all over the world.

Maori, Aborigens or american Indians were less driven out of their land (of which ownership they had little notion) but rather their society retreated little by little faced with the advance of a much superior civilization. That's little the case of israelis.
Also, native peoples are today integrated in our modern world, so we might as well say they've always been there - I've never heard of millions of Maoris in Europe wanting to get back their ancient lands in NZ.
Finally, your example about ancient europeans might stand in theory, but not in practice: the ancient populations are no longer known, disappeared or melt in. This, again, is not at all the case with Israelis.

[Valentin]

Monika:
"that the Palestinians suffered from a decision forced upon them"

It seems Palestinians suffered less from the creation of the Israeli state, and more from the war started by the Arab League.
I dare say things might have gone much better if the Arab states had chosen another way than radical opposition and war :

"World public opinion turned against Britain as a result of the British policy of preventing Holocaust survivors from reaching Palestine, sending them instead to Cyprus internment camps, or even back to Germany, as in the case of Exodus 1947."

"On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly, with a two-thirds majority.. passed the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (..Resolution 181), a plan to resolve the Arab-Jewish conflict by partitioning the territory into separate Jewish and Arab states, with the Greater Jerusalem ..under international control. Jewish leaders ..accepted the plan, while Palestinian Arab leaders rejected it and refused to negotiate. Neighboring Arab and Muslim states also rejected the partition plan."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine#British_Mandate_.281920.E2.80.931948.29

As it is, we'll never know, and I only take Israeli side when they are undeservedly and continuously presented as the aggressing side.
The trouble is, it's extremely difficult to find arab interlocutors for peace talks. They're either terrorists, or largely unpopular, or agents of islamic fundamentalist dictatorships.

[Valentin]

Arabs were against Jews coming to Palestine, not because any sufferance or fear, but because they believed they might become a minority:

"The (Arab) revolt (1936-1939) was a protest against and put an end to Jewish immigration to Palestine. The revolt was driven primarily by Arab hostility to Britain's permission of restricted Jewish immigration and land purchases which Palestinian Arabs believed was leading them to becoming a minority in the territory."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936%E2%80%931939_Arab_revolt_in_Palestine

Arabs had no real reason to worry about Jews coming back - I dont know of any reports about Jews violenting or throwing out Arabs, or not respecting the rule of law; it was mainly a matter of injured pride; as to the Jews, after WW2 they had little choice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#Zionism_and_the_British_Mandate
"With countries around the world turning away Jewish refugees fleeing the Holocaust, a clandestine movement known as Aliyah Bet was organized to bring Jews to Palestine.
By the end of World War II, Jews accounted for 33% of the population of Palestine, up from 11% in 1922."

[dot king]

If anyone's ineterested in listening to it, today's "Là-bas si j'y suis" on France Inter (it's just finished as I write), was an hour-long interview with the Israëli writer and essayist Avraham Burg, author of, amongst others "Vaincre Hitler. Pour un Judaïsme plus Humaniste et Universaliste".
Mr Burg speaks English which is then translated, so the interview is perfectly clear in both English and French.
The whole is worth a listen, but anyone wanting to hear just what is said about the Israëlo-Palestinian situation, can simply slide the cursor along to (about) the last 10 minutes of the interview.
Type in franceinter.com for the homepage, then "Là-bas si j'y suis" for the interview.

[Monika]

Valentin:
"There are claims and claims. I'm speaking about the particular case of a nation driven out and spred all over the Eurasian continent. This is not comparable with the silezian germans or eastern poles, hungarians of Transylvania, or Germans in Alsacia. These situations are part of the european puzzle; we're not speaking about little patches of border territory, but about a WHOLE NATION chased all over the world."

I really wonder what that does matter. Even though the Jews were probably expelled as a nation by force by the Romans they could have settled in the eastern neighbourhoods which weren't under Roman rule. Would this have changed your position?

Fact is that the diaspora started with the destruction of the second temple by the Romans after the revolte in the 70s A.D. (I think it was 72 but I would have to look it up). I think it is irrelevant if they were driven out by force, by fear, or if they just decided to look elsewhere for a better life. I understand that the diaspora caused enormous suffering of these people.
What should all this matter to the families known as Palestinians? I really get the impression that you measure with different measures here. Imagine how you would feel in the place of a Palestinians.

But actually I prefer to stop arguing what happened when and why. I understand that history must be understood but I do believe that we have to keep driven by present day facts.

To me these are:
Israel exists. Even the Palestinians have to cope with it and have to accept it. Without this no peace will be possible.

The Palestinians suffered an injustice that still has its impact on today and which has to be eased. Otherwise peace will not be possible.

The art is to balance both issues in a way that both sides can live with. Of course this sounds easy in theory. In practice I am much less optimistic knowing human nature.

To be well understood: I don't condone terrorist attacks because as I said before: you can't undo an injustice by commiting another. But this goes both ways! For me, both sides are guilty of the violence in this region. I do believe that this conflict is so complex that it surpasses our understanding. I do believe that for an outsider and even the large majority of the insiders it is difficult and up to impossible to know exactly what is going on. And no may say with adequate objectivity who is more right and who is more wrong. It is fact that both sides suffer and both sides do wrongs. I long ago gave up measuring. The only issue out of this is imho that we all acknowledge that both sides suffered. Trying to measure it and tell who suffered less than the other is a dead end.

[V]

Monika,
I agree with your post - except these two lines :

"Imagine how you would feel in the place of a Palestinians."

"The Palestinians suffered an injustice that still has its impact on today and which has to be eased"

I still don't know IN WHAT WAY EXACTLY Arab inhabitants suffered. To my knowledge, there is no proof whatsoever that they would have been harmed, except because of war and terrorists. There's no proof that the creation of the Israeli state on a small strip of desert land would have hurt them in any way. They were asked, and refused even to discuss. They didn't have to give anything away, land, houses, or other, but just to suffer Jews return there peacefully. My feeling is all this is about Arab pride.

[Maggie G]

Valentin,

You say you don't agree with Monika that the Palestinians suffered an injustice.

First the land was ruled by the Ottomans for many centuries, and then it was ruled by the British, and then they allowed massive Jewish immigration, and then let the immigrants form their own state (on half the territory I think) and govern themselves.

I don't know why the Palestinians didn't get to form the state and be the rulers since it was their homeland. Maybe they were illiterate and not ready to govern themselves -- I don't know. But it does seem unfair to let the immigrants to the land form the state and be the rulers.

And even if the Israelis were very kind and just to the Palestinians they shared the land with, the fact that many of the Palestinians had to flee because of the threats of neighbouring Arab states, was also an injustice to the Palestinians. It was a direct result of the creation of the Israeli state that they became refugees.

You also say, "There's no proof that the creation of the Israeli state on a small strip of desert land would have hurt them in any way. They were asked, and refused even to discuss."

Maybe it didn't hurt them in any way, but that has nothing to do with the justice or injustice of it.

And can you think of any people anywhere that would be "happy" to discuss giving up half their territory to a group of immigrants? To refuse even to discuss seems like a prettty normal reaction, if you ask me.

I'm not against Israel, I'm just pointing out to you that I think Monika was correct to say that the Palestinians suffered an injustice.

[Valentin]

Maggie,

"can you think of any people anywhere that would be "happy" to discuss giving up half their territory to a group of immigrants"

That was the solution found by the UN when faced with the total rejection of Jew newcomers by arab locals. They didn't have to give up anything at all,there was, as far as I know, no intention ever of taking their property.

"It was a direct result of the creation of the Israeli state that they became refugees."

No, it was direct result of arab states behaviour : they left out of fear of war.

"and then they allowed massive Jewish immigration, and then let the immigrants form their own state "

It was not quite so. The way I understood it, Jew immigrants came in and started to buy land and build houses. There is nothing illegal in this, you can deal with it or revolt, but no one's right has been infringed.
Or arab revolts made living together absolutely impossible. So the UN decided to split the cat (do you say that in English? :) ) and give each his own state. Arabs seem to have had no notion of self-governing before. They totally refused to live together with Jews, rejected their state (although lived happily under Ottoman or British law) and as a result got their own fullblown State. Arabs choosing to remain in Israel were not chased, forced to give up land,or religion. So I see all this as progress rather than injury.

They have little reason to claim national pride injury, since they were not a nation, had no state, and they were given one (and we see how they do self-governing...); they have little reason to claim direct injury, since there's no report of Jews taking their property; all sufferance seems due to the war.

[PJB]

Monika, this 'oyveh' of yours (picked that one up in the NYT crossword) sounds a little dramatic. Let's look at the positives:
- the Israelis have a land, a state, a flag, power, funding and what we may call in the west an aspirational lifestyle (democracy and a functioning bar scene).
- the Palestinians have: um...

I suggest we make the comparison with Britain pre-1707: let Israel's complicated politics lead to the election (or nomination) of a palestinian leader of the Knesset, restore the poorer relation's sense of pride, target funding with local participation (what solidarity is for anyway) and perhaps come up with a new flag: will a muslim ever identify with the star of david?

True democracy is secular and blind to race or creed.

[Lily]

“I only take Israeli side when they are undeservedly and continuously presented as the aggressing side.” (Valentin)

“What would happen if the Germans that were driven out at the end of ww2” (Monika)

“And I come to the conclusion that you, too, look at things in a quite black and white manner. […]
from your pro-Israelian point of view (and I myself consider me as a pro-Israelian and I support the right to exist of this country) […]
Why should they bother with what happened 2000 years ago? They lived there for generations.[…] (Monika)

“I'm speaking about the particular case of a nation driven out and spred all over the Eurasian continent.”
“about a WHOLE NATION chased all over the world.” (Valentin)

I ripped the debate apart and copy-pasted elements that I want to comment on:

VALENTIN,

IMO your view is balanced, even if it comes across as pro-Israeli. This blog will never find the best Arab-Israeli solution. We can all just watch and try to understand and maybe feel more sympathy with one or the other side.

MONIKA,

I – as your fellow citizen – had suggested before that the best would have been to give Germany to the Jews as their home after WWII and have Germans find refuge elsewhere, and suffer from loosing our home and cultural identification as foreigners. This most radical ‘option’ was never discussed.

Fact is that historic roots are vital for the Jewish people, and it is no coincidence that they were given Israel as their state (and not Germany), even if there had been Palestinian settlers. All parties involved DO bother about what happened 2000 years ago. Religion plays a major role in the conflict and cannot be erased.

BTW Some Germans, e.g. those living in Russia, that were driven out of Germany in the past, have returned, (two or three) generations later.

[dot king]

In order not to have to see everything from one or other perspective, right or wrong, left or right, Jew or Arab, Catholic or Protestant . . . etc, one needs to have the maturity and the capacity to imagine what it's like for "the other".
A kind of "Vis ma Vie".
If one puts links on this blog to prove one's standpoint, then one should read them carefully beforehand and make sure one has done so with an open mind - and that what they contain is really relevant to what one is attempting to prove.
Then, one could apply "walk a mile in my shoes", or "do unto others as you would they should do unto you" for those who like things to have a biblical ring to them.

Blaming the victim however, is common practice, (there are weighty tomes and reams of essays on the subject) and whoever we identify as the victim, we shouldn't be surprised when someone tries to say it's their own silly fault.

In our own predictable and comfortable little lives, that maybe we have obtained the hard way, we ought to be able to imagine how it would be if everything we have worked for, longed for, feel is our due right and what we deserve, were to be simply taken away from us following a decision made in some building by a collection of appointed strangers at the other side of the world.

Some people feel more strongly about the fate of battery hens and foie gras ducks than that of their fellow beings. There's the shame.

[dot king]

"even if there had been Palestinian settlers." (lily)

Lily, according to generally-held beliefs, Jesus Christ was a Jew and a Palestinian, born in Palestine, which would tend to suggest that the Palestinians (of whatever faith) were in Palestine at least 2000 years ago and aren't "settlers".
I mentioned above that at one point the British were considering giving the Jews present-day Uganda for their homeland, so that part of East Africa might now be called Israël (my reference for this is the historian speaking on "2000 ans d'histoire" on Monday).
The Romans, in occupation at the time of the birth of Christ, called the country Palestine, then so later did the British when it was under their mandate.
I think your idea of handing over Germany to the Jews as a radical solution hasn't been discussed because it's unimaginable - and one thing is sure, that wherever there have been Jewish communities, they've been persecuted, and that in Europe and Russia particularly. Maybe the idea of getting the Jews out of Europe was a way of ending not just the persecution of the Jews, but the need to persecute them which historically runs deep. Perhaps that's why we don't have Israël at the heart of Europe and why your idea wasn't taken up.

[Lily]

"settlers" - I thought 'settlers' in its original meaning were people who had settled in a particular place at some time in history. I wasn't referring to 'settlers' in any politically instrumentalized sense, as e.g. settlers in the Gaza strip. Would 'dwellers', 'long-time residents' or 'habitants' have been better words?

[Lily]

"your idea of handing over Germany to the Jews..."

... is totally absurd, indeed. I wasn't only thinking of giving the Jewish people their own land but also of the lesson this could have taught to Nazi Germans in particular.

[Monika]

Well, at least it would have made more sense to hand at least parts of Germany to the Jews. Now it's too late to discuss this issue.

Although I appreciate your way of discussing, Valentin, I just can't accept the right of the Jews to their ancient homeplace because it was once theirs as a principle. (I don't say that Israel has no right to exist, because it already exists, but I think its COMING into existance was based on a wrong principle). Btw. I think creating Israel in Uganda would have been as wrong. Of course the Jews had to suffer from them having been thrown out of their ancient country. Of course their roots and thoughts ever went to this piece of land and it's important to them. But then I say: bad luck (The fact that they were persecuted is another issue and it has more to do with the wrongs of the countries in which the Jews live and lived).

The fact that the Palestinians had no state before cannot justify that others create a state on their ground. Well, not unless you believe that colonialism was acceptable. How many African people had a state before they came under colonial rule (including German rule)?

I still have hard times to understand why you cannot understand that a Palestinian could be upset to see people foreign to him immigrating, creating a state, imposing a foreign language as the major language and telling him: ok you may live your religion, you may speak at home your language but you must obey our rules. Why should it be different to him from British or Ottoman rule?

[Maggie G]

Lily,

Yes, "settlers" was the wrong word, as it mainly means "newcomers".

"it is no coincidence that they were given Israel as their state (and not Germany), even if there were Palestinians already living there" is what you meant to say.

Lily says, "All parties involved DO bother about what happened 2000 years ago"

whereas Monika says, " I just can't accept the right of the Jews to their ancient homeplace because it was once theirs as a principle....Of course their roots and thoughts ever went to this piece of land and it's important to them. But then I say: bad luck"

I just read one of Valentin's links through from beginning to end (very long), giving the history of Palestine from pre-historic times to the present, and it says that in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the land was quite underpopulated.

One description says, "In 1898, German Kaiser Wilhelm II also visited Palestine. He was appalled at the condition of the country. The Ottomans had stripped the forests for lumber and firewood. The Palestinian Arabs had let an old Roman aqueduct fall into ruin. The ultimate ecological curse was the ubiquitous herds of black goats. For nearly 2,000 years after the dispersion of the Jews, Arabs had allowed their goats to graze unfenced across Palestine. They had eaten the grass down to its roots, and the topsoil had eroded and blown away. The biblical land of milk and honey had become a dust bowl."

But there are also some descriptions of very fertile areas of Palestine: "while Lawrence Oliphant, who visited Palestine in 1887, wrote that Palestine's Valley of Esdraelon was "a huge green lake of waving wheat, with its village-crowned mounds rising from it like islands; and it presents one of the most striking pictures of luxuriant fertility which it is possible to conceive".

So anyway, if the land was underpopulated and the European Jews were willing to to settle on the empty, barren areas, it doesn't look like they were causing any harm to the Palestinians. And if the Palestinians were mainly illiterate, perhaps Valentin is right to say it was not such an injustice to allow the Jews to create a state there, even if, as Monika says, "its COMING into existance was based on a wrong principle".

It says there are five million Palestinians in "Palestine", of which one million are Israeli citizens. The thing we need to know is what these one million Israeli Palestinians think about Israel.

I know that at the time of the French revolution, and throughout the 19th century, the French-Canadians in Quebec were glad to be part of the British Empire because they realized that they had far more rights than the citizens of France. Do the Israeli Palestinians feel the same about life in Israel?

If so, maybe Valentin is right to say that the injustice was not the creation of Israel, but the hostile reaction of its Arab neighbours

So what do you say about the Kurds, Valentin?

[Terry]

If was a Chinese or Cuban leader speaking, there would be no outcry about this because the left are always conspicously silent when it comes to these countries. For some reason, only alleged Israeli human rights violations seem to ginny up any leftist dander.

Am I left to any other conclusion that explains the difference for the disparate treatment?

[Terry]

Monika said:

"The fact that the Palestinians had no state before cannot justify that others create a state on their ground."

A rather internally inconsistent statement. How can it be "their" ground if it was never a state.

[Valentin]

Monika,
I understand, I only say it has more to do with arab pride. More generally I do believe pride is a huge huge problem for arabs today - and I mean unreasonable, oversized pride, that never accepts any wrongdoing and any compromise.

But this is another story.
The answer to your question ("I still have a hard time to understand...") is in my reply to Maggie's post.
I understand locals get upset to see millions of Jews immigrating.
What I say is that they hugely overreacted. They revolted, put bombs, killed foreigners, just like today's intifadas.
Parisians may not be exactly happy either to see waves of african immigration, jobless, without education, uncivilized (according to our criteria), taking over the north and east of Paris.
Yet you don't see them putting bombs.
Exaggerated comparison, point is, immigrating Jews, from what I know, DID NOT DO ANY HARM. They were a great asset to that country. They did not steal anything, didn't kill anybody. But they did have one thing in mind: returning to that land.
I can understand that deep desire. You can go see the kibbutz, see how hard life is, yet they're just happy to be there. You cannot deny them this right, like the British did.
Jews wanted to return, not to throw locals out.
And what were the Jews to do, chased and killed all over Europe, also in Russia, other countries refusing to take them, what was UN to do? Force them back to Germany?? Unbelievable, this act from Britain, a supposedly humanist and democratic country.
The whole world rejected them, and they burnt of longing for that place (yes, I'm being pathetic).
In face of local hostility and terrorism, the UN made a difficult yet necessary decision. 2/3 of all planet nations voted in favour: divide the former British dominion in two:
jews would get their state, locals would get a state of their own too, and no one would be forced to move or suffer any harm.
For the first time, arabs were free from ANY dominion and free to govern themselves. And those who preferred to stay, could do so. And Jerusalem would be an open and internationally ruled city, center of three big religions.
Frankly, I see this as the best solution, even today.
But it does take good will and will to discuss, to understand the other, to compromise.

[Valentin]

"a Palestinian could be upset to see people foreign to him immigrating, creating a state, imposing a foreign language as the major language"

Jews did not do that, didn't create or imposed anything at first. They just came back, more and more numerous, until the locals raised in open revolt because they absolutely refused to live together. As no one could throw Jews out (out where? and after all, there was no legal reason to do that, since they didn't do anything wrong), and the situation had become unacceptable, the international community was forced to separate the two people.
It's only AFTER that that Israelis created their state.

[V]

"I know that at the time of the French revolution, and throughout the 19th century, the French-Canadians in Quebec were glad to be part of the British Empire because they realized that they had far more rights than the citizens of France."

I was reading Prince Bismarck's memoirs recently, and after his victory over Napoleon III in 1870, and annexing Alsacia and Lorraine, he was confessing his failure to understand Germans in the two provinces actually prefering the French rule! Were they less German? Or were they a bit of an aristocracy in France?

"So what do you say about the Kurds, Valentin? "

Frankly I'm too tired, and I don't really see the connection. Kurds never left, did they. I support Kurds. They seem quite reasonable, and their country was split between Iran, Iraq and Turkey, all of whom did ethnical cleansing. I'm with the Kurds, and with the Tibetans. I'm against Kosovo as a state though, I think Serbs have been quite discriminated against by the West.

[Lily]

Maggie, thank you for the info (extracts from Valentin’s link) and the explanation about ‘settlers’.

[MONIKA: I just can't accept the right of the Jews to their ancient homeplace because it was once theirs as a principle...
MONIKA: its COMING into existance was based on a wrong principle.

TERRY: For some reason, only alleged Israeli human rights violations seem to ginny up any leftist dander.
Am I left to any other conclusion that explains the difference for the disparate treatment?]

Israel’s history is unique in a way that some of it can only be accounted for as a mystery. Why have the Jewish people prevailed across the ages despite persecutions, the lack of their own state, etc.? They are envied as ‘God’s chosen people’. “The” left may be more upset about this presumed, perceived or real privilege and consider it an injustice. Why this preferential treatment to give them a state by UN mandate? Envy is at the source of much of anti-Jewish sentiment. This cannot be explained rationally; some of it remains beyond human reason and logic.

[Valentin]

"Envy is at the source of much of anti-Jewish sentiment. This cannot be explained rationally; some of it remains beyond human reason and logic"

Honestly, we can also say someone could take some steps in order to prevent envious reactions. Since we're at it, I'll say I don't find the way Jewish communities sometimes remain hermetically closed as an example of how to integrate in a foreign country.
And someone was also right before in saying that a state based on religious beliefs, with the David's star on its flag, is not an example of democracy, nor will that help calm down discontent minorities.

[dot king]

Maggie, to quote two of your points:

"The Ottomans had stripped the forests for lumber and firewood. The Palestinian Arabs had let an old Roman aqueduct fall into ruin"

Having lived for centuries under occupation, one of which was Roman, and having had their land pillaged of natural riches by the Ottomans, the Palestinians were poor, maybe restoration of Roman remains wasn't high on their list of "must-do's".

"And if the Palestinians were mainly illiterate, perhaps Valentin is right to say it was not such an injustice"

What on earth does illiteracy have to do with this injustice? Apart from the fact that literacy is the key to political progress. You keep a nation illiterate, you keep them poor. You can't take over a nation's homeland with any sense of justice just because the people are "mainly illiterate".

When the Jews resettled in the newly-created Israël and began to create schools and other fundamentals of an organised society, they did in fact impose Hebrew as the official language, thus disbarring non-Hebrew speakers
already in situ from getting an education at their standards.
Is it not true that to be accepted as a new immigrant to Israël, you have to be learn Hebrew - and take up the Jewish faith (imagine you are a Christian who marries an Israëli Jew for example)?
As Avraham Burg said quite clearly the other day on "La-bas si j'y suis" and as someone else has mentioned further up the the thread, (JPG I think) there must be a difference between Jewish culture and Jewish religion, the latter must not enter into any political solution, if ever one is found.

"They are envied as ‘God’s chosen people’" Lily
This is in fact self-proclaimed, I can't imagine that it produces a reaction of envy, but it will have contributed to the prejudice against them almost everywhere they settled.
Perhaps the USA is the only country that has accepted Jews as they would any immigrant? That I can't comment on as I don't know.
However I can well understand that settling in European Christian countries in denial of the birth of the Son of God as recognised in those countries, will have fired prejudice from early history.

This BTW isn't a "contest" between "lefties and "the rest", there are people contributing to this debate who are trying to understand both sides.
In such a debate it's (IMO) quite dangerous to see only one side. The political and individual realities are far too harsh and complex for such reduction.

[Lily]

"take some steps in order to prevent envious reactions." (Valentin)

I agree.

"someone was also right before in saying that a state based on religious beliefs, with the David's star on its flag, is not an example of democracy" (Valentin)

Valentin, you refer to an old debate. - Aren't most democracies based on some religious belief system, even if it doesn't show on the flag (except France, of course)? Go ahead and tell Israelis to forget about Judaism! Their neighbours would welcome your initiative.

To a certain degree it is a requirement for religious groups to keep away 'outsiders' or lock up in order to preserve what is HOLY to them.

This is neither good nor bad; it's a fact.

[Lily]

["They are envied as ‘God’s chosen people’" Lily
This is in fact self-proclaimed,] (Dot)

This is debatable. Every Christian knows (should know) about the ‘special status’ of the Jewish people within the Christian religious context. Christians live in a new covenant where God has opened the doors for everyone and no longer for his chosen people alone. IMNSHO, Jewish believers don’t see this – but I don’t see any justification for any Christian to get angry at Jewish believers because of this.

The question isn’t about accepting democracy or not. It’s about a spiritual journey where no one has the right to judge another one.

“self-proclaimed”: If this was true, I wonder how anyone on Earth can explain the exceptional survival skill of the Jewish people in a quite hostile environment, and given that they are and have always been a tiny minority of the world population.

“lefties and all others”: Generalizations and stereotyping are only used for simplification to quickly illustrate a point. It would be tiresome to give lengthy explanations every time in order to explain who or what characteristic in a human being is meant exactly, even if statements must remain inaccurate. E.g., I observed that “lefties”, from what I know, are more often atheists than other groups for that matter. They are thus less inclined to bow to some higher divine order which would include the notion of a people chosen by God.

[Valentin]

"To a certain degree it is a requirement for religious groups to keep away 'outsiders' "

That's why sects have a bad name, for instance. The issue aggravates when it's about ethnical groups rather than religious ones - indeed an old debate about immigration, multiculturalism and so on. Helping communities develop may help preserve their unique traits, but also close people inside and stop them from belonging to the larger national community, and more dangerously, raise questions as to the loyalty to one's country.
I wonder what would French jews do if France declared war on Israel. (emmigrate, probably). I won't even ask what would French arabs do if war were declared on, say, Syria.

"Aren't most democracies based on some religious belief system"

On all US dollar bills it reads "In God we trust", right :)
Then again, this can actually be accepted by anybody - well... except atheists.

[dot king]

"Well, at least it would have made more sense to hand at least parts of Germany to the Jews. Now it's too late to discuss this issue." (Monika)

Then how many walls would there have been across Germany or Germlan cities? There would have been Eastern Germany, Western Germany and what? Zionist Germany? Jewish Germany? Jüdenland?
Once the shock of the Holocaust had been digested, the Chosen People would have been subject to the same treatment they'd always had. They had found it impossible to integrate in Europe for over 2000 years, why would giving over a slice of Europe have solved the problem?
Anti-semitism hasn't gone away. The UN just pushed the problem into another place. Nor was Germany the only European country with anti-semitic leanings, not to say practices (I exclude no-one).

The whole idea of a "homeland", like the "homelands" and the "townships" in South Africa is one of keeping "outsiders" outside. Looked at this way, even the creation of Israël as a homeland for the Jews, was itself an imposition on them.
Had they been able to foresee the on-going hostilities and sporadic wars they were going to become involved in following the creation of Israël, they might have hesitated. But they had been demoralised and weakened by centuries of persecution and almost annihilated by the Holocaust - and they were in the hands of the Allies and the UN just as much as they had been at the mercy of the Nazis, and just as the Palestinians were at the mercy of the British mandatory powers and later the UN.

The Palestinians aren't responsible for the conflict with Israël, at base, the Allies and the UN are.

[Valentin]

"from what I know, are more often atheists than other groups for that matter."

What was that again, "Historical Materialism", right? Old Marx was well known for this.
According to Edward H. Flannery, Marx was an antisemite who considered Jews the very soul of the corrupt capitalism he fought. In certain scholars' view, Marx's equation of Judaism with capitalism, together with his pronouncements on Jews, strongly influenced socialist movements and shaped their attitudes and policies toward the Jews. In those scholar's opinion, Marx's 'On the Jewish Question' influenced National Socialist, as well as Soviet and Arab anti-Semites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jewish_Question

I promise I don't want to rekindle the debate about nazism and communism's common roots.
But it does seem that the anti-semitic and materialist penchant of the leftwing is more than just a question of mood.

[dot king]

"Christians live in a new covenant where God has opened the doors for everyone and no longer for his chosen people alone. IMNSHO, Jewish believers don’t see this – but I don’t see any justification for any Christian to get angry at Jewish believers because of this." (Lily)

How long have Christians lived in the light of this belief? This is "modern" Christianity you're speaking of here. Persecution of Jews has been rife in Europe and Russia for centuries. It isn't a question of "getting angry at Jewish believers" it's the clash caused by the Christians' blaming the Jews for the crucifixion of Christ. This line of thinking might be largely forgotten or not held to by "modern" Christians, but old habits die hard. Prejudices live on even when no-one knows why any more.

“lefties and all others”: Generalizations and stereotyping are only used for simplification to quickly illustrate a point." (Lily)

Lily it isn't reasonable to call anyone who has a different point of view from yourself by a label, whatever it is, but the one we see here most often is "lefties" - (funny how the so-called "lefties" don't use the same tactic), even for the sake of expediency. Such a position also disallows the possibility that a person might be (say) right-wing from a political point of view and yet be open to humanitarian ideas. (Don't the French have a saying about their heart and their porte-feuille? - "le coeur à gauche et le porte-feuille à droite".) Labelling the person one is "speaking" to is an expedient way of dismissing their opinion. And, you know as well as I do, that the term "lefty" is used by people who do not use it for anything other than (in their eyes) a put-down.
Since you (Lily) are clear and open about your belief in God, and you observe that atheists are often "lefties", should I then, for expediency's sake, label you a "rightie"?
I won't, and don't feel inclined to, because I don't need to label people or categorise them in any way. (I've said this before, more than once and in other contexts.)

*“self-proclaimed”: If this was true, I wonder how anyone on Earth can explain the exceptional survival skill of the Jewish people in a quite hostile environment, and given that they are and have always been a tiny minority of the world population.* (Lily)

By denying Jesus Christ as the promised Messiah, the Jews separated themselves irrevocably from other major religions, in which a prophet, or a son, or an earthly representative, of God is recognised and worshipped.
The Jews' "fault" is that they denied that Jesus Christ was the Son of God - the Messiah - they've been paying for this ever since.
I would say that believing they are God's Chosen people is a source of strength to those who believe it and could explain their survival in a hostile world.
There are many oppressed peoples who survive and have survived in this hostile world.

All the foregoing, of course does not condone the boycotting of the Paris Book Fair - perhaps Charles can enlighten us as to just how many Arab writers DID NOT boycott the event.

[Lily]

"They [the Jewish people] had found it impossible to integrate in Europe for over 2000 years" (Dot)

They were an integral part of German society until a certain Adolf together with his followers had come to power...

[dot king]

"But it does seem that the anti-semitic and materialist penchant of the leftwing is more than just a question of mood." Valentin

OK, so now, according to the above post from Valentin and according to the labelling system of the blog, so harmless, and just for speed and to save having to go into detail every time; I must be (i) a lefty and (ii) an atheist and (iii) both at once.
From there, as a "lefty", I must be a marxist, and therefore, according to Valentin's post, an anti-semite.

Fine, if that's how everything I've written here is to be interpreted, it just goes to show that sometimes you can't be understood.
But I'd just like to say that I've never read Marx and know less about him than Valentin, who seems to be an expert - so who's the "lefty"?

If between the two of you you are meaning to portray me as anti-semitic, then could you come out and say so one way or the other, please?
This gives a whole new meaning to the saying "watch your language".

[dot king]

"They were an integral part of German society until a certain Adolf together with his followers had come to power..." Lily

That must be why they were so easily identified, denounced and deported - the Jews had never been truly accepted and integrated into any European society from the time they emigrated from Palestine and scattered.
Are you saying no Jew was ever persecuted in Germany before ww2?

Just because they weren't being massacred in large numbers, (I don't know German history very much, but I'd be surprised if Germany was treating its Jews any differently from the rest of Europe and Russia) doesn't mean there wasn't prejudice, suspicion and hatred and jealousy.
I think of just two plays, off the top of my head, where the villain of the piece was Jewish: "The Jew of Malta" by Marlowe and "The Merchant of Venice" by Shakespeare. Dating from C16.
In Russia there were pogroms.
I can't believe that in Germany Jews were accepted and fully integrated - why did Hitler choose to make them the vehicle of all his madness and not some other well-integrated section of society? Why were the German people so ready to follow him?

It would still have been better if Arab writers hadn't boycotted the Paris Book Fair . . .

[Monika]

Terry:
"Monika said:

"The fact that the Palestinians had no state before cannot justify that others create a state on their ground."

A rather internally inconsistent statement. How can it be "their" ground if it was never a state."

Not quite so if you understand that the concept of "state" is not a universal one. That is that there's no natural law that everyone has to live in a state to own the ground. It was simply invented at a certain time by some people and might well be not shared by others ;)

[Monika]

Btw I really can't help but reject those arguments that say that a underpopulated country where illiterate people live can be taken over. That was generally the argument of the old colonial powers who justified their deed with pretending to bring culture to uncivilized (in the initial sense) people. What the heck is uncivilized? Who are we to say this culture weighs more than another?

[Lily]

"I must be (i) a lefty and (ii) an atheist and (iii) both at once."
"If between the two of you you are meaning to portray me as anti-semitic, then could you come out and say so one way or the other, please?"

Dot - sigh... - This is your interpretation, and I leave that up to you.

Generalizations speak of majorities, of typical characteristics or criteria. They don't say that one person who happens to have two given characteristics - automatically belongs into this same category. Generalizations in this context aren't meant to stigmatize any individual on this blog.

Generalizations speak of the larger picture.

This debate within the debate was about Israel's right to exist, Palestinians, Arabs, etc.

Anti-semitism isn't new to the world, and Hitler didn't invent it. If there was jealousy, even hatred among Germans towards German Jews - this says more about German lack of civility than Jewish non-integration. They were very well integrated, industrials, intellectuals, etc. -

[Lily]

[Lily it isn't reasonable to call anyone who has a different point of view from yourself by a label, whatever it is, but the one we see here most often is "lefties"

should I then, for expediency's sake, label you a "rightie"?]

Dot,

I was interpreting Terry's use of the notion (?) "lefty".

I don't care if you want to call me a "righty". I never said ALL "lefties" were atheists nor that ALL "righties" were religious believers. I won't feel judged if you classify me personally as one or the other because what counts more is the entirety of what I express and, more importantly, what I live - by which I will be judged.

I am sure someone out there could provide statistics to prove that people who 'confess' to being atheists feel more comfortable with left-wing thought than right-wing positions that are often associated with religious principles that acknowledge the existence of a God. In fact, this sounds very much like common sense...

On a personal note, the debate would be easier on you if you DIDN'T TAKE EVERYTHING SO PERSONAL.

Lean back, get comfortable and simply trust that the debate is about France (!) and Israel, about language and education, about... but not about you, Dot King. At least most of the time. This blog isn't quite as threatening as it looks. :)

[Maggie G]

"And if the Palestinians were mainly illiterate, perhaps Valentin is right to say it was not such an injustice" (Maggie)

"I really can't help but reject those arguments that say that a underpopulated country where illiterate people live can be taken over." (Monika)

"What on earth does illiteracy have to do with this injustice? Apart from the fact that literacy is the key to political progress. You keep a nation illiterate, you keep them poor. You can't take over a nation's homeland with any sense of justice just because the people are "mainly illiterate"." (Dot)

Monika and Dot,

Of course you are both right. I was thinking of my previous post, where I said that it wasn't very "fair" to allow a whole bunch of immigrants into a country, and then to allow the immigrants, rather than the native population, to create a state and become the rulers.

But after reading that link and learning how underpopulated and poor the country was, what I meant was that it wasn't so much "injustice" that the Jews got to be the rulers, as "common sense" , as the Palestinians were not really ready to take over governing a country.

If they had been equally "qualified" to govern a country, and the UN had chosen the Jews to be the rulers, then it would have been totally unjust. The British wanted to go home and a new system had to be devised, and a lot of the Palestinians were illiterate so the Jews were a more logical choice to be the new "rulers".

I have a feeling that I am digging myself deeper into a hole, and am going to get pounced on, but that's kind of what I meant when I said, "And if the Palestinians were mainly illiterate, perhaps Valentin is right to say it was not such an injustice".

I agree with Monika when she says the Jews had no moral claim to their ancient homeland and it was "tough luck" for them if they had always dreamed of returning there. But a lot of them did choose to migrate there, the country was poor and underpopulated, and they settled in. People have been migrating into and out of lands since the world began, without the permission of the local populations. Then the British wanted out and the UN ended up deciding on the creation of two self-governing states , although in the end the Palestinian state never got off the ground.

Yes, it was definitely an injustice to the Palestinians to give half their territory to the Jews, but when you look at the details a little closer, it's not quite as injust as it appears at first glance.

What I want to know is, are the Israeli Palestians equal citizens, or second class citizens? Are they proud and loyal citizens? Can they join the army? Are they as well-educated at the Jews now? Could a Palestian ever become the President, or is it forbidden by the constitution? Why did these Palestinians stay in Israel when so many others left?

Sorry this is rather simplistic.

Oh yes, and Dot -- concerning the Roman aqueduct that the Palestinians allowed to fall into ruin. You said, "maybe restoration of Roman remains wasn't high on their list of "must-do's"." I think that the point being made there was not about maintaining or restoring historical monuments, but about allowing useful tools to fall into disrepair. At least that's what I though when I read it.

[PJB]

Obviously the fact that the debate is being led by Dorothy, Lily, Monika and Margaret adds interest. May I just say that the palm sunday évangile (a long one) mentioned that the jews asked that Jesus's blood be on their hands and the hands of their children. If that wasn't asking for trouble...

Coincidentally, the catholic church happens to be a great publicist for the state of Israel. A case of yin and yang? Had Plato read Confucius?

[Valentin]

"What the heck is uncivilized? Who are we to say this culture weighs more than another?"

This isn't good to insist upon, I know, I know. This notion has always existed. Greek or Romans were calling the uncivilized "barbarians". Western colonists were calling africans and other natives "savages". We use the term uncivilized to design someone from a country with a dramatically lower level of development - or completely uneducated and illiterate.

"Civilization can be used in a normative sense as well: if complex and urban cultures are assumed to be superior to other "savage" or "barbarian" cultures, then "civilization" is used as a synonym for "superiority of certain groups." In a similar sense, civilization can mean "refinement of thought, manners, or taste""

In short, you can look for a Seneca, Voltaire, Mme Récamier or Thomas Edison in Australian Aborigine culture for centuries, Monika: I assure you there is none.

[Lily]

"May I just say that the palm sunday évangile (a long one) mentioned that the jews asked that Jesus's blood be on their hands and the hands of their children. If that wasn't asking for trouble..."

PJB (Paul-Jean Belmondo?),

Thanks for your observations.

May I remind everyone on bord that Jesus, Christ, along with his disciples, the first Christians were of Jewish background.

[dot king]

"I was interpreting Terry's use of the notion (?) "lefty". "
(Lily)

Quite - exactly my point.
Why the need to label anyone at
all? You do it because Terry does it? OK, understood, perfectly reasonable in that case . . .
Sigh

I didn't take it "personal" as you put it ("personally" would be correct - adverb) I just noticed the chain of thought constructed which led from the relatively innoccuous "lefty" and in 3 easy stages connected it to highly objectionable "anti-semitic" complete with quotations from Marx, from the resident blog expert on Marxism.

I repeat, I have no need to label other bloggers in order to be able post my opinions, but I notice that others use labels with ease, and often without much thought.
Sigh

"I am sure someone out there could provide statistics to prove that people who 'confess' to being atheists feel more comfortable with left-wing thought than right-wing positions that are often associated with religious principles that acknowledge the existence of a God. In fact, this sounds very much like common sense..." Lily

To me, Lily, that statement has no intellectual integrity at all, it's a feeling you have because of your own take on things. It doesn't sound to me, like "common sense" it sounds like "idées reçues". To explain:
One of the most interesting and rewarding persons I've ever met and had dicussions with was a Jesuit Brother from Dublin who was following professional teaching course at the same time as myself. There was hardly any area of contention, yet there was much challenge and much common ground. Discussion was possible because we were from different, yet the same, planets. "Dessine-moi un esprit ouvert" (Saint-Exupéry plagiarism).

"I have a feeling that I am digging myself deeper into a hole"
(Maggie)
Yup, seems that way to me too in terms of human values and simple justice, but don't go too deeply . . . :)

"What I want to know is, are the Israeli Palestians equal citizens, or second class citizens? Are they proud and loyal citizens? Can they join the army? Are they as well-educated at the Jews now? Could a Palestian ever become the President, or is it forbidden by the constitution? Why did these Palestinians stay in Israel when so many others left? "
(Maggie)
I rather think we all know the answer to all those questions, but I should like to be able to put it to a member of each community to get a full picture. ;0
Maggie, when you impose a language in schools that a large section of the population doesn't understand and can't use (I'm in a fairly good position to comment on this) you deny them an education and everything that goes with it, like a decent job, a home, and accession to (say) the presidency.

"We use the term uncivilized to design someone from a country with a dramatically lower level of development - or completely uneducated and illiterate."
(Valentin)
No, Valentin, YOU use the word to mean that.
I would suggest that an education, a suit and tie, a well-paid job, and a home in Europe are not necessarily proof of (or even compatible with in certain cases) "civilisation".
They are just one form ot it. Your definition of "civilised" is very narrow. There doesn't need to have been literary genius present in aboriginal cultures for them to have been "civilised", there needs only to have been customs, belief, social organisation, rites of passage - liste non-exhaustive. . .
The "civilised" (by your definition) societies that took them over, drove them out, marginalised them (au choix), more often than not, destroyed their traditional way of life without taking the trouble to understand it, introduced illnesses that they didn't have, often sexually transmitted, destroyed their places of worship, exploited their natural wealth and etc etc
I'd like to leave you in a room with your ideas of civilisation and a Maori member of the All Blacks - just for a few minutes' discussion :). . . you can't simply announce that a race of people is uncivilised, they have other ways of transmitting their culture ("Songlines" "Walkabout" - these two books, the first not a novel, explain Aborigine culture and civilisation in a fascinating way). It's a pity you spend time reading Marx instead of enriching literature which would put you in better touch with your fellow man.

"May I remind everyone on bord that Jesus, Christ, along with his disciples, the first Christians were of Jewish background"
(Lily)
I pointed out ages ago that Jesus was born in Palestine and was a Jew under Roman occupation, his followers obviously became Christians. They weren't of "Jewish background" they were Jews.
The Jews of Palestine who weren't his followers, delivered him for crucifixion - and that's where the problems of the Jews began. And SOME PEOPLE uphold the idea that the Jews still deny Christ's being the Messiah BECAUSE they allowed him to be crucified. They had a choice between him and Barabas according to the New Testament, and chose to spare Barabas, a thief, if memory serves me well.

Well, Lily, I think despite my being (according to some) a "lefty" and an "atheist", you have to admit at least that I was paying attention in Religious Education!

"You do it because Terry does it? OK, understood"

No, not understood.

I don't use Terry (sorry, Terry for having gotten you in here!) to justify my reasoning. I didn't label ANYBODY of being a "lefty" or an atheist, although, thinking of it, I cannot get this b*dozer image out of my head.

The point is that I want to unde