The Israel-Palestine difference is one of the
longest-running TERRITORIAL DISPUTE (arguably, the longest). Arguments about the rightful sovereign
of Jerusalem and surrounding areas have been present for generations. See
for example Genesis 14: 18-20 in which Jerusalem (or Salem) has already
enemies. Since Biblical times the region has been centre of disputes in
relation to the rightful settlement of different populations. Should these agents go back to
Biblical times in order to prove the current legitimate occupancy of the
territory?
As
with the previously reviewed TERRITORIAL DISPUTES, the following posts will
introduce: different academic and non-academic views; the current situation;
the views of the inhabitants (because in any case they are the ones who will
live the consequences of any decision); coverage by the media including all
parties in the dispute; the ideal methodology to solve the difference (what I
call Egalitarian Shared Sovereignty); its application to some controversial
elements; and some conclusive remarks.
The
following paragraphs will introduce the historical background. The
Israel-Palestine difference has been present for generations. The paragraphs
below centre the attention only on the more recent history (since World Word I)
because the reader may easily find a wide variety of academic and non-academic
sources about it if he/she is interested in learning more about the dispute and
have an educated opinion.
In
doing this research I have had access to many books, journal articles,
newspapers, and many other sources (academic and non-academic). I will present
some of them in later posts. In order to present the account today, I decided
to use “Truth against Truth. A Completely Different Look at the
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict” by Uri Avnery. I have to concede it may not be an
academic and the references upon which the publication is written are not
always offered by the author. Yet, the text offers an unusually balanced view
about the recent history behind the dispute and, in any case, a thought
provoking one. I am indebted to one of my Reddit readers for facilitating this source.
The link to the complete text below.
Truth
against Truth. A Completely Different Look at the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Uri
Avnery
“The
core of the conflict is the confrontation between the Israeli-Jewish nation and
the Palestinian- Arab nation. It is essentially a national conflict, even if it
has religious, social and other aspects.”
“The
Zionist Movement was, essentially, a Jewish reaction to the emergence of the
national movements in Europe, all of which were more or less anti-Semitic.
Having been rejected by the European nations, some of the Jews decided to establish
themselves as a separate nation and, following the new European model, to set
up a national State of their own, where they could be masters of their own fate.”
“Traditional
and religious motives drew the Zionist Movement to Palestine (Eretz Israel in
Hebrew) and the decision was made to establish the Jewish State in this land.”
“Palestine
was not an empty land - not at the end of the 19th century nor at any other
period. At that time, there were half a million people living in Palestine, 90%
of them Arabs. This population objected, of course, to the incursion of foreign
settlers into their land.”
“The
Arab National Movement emerged almost simultaneously with the Zionist Movement,
initially to fight the Ottoman Empire and later the colonial regimes built on
its ruins at the end of World War I. A separate Arab-Palestinian national movement
developed in the country after the British created a separate State called
"Palestine", and in the course of the struggle against Zionist infiltration.”
“Since
the end of World War I, there has been an ongoing struggle between two national
movements, the Jewish - Zionist and the Palestinian - Arab, both of which
aspire to accomplish their goals - which are entirely incompatible -within the
same territory. This situation remains unchanged to this day.”
Truth against Truth. A Completely Different Look at the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (link to the complete text)
To the reader, following two of our previous posts of this series about TERRITORIAL DISPUTES:
For reference to these questions see:
POST 9: Territorial disputes: issues at stake
To the reader, following two of our previous posts of this series about TERRITORIAL DISPUTES:
a) What are the issues at stakes in this a
territorial dispute?
b) Which remedy could be used to solve
this particular territorial dispute?
For reference to these questions see:
POST 9: Territorial disputes: issues at stake
NOTE:
This post is based on Núñez, Jorge Emilio. 2017. Sovereignty Conflicts and
International Law and Politics: A Distributive Justice Issue. London and New
York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
So far so good. Where do you intend to go with part 2?
ReplyDeleteThanks Jeff. Next post is up now. I cover different views using academic and research sources. Any comments are appreciated.
Delete