Why does almost no one talk about a country for the Kurds, but constantly focus on a country for the Palestinians?
The Kurds has been a separate people for centuries. They live in a relatively compact contiguous area which today constitutes parts of Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran. They are treated badly everywhere. In Turkey they are not even allowed to speak their own language. At least Palestinians are Arabs and Arabs have many countries. Do the Arabs really need another country, while the Kurds have none and the Jews just one.
Actually, I just had a thought-- what would have happened in 1948 if there were no Jews in the area? After the British left,would there have been the creation of a Palestinian State or, as I believe more likely, just Greater Syria/Jordan/Egypt? Maybe Greater Lebanon too.
Yes, I know the reality, at this point in time, is that we need the creation of a Palestinian state, but something tells me that, ironically, without the Jews living in the region with an historical claim to the land, there would be no thought of a Palestinian homeland.
As to the Kurds, some have suggested that if they were fighting Jews or if there were wealthier Kurds living in the US , we would hear more about a country for them.
All things considered the Kurds have a stronger claim to a country of their own than most countries in that region.
Eric
P.S. Don't even get me started on Tibet.
curious to hear what your position is on tibet?
ReplyDeleteVery interesting! I hadn't really thought about that comparison, but you make a good point. I agree that there probably would be no discussion of a Palestinian state without Israel, but also agree that this sort of thinking doesn't really get you very far. Or, if I put myself in the place of a well meaning, reasonable Palestinian, I could imagine it being somewhat provoking... "well we wouldn't need our own country if it weren't for the Jews... so, nyea."
ReplyDeleteBut of course now I'm very curious to hear what you think about Tibet... :-)
Your point about about my point not getting us anywhere is well taken and I did recognize that as well. It was just the kind of odd observations I make from time to time.
ReplyDeleteAs to your point of what a Palestinian might say , my theory is that he would probably have called himself a Syrian, Jordanian or Egyptian , because there would no t have been Palestinian identity. Nowhere in history is there an identification of Palestinians as a separate Arab people. The Ottoman Turks ruled the area for over 700 years and while Muslims, they were not Arabs. After World War I , the British , French and Italians took over the various Arab lands previously ruled by the Ottoman Turks. They only had control for 30 years, but it was long enough to get blamed for all of today' s problems ( no one even mentions the effects of 700 years of Turkish rule). Those Western powers granted independence to Egypt, Syria, Lebanon , and created Jordan after World War II.
Again my theory , which can never be proven, is that had there not been Jews living in the area (along with other Arabs) , who wanted their own country, to which they had an historical claim , what we think of now as Israel, the West Bank and Gaza would just have been part of Egypt, Jordan , Syria and Lebanon, without complaint from the Arabs living there.
As to Tibet, I don't understand why there has not been that much of an uproar over China's blatant aggression and take over of that country. Again not to dwell on the Israeli comparison, no campus movement exist to ban investments in China or prohibit Chinese professors from speaking on campus. There are no UN resolutions against China being proposed. Tibet has been an independent country for centuries, yet for the most part the world has not protested the way it does with respect to Israel. In that sense it's similar to the dual standard used with respect to the Kurds.
Eric
Of course I'm aware of the Free Tibet movement , but it appears to generate a fraction of the attention in the West , especially among the Left, that the Palestinian cause generates.
ReplyDeleteYou aren't suggesting that the Israeli start mercilessly repressing the Palestinians. Recall there are no Israelis in Gaza and the West Bank appears to be doing quite well. I don't think the Chinese are fearful that Tibet will try to wipe them off of the map, nor do the Tibetans threaten the very legitimacy or existence of China itself.
My point again is not that there isn't a Free Tibet movement, but it doesn't seem to have the traction of the Palestinian movement. China is not treated by the West, and specifically on US campuses, the way Israel is. I understand China's economic clout, but that's never deterred students and intellectuals before. Tibet's claim to independence is undeniable and historic. The Palestinians, relatively more recent ,and arising primarily from the presence of Jews in the midst.
Eric
1. One of the things that I find most frustrating about this dialog is the fact that anyone who becomes passionate about this topic views everything else in the world through the lens of this conflict. Your Tibet comparison is really really strained. If you rewind to when I was in college, Free Tibet was actually something that people were quite a bit more passionate about than the Palestinian cause. Frankly, the Palestinians didn't get much play amongst young people in the West until Sharon went to the temple mount and precipitated the first intifada early last decade... at least that's my opinion - i allow that I could be totally wrong (which is a novelty for anyone involved in this debate).
ReplyDelete2. To answer your question I'd start by asking you to show me one example of a "successful" occupation in all of recorded history. The reason that the palestinians get the support they do on college campuses and "the left" is that israel is an oppressor right now. Shout from the hilltops about all the reasons why Israel has to do what it's doing... it doesn't matter - they are oppressing people and that's the narrative. Nobody likes an oppressor. I don't care if the israelis are obnoxious... I am Jewish and fully support Israel... I respond in the way that I do because I think that they're being really stupid and painting themselves into a corner.
If I were in charge of Israel I would figure out a way to quit being an occupier and get a deal done that gets me a state that's still going to be jewish in 20 years. I might even give away the orthodox... tell them they can stay in their settlements... which will just be part of a Palestinian state :-) Then I'd do everything I could to foster economic development in the palestinian state and deal with the consequences of my withdrawal. I know what happened with Gaza and Lebanon... that's ok - were Israeli losses really that bad? The alternative - a continued occupation - is just not a sustainable model.
Finally, as far as the "we're afraid of being wiped off the map" argument goes - if we get realpolitik on this one for a minute I'd say that at this stage the fear of being "wiped off the map" is a red herring. If things really did escalate to that extent the Israelis are far better armed than anyone else, and by withdrawing they'd have gained the moral high ground from which they could counterstrike with all the force they wished with the full support of the international community. If they keep going down the path they are they're going to die a death of 1,000 cuts.
Really insightful analysis and argument. Can't really take issue with much of what you said and I appreciate your ideas about what Israel should be doing.
ReplyDeleteSadly I see no solution in the foreseeable future. Positions are too far apart. I also agree that Jewish settlers who won't leave West Bank after creation of Palestinian State can just become citizens of that state. Why not? The very orthodox don't believe in the State of Israel anyway .