Bilow, I disagree. The entire reason that I'm posing the question here about the origins of Palestinian "nationality" is because the
US and other global governments are irrevocably embarking on the course of "nation creation" by promising a Palestinian state.
This will have DRASTIC foreign policy implications, especially with regard to setting a precedent for other nationalities currently
residing and governed by leaders not of the same nation of people.
I think palestinian "nationality" is not exactly a red herring but something like one.
The conditions people live under are important.
For example, the Palestinians are living in a colonial, police state condition.
There is a separatist movement in Quebec which wants independence from Canada. Their condtion is not colonial and they don't live in a police state and it's very hard to take them seriously either inside Canada or outside, (except in France) because not enogh Quebecers support separatism.
On the other hand, there is the separation of the Czeks and Slovaks which passed without serious incident.
The question of nationalty is often a matter of great creativity. The Swiss nation was created - despite the well done mythology surrounding it - in the early 19th century out three different peoples differing in language, custom, and religion.
Contrarily, France spent much of it's modern history creating itself by destroying the various nations that once existed within its borders.
Much of the British Empire was people governed by people not of the same nation and in the end it came apart without that much ado. The British head of state declared their various indepences and that was that. Some of those nations are quite successsful, others not - (eg) India, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, etc.
I don't see why the borders of countries need be written in stone. History certainly doesn't demonstrate it.
Independence, nationality, are an awful lot like human rights - they aren't something always given, sometimes you have to take them, and the world tends to go along. |
