Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (54418)	10/24/2002 11:02:24 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Re:the Cajun population of Louisiana have more traits of being a national entity (Language, cuisine, culture) than do the "Palestinians". Hm you probably do not want to go there. Even if you are correct, it brings to mind why 'Indians' do not have a country of their own despite their unique culture.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (54418)	10/24/2002 11:41:44 AM
From: richardbt	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

>There exists a long line of national groups out there around the world who are a MUCH BETTER FIT for statehood than the Palestinians. This idea, that homogeneity of ethnicity, language and culture are somehow not only badges of statehood but pre-requisites to it is a curiously American one. Wilson subscribed to it quite vociferously and insisted it be used as the basis for fixing the boundaries of the new states brought into existence on the break-up of the Habsburg and Ottoman empires at the end of the First World War against the judgment of the other allies and we're all familiar with how well that worked. In brief, because of the facts of geography, it proved impossible to create ethnically/culturally homogenous states but, because the states had been created primarily on the basis of ethnicity, minority populations were, in some cases, discriminated against. Even if they weren't the idea of ethnicity as defining the "correct" territory of a nation proved useful to aggressor states. It formed the basis of the German claim to the Sudentenland, for example. The idea also ignores the self-evident fact that hardly any, in fact I would go so far as to say NO, nation in the world has an ethnically or culturally homogenous population. And people who argue that states should be like this are, rightly, branded racist. To be a state 'all' you need is population, defined territory, government and capacity to enter into relations with other states (Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States 1933 Art. 1) There is no theoretical or practical reason the Palestinians could not have all of these. They arguably have the first two already, the only reason the don't have the last two is because the Israelis object to it. Fundamentally, of course, that is exactly what the conflict is about.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (54418)	10/24/2002 10:25:44 PM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

There exists a long line of national groups out there around the world who are a MUCH BETTER FIT for statehood than the Palestinians. I've been thinking about this. Confusedly. The only things getting in the way of palestinians being a state beside Israel are their leadership problems, which are huge. Their leadership does not really grow out of the local community. Arafat has been foisted on them and he is much beholden to outsiders - Syrian, Iranian, EC, US, Israel. His agenda is not local. Rather it is to play off these entities for his gain and that of the cronies. He is an archaic style ruler; he is not even a modernizing one (who are usually nobility of some kind). Much of the palestinian population, on the other hand is modern in outlook and because of that is a threat both to him and to all the other regimes in the area, except possibly Israel(!) which is mostly modern in outlook. Thus the puzzling results we sometimes see in those palestinian polls. (Despite his sometimes ferocious record, Sharon is modern in outlook and is not a ruler. Thus his desire to destroy Arafat's regime). It's pretty clear Arafat has spent quite lot of his resources on suppressing and conning the modernistic elements in his population. It would seem, to me, that Sharon's basic view that removing Arafat and his cronies and patrons would in itself be a positive, leading to reasonable outcomes (not necessarily the "expected" ones), is correct. He could then protect and perhaps talk unimpeded with modernist elements of the population - which I suspect are a high proportion of the population who are keeping their heads down for the obvious reasons. A huge amount of external resources are being shovelled in the direction of occupied territories palestinians, much of it focused on the archaic fundamentalist agendas. Given that the palestinian ruler is partly cooperating in this the modernist elements are "drowned out" both by the fundamentalist access to external financing of social services, education, military, and by the equally archaic ruler's access to external financing. The modernist forces are left with diddly squat. At the end, there is no coherent informal or formal political/social regime for a palestinian, or modern outsider like you, to identify. Therefore they don't look like candidates for statehood. (Archaic rulers, like Iranian mullocrats and confused or desperate moderns, have no trouble identifying Arafat's version of palestine as a candidate for statehood). The above could be filled out much more. One could compare the commonalities palestinians and Israelis have with those palestinians and (eg) Saudis and Iranians have. I think you'd find that palestinians have far more in common with Israelis than with their "allies" who send them mullahs, weapons and money. (The EU and US don't count very much because Arafat steals their aid and gets between them and the modernist elements). I've been pushing this modernist/archaic line of approach to you for some months now and you've not seized on it even to rip it up, but I have a feeling it can be quite useful because it shows real differences. Arafat, Hizbollah, Hamas, Iranian mullahs, Saddam Hussein, Wahhabists, are all made from the same archaic model and because of this are mortal enemies of the modern world: they either want rulers or want to be rulers and the modern world can not allow rulers - there's more to it than that, but that's the essence, isn't it? So, you if really want to know if the palestinians are candidates for statehood get rid of the rulers and see what the rest of them want to do. That does mean getting rid of Arafat, his cronies, hamas, hizbollah, and their ilk. frank@ifeelradicaltoday.com