Intention rather than identity

Submitted by George Laker (United States), Dec 11, 2011 at 20:46

While it is true, in a general sense, that all national identities at some point emerged from a nebulous population, this operative principle is not really the objectionable aspect of the Palestinian struggle for statehood. Statehood pursued for legitimate self-determination is quite a distinct social and political phenomenon from statehood pursued for the purpose of displacing another sovereign state.

What is objectionable about the Palestinian pursuit for statehood is precisely what was objectionable about Germany's assertion during World War II that the Germans of the Sudetenland were entitled to liberation and self-determination, apart from their Czech oppressors. The "Sudetenland" was a term constructed entirely from the ether of German nationalism, espousing the preeminence of ethnic ties for the purpose of expanding German borders. At no point was there any true intention to carve out a separate and distinct state of Sudetenese citizens - it was a rhetorical device, framed in the language of nationalism - to bestow legitimacy upon what would otherwise have been an unjustified militaristic expansion.

The "Palestinian" Arabs emerged in a similar manner, fashioned on European ideals of nationalism for the purpose of expanding the territory of the Jordanian Arabs. This is clear from the fact that Jordan granted all West Bank residents citizenship upon annexation and even began to develop plans to designate East Jerusalem as its capital. All notions of a distinct Palestinian nationality were extinguished - Jordan had effectively extended its sovereign rule over the Arabs of Palestine west of the Jordan river. It was only upon the loss of the West Bank to Israel that Jordan and the other Arab states in the region began once more to conceive of a distinct Palestinian people.

The difference is that it became increasingly clear that the contiguity of Arab populations in neighboring states would no longer serve as legitimate justification for an invasion of Israel. The more it became apparent that such a justification was no longer tenable, the more the Arabs west of the Jordan river began to be identified as "Palestinians." Attacks against Israel would now be justified as pursued for the purpose of liberation and the defense of a distinct Palestinian population striving for sovereignty, rather than the discredited pursuit to incorporate contiguous territory occupied by neighboring ethnic Arabs

The Palestinian identity was never truly asserted for the purpose of safeguarding the sovereignty of the Arabs of Palestine - it was asserted, and continues to be asserted, as a pretext for an indefinite campaign of militarism against Israel. This invidious purpose is what commentators like Gingrich refer to when they state that the Palestinians are an invented people. It is not a denial or repudiation of the operative principle governing the emergence of distinct nationalities. Rather, it is a counter argument to the common and disingenuous notion that the "Palestinians" have an indelible, preeminent, and ancient claim to the lands of the West Bank and Gaza.

The emergence of truly self-determined nations that seek statehood to solidify their sovereign unity is quite distinct from the political calculations that posit the existence of a distinct nation in order to justify what is otherwise a religiously inspired campaign of conquest. The Palestinian claim of nationhood is not a scintilla stronger than the claims that were made by the Germans of the Sudetenland - who, in the aftermath of the war, were forcibly expelled to Germany for their atrocious crimes and associations with the Nazis. Perhaps, it would have been wise to have sent the Arabs of the West Bank to Jordan in the aftermath of the 1967 war. Israel now stands to pay indefinitely for that strategic error.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".