From: perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman)
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:56:45 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.060713.23775@mcs.kent.edu> rayes@Snake.mcs.kent.edu (Sandra Rayes) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.205819.10064@colorado.edu> perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep11.073925.3382@mcs.kent.edu> rayes@Snake.mcs.kent.edu (Sandra Rayes) writes:
>	[....]
>>>Throwing out and retrieving convenient slogans is your trick, not ours.
>>>Palestinians have always stressed their love for their land and culture.
>>>Palestinians were traditionally peaceful (at a time when other Arabs
>>>were fighting) and settled farmers who enjoyed their pace of life and
>>>were blessed by the proximity of Al Aqsa, a holy site in Islam.
>>>That has never changed.  What has changed is the fact that Europeans
>>>have taken their land from them, treated them like animals, and
>>>assigned to them the role of victim.
>>
>>Sandra, while now this definitely makes a lot of sense to a lot of
>>people, even those such as Rashid Khalidi have stressed that the
>>resurgence of Jewish nationalism - i.e. Zionism - triggered a huge
>>upswing in Palestinian nationalism, and that Palestinian nationalism,
>>such as it was, had its origins during the early part of this century
>>(Jacob Baltuch posted some excellent information on this several months
>>ago, which I unfortunately did not save).
>
>As I said, the Palestinians were a settled lot, comfortable with their
>ways, and before Zionism were unthreatened by the outside.  There would
>have been no need for any upswing of "Palestinian Nationalism".

Sandra, you know this isn't true.  First of all, the British were just
as hard on the Arabs as they were on the Jews (before the state of
Israel was established).  Second, while before WWI Mandatory Palestine
was ruled by the Ottoman Empire, to call their rule beneficial really
does not mention the fact that the Ottoman Empire was despotic in every
sense of the word.

>And remember, Eric, nationalism is an invention of the West.  Before
>nationalism, the Arabs were all united under one Muslim state.  Their
>idea of nationalism did not extend beyond their qabilahs (tribes, I
>believe).  You cannot think of Mid Eastern ideology with a Western
>mind...you will never make sense of it if you do.
									
While I can certainly respect the need to be able to think as the
inhabitants of a given area do, for a large part of the time in question
- before WWI, say - large parts of the Arabian Peninsula, and much of
North Africa was *not* ruled by the Ottomans (the Arabian Peninsula had
a number of city-states, including ones around both Mecca and Medina;
much of North Africa was under colonial regimes imposed from Europe).

>>For centuries Palestine was ruled by the Ottomans - and under their rule
>>*no one*, not Jews, not Armenians, not Kurds, and not Arabs, expressed
>>much in the way of nationalistic feelings there.  Other parts of the ME
>>weren't ruled by the Ottoman Empire for so long - and therefore their
>>history reflects different characteristics.
>
>Not correct.  Nearly ALL of the Arabic-speaking world was unified under
>the Ottoman Empire.

See above. At its peak this was true, but not during the period
beginning in the late 17th century.  


>  But again, you are analyzing this through Western
>eyes and nationalizing this.  There was no nationalism.  I used to do 
>this also, until I realized that the Mid East mind does not think the
>way a Western mind does.  My husband is from Northern Africa.  His
>country was also under the Ottoman rule until Europe colonized N. Africa.
>And this is where my husband starts his condemnation.  So once I said to
>him (remember I too am a Westerner with the nationalist mentality that
>comes with it): "How come you complain about France and Italy, but you
>don't complain about Turkey...that's not fair...Turks aren't Arabs and
>they occupied your country".  My husband said "Aha...there's where
>your western nationalism ideology goes wrong.  For us, we accept the
>Turks because they were MUSLIMS and started out with a MUSLIM state.
>Arab or non-Arab--it makes no difference to us".

That may be the case now, but it wasn't the case then.  Besides, let's
remember the fates of minorities under the Ottomans - the massacres of
the Armenians, suppression of the Kurds, ... 

The concept of rights is universal, in my belief, Sandra.

>The point is, Palestine, although completely Arab, was part of a Muslim
>empire.  Although everyone realized there were regional differences,
>the Arab states were a "federation" of sorts, unified under the Ottoman
>rule.  But that certainly didn't make Palestine (which is what the
>rest of the Empire called that region) less Palestinian.  I believe it
>is nationalism which has been the scourge of the Arab world and Arab
>politics.  May Allah curse Nasser for picking it up and popularizing it.


-- 
"How sad to see/A model of decorum and tranquillity/become like any other sport
A battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee." -Tim Rice,"Chess"
     Eric S. Perlman 				 <perlman@qso.colorado.edu> 
  Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy, University of Colorado, Boulder
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast