Paul,

As stated people with a common first language have the right of national self-determination for the purpose of determining whether they can form their own state. They don't HAVE to form independent states, but rather they can form whatever states they like or in union with whomever they like.

People who call themselves Jewish but do not practise the Judiac faith have, in reality, a Jewish heritage. After all, there is no common factor between all Jews except their religion. Whilst a particular religious interpretations may count Mihu Yehudi quite differently most of that has as much veracity as Roman Catholics who count all the baptised among their number, or the baptism of the dead by Mormons.

The 90% figure is from the Jewish National Fund itself. It refers to the land within the 1949 armistance lines (the exact figure is actually 88%) It is simply cited in response to those who engage in the seriously misguided belief that Jews simply bought up the land of Israel and moved in.

(cf., W. Lehn and U. Davis, The Jewish National Fund, Kegan and Paul, 1988, p.xxi)

Lev,

“the use of a common first language is the best definition of nationality for purposes of determining statehood from self determination”

You have your dictator's hat on again. Even in totalitarian countries ...

China has over eight languages and a myriad of dialects; Russia has different languages and dialects. In both countries, many language groups speak only their own.

Your proposal of a common first language identifying a person's nationality would be the first available line to abuse ...

In some countries various indigenous groups have different languages, they have never learnt, nor wish to learn, the first language of the majority of peoples.

It is bad enough that people condemn others by the way they speak. The English particularly so. Admittedly, some dialects are incomprehensible - the locals don’t speak standard English; indeed any identifiable “English.”

Surely not back to the abuses inherent in language tests during the White Australia Policy.

However, it will no doubt warm the cockles of your dear little Leninist heart that the Russians had plans, which they admitted would take time to implement, not being accelerated by artificial means, for an official common world language. And first proposed by the old boy Lenin himself.

The Soviet Design for a World Language
Elliot R. Goodman
Russian Review, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Apr., 1956), pp. 85-99

You really want the Leninist dream don't you Lev. We all sound the same, act the same, all apparently secular, doff our collective caps to the same policies, indeed all grey and "neutral" - nothing that might upset a totalitarian apple-cart. Sorry, Lev. I like individualism.

When residing in another country for any length of time, I support the need to learn the language - both for speaking and reading - indeed fluently. Language provides insight into another people. From the numbers of Aussies learning languages before travelling abroad, this is not a unique idea.

cont ...

I know elderly Greeks and Italians who migrated here - have contributed enormously to this country - became naturalised - but have never become close to mastering English. They certainly could not read a newspaper in English, nor carry on anything but the most general of conversations without lots of "sign" language and gesturing - and even then ...

They are Australian in every sense of the word.

but... to continue with your latest line of reasoning:

“ ...people with a common first language have the right of national self-determination for the purpose of determining whether they can form their own state.”

In Australia we could have a miriad of nations of those speaking the same native tongue - indeed micronations of just twenty people ...

It would work well for our indigenous peoples, groups of whom are distinct from others, having their own language, and racially. But many whites would be loathe to give up their backyards and barbies ...

Indeed a proven example ...

The Principality of Hutt River’s resident population is twenty. This includes His Royal Highness Prince Leonard, Her Serene Highness Princess Shirley and Crown Prince Ian; worldwide, however, there are some 13,000 passport holders.

This Principality is a micronation, 18,500 acres. His Royal Highness Prince Leonard, the sovereign, is hermetic, presumably hermeticism is the state religion. Hutt River Principality, a benevolent absolute monarchy, has a draft constitution, anthem, currency ‘n’ all; even permanent representation overseas, such as in Berlin - (I guess Berlin is anxious to be friends with everyone).

The National Museum of Australia acknowledges that tthe Principality of Hutt River has successfully seceded from the Commonwealth of Australia, and is an independent state.

The Australian Commonwealth do not.

... civil war ... just over the horizon ...

Incidentally I totally support the program to preserve ancient languages, indigenous languages, even proto-languages, where-ever possible. Indeed reintroduce languages as has been seen in Wales and Ireland.

I apologise, Lev, for not keeping up with events in Timor-Leste. I was unaware that peacekeepers having brought the area to a haven of peace, had left.

Danielle,

China has eight languages? Really? I could name 223 at least, not dialects, but mutually independent languages with first languages status among their speakers. And every single one of those nationalities has the right to to self-determination.

A common world language in itself is not a bad thing. It would certainly aid in understanding between nationalities. However that is not the same as a common first language.

It was hardly Lenin that first thought of such a thing. You may have heard of other international auxiliary language, such as Esperento, much favoured by European anarchists. Others include Solresol (1827), Communicationssprache (1839), Universalglot (1868), Volapük (1879), Spokil (1887), Mundolinco (1888), Idiom Neutral (1902), Latino sine Flexione (1903), Ido (1907), Adjuvilo (1908), Interlingue (1922) and so forth.

Of course, this was all part of a vast international Lenninist-communist conspiracy. :p

I also note that you confusing the right to nationality with the right of citizenship through naturalisation. I also note that you reject the right of aboriginal self-determination in Australia on the grounds that civil war would result.

This does not surprise me in the least.

Lev

You say “people with a common first language have the right of national self-determination for the purpose of determining whether they can form their own state”

Please tell me how this fits in with your plan to deny speakers of Hebrew, the Israelis, their own state by annexing their territory and handing it over to the Arabs. You have consistently avoided my questions as to why you feel a single Palestinian state deserves sovereignty. According to YOUR many rules regarding such things, a single Palestinian state incorporating all of the Jews would surely not qualify.

I can’t get access to Lehn and Davis book about the Jewish National Fund. It is really quite disingenuous of you to suggest your information came from the JNF itself, yet in reality it comes from a book about the JNF. Walter Lehn in his article on The Jewish National Fund in the Journal of Palestine Studies suggested that the JNF owned 3,396,000 durums of a total of 26,323,000 durums in 1950. This is around 12% which is double the amount held in 1947.
http://www.caiaweb.org/files/Lehn-JNF.pdf

Then there is the matter of the actual 1949 armistice lines which clearly show that the Israelis did not hold 90% of the land within the armistice borders. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949_Armistice_Agreements

If you can find a better or more accurate map you are welcome to try. I cannot believe you will find one which shows the Israelis occupying 90% of the land.

You say “ Perhaps you trying to distract from the the actions of paramilitary groups who, seized 75% of Palestine, and forced 780,000 Palestinians out of the country?

And are you ignoring the 1947 Arab League plan to drive all Jews out of Arab lands, leading to an exodus of 800,000 people who will ever be allowed to go back.

As regards East Timor it is abundantly clear that without the Indonesians permission the peacekeepers would never have gone in. And the Militias weren’t much more than a deniable arm of the TNI.

Paul,

I am not sure how many individuals in Israel have Hebrew as their first language. In any case if they did indeed want to have their own state of course they would be entitled to it.

It was not at all disingenous for me to cite Lehn and Davis, indeed it was very accurate of me. Rather than cite an original source from the JNF I cited the book and the page number which referred to the JNF itself. To quote directly:

"Of the entire area of the state of Israel only about 300,000 to 400,000 dunums ...are state domain which the Israeli government took over from the [British] Mandatory regime. The J.N.F. (Jewish National Fund) and private Jewish owners possess under two million dunums. Almost all the rest [i.e., 88%] belongs in law to Arab owners, many of whom have left the country." (Jewish National Fund, Jewish Villages in Israel). Which was sequested by the Absentee Property Law of 1950.

I am not ignoring the 1947 Arab League plan either. As far as I'm concerned those expelled from the Arab lands are well within their rights to demand a "Right of Return" as well. Surely however a secular and democratic Israel with a desire for justice would not allow itself to sink to the same policies as the despotic Arabic regimes?

WRT Timor Leste, I can state with absolute certainty that you are largely incorrect. People often overlook that the pro-integration militia were Timorese. Whilst the TNI clearly provided support, it is totally incorrect to describe any of them (Aitarak, Besi Merah Putih, Laksaur, or Mahidi) just as an arm of the TNI.

As for the Indonesian government's acceptance under duress of UN peacekeepers, it is worth noting that just days prior to the decision of the 19th of October 1999 decision they were completely rejecting the possibility. There is a rather good book by Dr. Clinton Fernandes (Reluctant Saviour, Scribe, 2004) which I recommend for a insightful summary of the events.