Dear EJ,

Self-determination is not the same as political independence. It's that simple. The two expressions have different meanings.

DF, If Catalan achieved independence from Spain what would that be called? When Poland got rid of the last Hun and the last Russian overlord what would that be called? How about when the East Timorese became free of the Indo scum?

Just curious, not seeking to debate semantics (as was happening on the marriage thread).

EJ,

The majority of Israel has self determination, as opposed to the dictatorships of hamas, the PLO and essentially every Arab country is a dictatorship that murders its own civilians.

The Arabs are presently acting like savages, and need to be controlled before they harm themselves or anyone else.

SM: Yes the racist regime imposed on Palestinian land has self-determination as did the racist regimes imposed on Poland by the "Aryan" and Soviet Slav overlordship. Poland had self determination once Poland was run for better or for worse by the Poles.

And yes Islamic regimes worldwide are dictatorships (and not only the Arab regimes - cf. the dictatorships directly north of us). But most of them are not run by racist foreign overlords. Our concern in Australia is to control the religious (as distinct from racial) supremacists that we have let into the country so we don't end up with an alien overlordship like the Palestinians.

Dear EJ and Shadow Minister,

I see self-determination as defined by Wilson in action – a nation formed by a unity of ethnicity, race, religion or some other unifying feature. I regard it as usually a bad thing since those individuals not part of the unifying principle but within the political boundaries of a nation formed in such a way are liable to be considered second-class citizens are to be persecuted. However, it may not be a bad thing if the rights of those who do not conform to the dominant paradigm are respected. However, that may be difficult to do.

EJ mentioned Catalan. Catalonia is part of Spain, but Catalan is a language which is not Spanish. Spain is a country where the Catholic Church is prominent. Catalonia has a history of being anticlerical and antichurch. During the Spanish Civil War Catalonia was an anarchist stronghold.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homage_to_Catalonia tells about George Orwells’ experience in that war. There is an independence movement in Catalonia which is driven by different factors. One factor is a desire for self-determination since they feel a unity as a people and would like to express that unity as an independent country. Counter to that is a desire for independence as a separate state which would be tolerant of diversity and less burdened by conformity than the rest of Spain. That kind of political independence is not self-determination.

The American Revolution was a colonial rebellion against England, but the rebels felt very English. “Taxation without representation is tyranny” was one of their slogans. They felt they were being denied their rights as English to be represented in parliament. In rebelling against England they were creating a better England. The rebels became a nation.

However, I would to bring up another matter. We seem to feel very differently about both individuals and groups. I feel that what ethnic group or nation we belong to is largely a matter of chance. It depends on who our parents are and where we live. I feel that no ethnic group, nation or individual is entirely good or entirely bad.

Continued

Continued

I feel there is some good in the worst individual and some bad in the best individual.

Shadow Minister wrote: “The Arabs are presently acting like savages, and need to be controlled before they harm themselves or anyone else.”

EJ wrote: “The "debating" practices of Zionists and other frauds include rewriting what others have written and then taking issue not with what the others have written but with what the fraud has changed.”

I see the two of you as mirror images of each other. One condemns a people, and the other condemns a social movement. Shadow Minister condemned the Arabs, and EJ condemned the Zionists. One Arab is not the same as another Arab, and one Zionist is not the same as another Zionist.

Some Arabs do not like what other Arabs are doing and condemn the violence. Palestinians have a history of nonviolent protest which goes back much before 1948.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/05/18/palestines-hidden-history-of-nonviolence-2/ tells about that history. The world in general has chosen to ignore the Palestinian history of nonviolent protest in favour of covering suicide bombing and other forms of violence.

From the article:

“As Jewish immigration into Palestine increased and the implementation of the Balfour Declaration became more apparent, Palestinians who feared marginalization (or worse) under a Jewish state continued to resist. In the early 1930s, numerous protests and demonstrations against the Zionist agenda were held, and the British mandatory government was swift to crack down. The iconic image of Palestinian notable Musa Kazim al-Husseini being beaten down during a protest in 1933 by mounted British soldiers comes to mind.

It wasn’t until nonviolent protests were met with severe repression that Palestinian guerrilla movements began. After the 81-year-old Husseini died a few months after being beaten, a young imam living in Haifa named Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam (the namesake of Hamas’s military wing) organized the first militant operation against the British mandatory government. His death in battle with British soldiers sparked the Arab rebellion that began in 1936 and lasted until 1939.”

From the above, nonviolent Arab protests were met with British violence.

Continued