The short answer is that, 70 years after Auschwitz, still the world is ruled based on greed and opportunism, and not on truth or justice.
What nation should have a right to stop another from independence? The chutzpah to keep other people bear-hugged not only smacks of ugly supremacy but also of “good-old” colonialism.
Yes, there is more than colonialism of far-away countries: exploitation of next-door neighbors or a country’s own provinces. This is just the old exploitation disguised as “national unity.”
But it doesn’t have to be that way. Look at Friesland. The Frisians are a proud and brave People with its own history and language. The remnant of their once-enormous lands is now located in part of the Northern Netherlands. They never ask for independence. You know why? Because they are treated with dignity. Local and provincial discussions and reports are done in Frisian. Not only is the use of Frisian tolerated – it’s stimulated by the national authorities. And with it, dialects in the Netherlands receive more and more recognition and support too.
Arab Palestinians, I hear everyone think, what about them? Aren’t they oppressed by being denied independence? Doesn’t that seem the inescapable conclusion after what I wrote above? Well, it’s not. With Jews, things are often the opposite as with all other Nations.
Surely, if Palestinian Arabs want their own State, they should have one.
However, If they would be better treated by the State of Israel, Arab Palestinians may want no independence anymore. Well, that is the case for many Arabs in Israel already.
In any case, this idea of Two States for Two Nations is heavily influenced by the following four points:
- Arab-Muslim centuries-old hatred for the Jews. That is what makes peaceful coexistence already impossible for 120 years. It doesn’t even matter if it’s in one State or two.
- The Arab-Muslim’s custom (that too many but not all Muslims or Arabs follow) to kill to show opposition to ideas is unacceptable for Jews. It must change, whether for a one or two state coexistence.
- Arabs are regionally vastly in the majority. Though Palestinian Arabs get to play the underdog, it is Israel’s independence that is disputed all the time. Even with Israel being established, the basic threat to statehood has not changed by the founding of the Jewish State.
- The moral equivalence card is played all the time. But there is no equivalence. Many Palestinian Arabs would love to see all Jews dead; the reverse is not true. Jews just want to live in peace. As soon as the Jewish State is supported by an Arab majority, an Arab Palestinian State will not be a problem. But not instead of the Jewish State, of course.
If one would set out to correct all nonsense any individual wrote on the Internet, there would be no time left to sleep, eat or breath. Yet, if someone in English in a blog of a serious newspaper would claim baloney about the Netherlands, I might react. As now.
In a Jerusalem Post blog post, I read a prominent quote from a “Dutch thinker.” Besides many Dutch people who call that a contradiction in terms, the blogger lets us know that the genius is “famous.” He doesn’t say famous where, but could we assume that he’s well-known in the Low Countries? What’s his name? “E. Rotterdam.”
I lived for 40 years in the Netherlands and have never heard of “E. Rotterdam.” I’ve heard of East Rotterdam. What’s worse, looking at Dutch family tree research did not reveal one E. Rotterdam in Dutch history. The guy probably never existed. If it’s a guy. That could explain the initial instead of a given name in full. Yet, he might mean: Erasmus from Rotterdam, but that’s not E. Rotterdam.
Erasmus did write in a letter to a friend: “treat men and things as though we held this world the common fatherland of all.” But is that the same as the above-mentioned blogger says? (The English Wikipedia text on Erasmus refrains from discussing his relationship to Jews. One needs to go to the Dutch page to see how his Judaeophobe position is not sweet, but still less bad than Luther’s.)
I read in the aforementioned blog: “An intensification of separatist tendencies is a great danger and alarm in the contemporary world. If you do not study and prevent this process in time, in the near future it can spread itself.” And that is a great danger? More independent countries?
He claims that “famous Dutch thinker E. Rotterdam held that changes in state borders lead to war.”
After quoting at length an avalanche of speakers and ungrammatical English verbosity (“the creation of a territory of one state of another state within the framework of the state of another state”) we find another philosopher who never existed (according to the Internet): “the famous French thinker Emmerich Cruse,” whom the blogger quotes to strengthen his point.
And this all, because the blogger supports Azerbaijan to continue its occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh, which it flooded with its own citizens. It’s a pity that a respectable newspaper internet site lends its columns for the defense of colonialism and oppression in 2017.
My conclusion? Let all national, cultural, language, dialectal, sentimental groups have their own state if they so want! After receiving independence, they can opt to cooperate inside of trade alliances. But not through enforcement, oppression, colonialism, imperialism or genocide. Those days should be over.