Posted by
Brutus on Friday, July 21, 2006 4:19:08 PM
"Rightful ownership" a phrase we often hear in today's court of public opinion. Is this yours or mine, who belongs here and who does not, and how do we decide? In order to legally prove your rightful ownership of your house or car you must have a title or deed issued by some lawful authority. What happens when you have owned the home or car longer than the lawful authority existed? Do you have to prove continuous ownership for the item to be recognized as your lawful property by the new authority, and by what means does your proof need to support your ownership. Can you say "Hey, I have driven this car every day for the last ten years, or I've lived in this house for forty years. How about we've lived in this geographic area for over five thousand years and have been documented as inhabitants by every occupying force or government. Is that enough proof of rightful ownership? What about challenges to your ownership, what merit must be established to challenge your claim? Can your neighbor over the last five thousand or so years challenge your right to the space?
I ask these questions only to point out that in the Long Term Perspective the Jews have inhabited the geographic area around Jerusalem for a very long time. So for that matter have the sundry Arab people who have traveled the desert in unison with the Jews for over five thousand years. Who then is the rightful owner of that piece of land? Is it the Arabs or the Jews, or is it both? How far back should you search in history for a break point to establish ownership? Should ownership be established by conquest, by purchase, or by habitation? Can a legitimate claim be made through establishment by grant or decree of a conquering army. What means should be the litmus today test to prove definitive Rightful Ownership?
This question has long plagued the defenders of diplomacy in the middle east. Who belongs here,and who doesn't, and what should we do with the interlopers. The world thought we had answered this question in 1947 and 1948 with the establishment of Israel, and the proposed establishment of Palestine. Why then do we not see today a country of Palestine? With the breakup of the region by the British and the development of new countries in the area, no one wanted to cede territory to a group of people who had at best a tenuous claim on the sand under their feet. Since historically they were the poorest of the Arab clans and primarily nomads, the Palestinians didn't fit into the Westphalian model of a state. None of their neighbors wished to cede any of their land to the Palestinians, so the issue of statehood for these historically nomadic people became a non-issue. Camped out on the boarders of what was once part of their nomadic range, the people who have become known as Palestinians, chafed at their loss of habitat. Denied access to an area so that others who had been persecuted and exterminated could have a safe haven for their continued survival, must have seemed as ironic by people who were now denied free passage to an area which until recently was part of their daily life.
The Westphalian perspective on ownership required the establishment of boundaries. Geographic, political, cultural boundaries have all been used historically to establish the notion of "ours". Western thought has established political and geographic boundaries as sound methods for establishment of Nations. Lost in this perspective is the cultural use of an area by similar peoples. In the development of the middle east after the end of the second world war, a vast geographic area traversed by thousands, was segmented into arbitrary areas to establish nation states. Hence the countries borders which established Israel and Jordan. However are these arbitrary lines in the sand necessary? Are they practical for a people who have nomadically traveled this sand for thousands of years? Does control of an area by a governmental entity negate ownership of the same geographic area by a people? Does the establishment of an arbitrary border supersede the historical ties to an area established by use and reuse over thousands of years? Are the Arabs born in Israel today, Israelis or Palestinians? Are the builders of Solomon's Temple and the old city of Jerusalem, Arabic or Israeli or neither?
Many previous governmental agencies have tried to establish boundaries throughout the middle east. Tribes, Clans, Villages, alliances, occupiers, all have controlled use of the caravan routes, an oasis or scarce grazing land. Defending in time of less and sharing in times of plenty. Solomon's Temple, the Temple of the Rock, are these not on the same land, have not the local people over hundreds of years shared the geographic space to both sides benefit? Each side defending their claims during time of strife and coexisting during times of plenty. Put aside all of the differences between Arabs and Jews, and look at the commonalities. They both have common origins, common ancestors, common claims to a land, common claims to ancestral homes, and religious relics and sites. Who can untie the Gordian Knot of Rightful Ownership over this hardscrabble piece of earth?
The Long Term Perspective always tries to view both sides of an issue in order to see the furthest. Since life as we all know it was started here, is it surprising to anyone that it can all end here? Can the Arabs be so short sighted that they don't believe the Israelis mantra of: "Never again, Never Forget" will not cause their own demise. Can they not see the spectra of mushroom clouds will forever poison all of the lands they call home? For almost 50 years the state of Israel has existed, tenuously clinging to a small strip of land and an ideology of fierce defence of their people. For almost 50 years the Arabs have circled Israel, railing against the rock which is Israeli resolve, spending their riches, their youth and their countries future fighting over Rightful Ownership of a piece of land. Is it not feasible to expect that when the pushing has for all intensive purposes reached it's zenith, and the extermination of the Jews is again on the horizon, that the leaders of Son's of Zion will not strike back with all of their might. As well do the Jews believe that the secret to nuclear power can be theirs alone in the middle east forever. Both sides faced with everything to loose and everything to gain must seek common ground, must seek a common future, or we may well see where it all began be where it all will end.
Some breakthrough must be started perhaps a compromise on Jerusalem as an independent city under Israeli control with rotating responsibilities of security and protection. Similar to the old Mecca prior to the advent of Islam. Mecca itself, the holiest of holies of Islam, was originally the Temple of Kabaal hosting the idols of hundreds of tribes and villages all under the protection of the Meccans. Could an ancient means of protecting both parties from annihilation spring forth from a common historical truth, and solve a insurmountable problem? Possible, we'll just have to wait for the Long Term Perspective.