A right to self determination?... no thanks

"No greater monument to human stupidity and ignorance can be conceived than the frequent and blithe espousal of ethnic nationalism today."

Michael Neumann, in The Case Against Israel. Counterpunch, California, USA. 2005, p. 17.

It is not the notion of Palestinian (or any kind) of national identity that I object to. Nor do I suggest that those behind the 'self determination' rhetoric have, for the most part, have noble and decent anti-imperial intentions - for which I certainly have sympathy for (although the question of what Wilson's true intentions were remains a moot point that we do not go into now).

I simply think that the idea of a communal right to self determination makes logical nonsense, and the way it is banded about in the ill defined way that it is does an active disservice to the Palestinian national cause.

This conclusion is base on three main criticisms of 'self determination' and it must be credited to Prof. Michael Neumann. First, and foremost, that the right to self determination is a term that is easily applicable to no only the best but also the very worst reasons for engaging in conflict. Second, that the right is not universally applicable (and considering the first point a jolly good thing too!). Third, that experience tells us that the 'right' is simply impractical.

First "the 'self determination of peoples' has a sinister undertone. It amounts to advocating the assignment of territory and political power according to ethnicity." If I were to advocate the right to self determination to the nation of English people, would you really believe for a second that I wasn't talking about white, Christian Daily Mail readers? Ethnic-nationalism has an uncomfortably close relationship to racial nationalism... and even we can pick the odd example of a genuinely pluralist Ethno-nationalist movement, it is not hard to find ten, or a hundred of examples of a racial exclusivist agenda is pursued. Don't I get a right to self determination for my kin - just because they are white and comparatively rich? how about Afrikaanas? or Tutsis? - and come to think of it, wasn't Zionism framed as a legitimate pursuit of 'self determination' as Jews escaped the various phases of horrific instigations of ethno-nationalist agendas in this continent's bloody history?

Second, the right is clearly not universally applicable, because - unlike individual human rights, a group's 'right to self determination' depends on the capacity,and willingness, of external parities to recognises the group as one worthy of a right. In essence, it depends on others to both recognise the right, but also the right to a right! I am sure you can see the problems here. If I argue for a 'right to self determination' for all people named Phil, or all people who prefer cricket to football - then my arguments are plainly silly. We need therefore a body to discern between 'real' rights and 'silly' ones. Wilson had such a body in mind when he came up with the fourteen points... I don't think we need to go intothe details of The League of Nation's particularly chequered history on this matter or even to it's successor's, we can simply summise that even in the rare cases that the UN has regonised a people's claim to such a right (not that it has done even this for say... the Tamils, or effectively for the Kurds) - it is frequently held to ransom by the countries in the UN where the majority of money and equipment come from (UNSCR 198 and 242 spring to mind). One might suggest this is only because of injustice in the global system, well, yes - I'd agree with that, but thats basically how the global system is, and how its always been - and frankly, if we had a 'just' global system, would we even be having a discussion about 'self determination' in the first place? The long and short of it is that 'self determination' not only gets it wrong in this respect, but it does way worse - it gives the authority to decide where it is applicable to those who are most powerful in the global system in other words - those who are naturally most inclined to reject change!

Third, the impracticality of the 'right'. I've already mentioned some examples above and the particularly unpleasant or even absurd consequences in several cases, and also the myriad of cases where it simply hasn't gotten off the ground. However, it is Neumann's example that really encapsulates the silliness of the idea. "The state of Yogosalvia was proclaimed by the Yoguslav national council. The Western powers recognized this product of self determination and for many years it seemed that there was a Yoguslav people. Today the use of such a phrase would be a good but rather bitter joke."

My final, parting silo, is that basically, even if one existed, Palestine DOESN'T NEED a right to self determination. The case is only more muddied by the use of such language that is so easily adapted for its own purposes by the other side! How many times have I read that Zionism is the manifestation of self determination, getting into that old basket case argument of a biblical right to a particular piece of land. Or even the arguments (that you cite yourself) attacking the Palestinian 'right to self determination' because there was no cogent notion of Palestinian nationalism before X or Y year. Who cares? These are tactics that are used to make the issue appear far more complicated than it is!

The Palestinian case should be based on individual human rights that are unquestionably the basis of international law and are based on such widely acknowledged experiancial basis that even Prof. Dershowitz would struggle to find fault with.

Palestinians have a right to life, liberty and security of person... because everybody does according to Article 3 of the UN Declaration of 1948.

Palestinians have a right to due process of law and protection from involuntary servitude and cruel and inhuman treatment... because everybody does (articles 4,5 and 6)

Palestinians have a right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country... because I do, and you do and everybody does (article 13).

Palestinians have a right to nationality (!) and education (my personal favorite) freedom of peaceful assembly and association (articles 15, 20 and 26) because we all do... and the list goes on... and on... and on... (and long may it continue!)

I highly recommend Neumann's book, and also his website: http://members.tripod.com/mneumann/mnisrael.htm