Palestine - Better Together?

It was interesting, last Monday evening, to watch the televised backbench debate from the House of Commons, on whether or not the British parliament should recognise a Palestinian state.  It wasn't a surprise to see Labour MPs speaking in favour of the debate but, the idea of a two-state solution for Palestine/Israel has gained such common currency in Britain that even Conservative MPs were speaking in favour of recognition, which surprised me.

International recognition of a Palestinian state

Free Palestine by James_London

The outcome of the vote for symbolic recognition was overwhelmingly in favour (274 ayes and 12 noes) and, although this vote doesn't officially change the British government's approach to Palestine, it's seen as a historic moment, atoning for past mistakes in British policy on Palestine and the first step towards official recognition of the Palestinian state by the UK government, which would then join the 134 other countries who currently recognise Palestine.

Since I started blogging about Palestine just over a month ago, Grenada and Haiti have officially recognised Palestine and the newly-elected Prime Minister of Sweden, Stefan Loftven, has announced that Sweden will recognise Palestine, becoming the first European Union country to make this commitment.

Parallels between Palestine and Scotland?

Pro-Palestinian protest in London by James_London

I can't help but draw parallels between the campaign to gain recognition for the Palestinian state and the recent referendum on the question of Scottish independence.  I don't really believe in nationalism, however, in the case of Scotland, it seems so obvious to me that Scotland is a country, that I unreservedly support the right of the Scottish people to have their own nation.  Having said that, people voted as they did and the majority in favour of remaining in the United Kingdom was clear, so it would seem that independence is not really what Scottish people actually want . . . well, certainly not right now.

The reality is always a lot more complicated and how we understand the nature of a nation very much depends upon the times we live in.  There are pluses and minuses for Scottish people, in terms of independence and, unlike in Palestine, a 'no' vote in Scotland won't necessarily lead to repression of the Scottish people or their being denigrated to second-class citizens (although there has been some anti-Scottish sentiment in the media 'south of the border').

Demonstration at Houses of Parliament by James_London

Of course, the situation in Palestine is very different and whether or not Palestinians have control over their own affairs is crucial to protection of human rights and dignity of the Palestinian people.  Unlike Scotland, Palestine isn't an equal partner in any kind of union with Israel and, in reality, it's difficult to compare the need for independence in these two countries, as their contexts are not the same.

As with Scotland, it's always been obvious to me that Palestine is a country and, logically, should have its rightful place at the table of nations.  Until I started researching for this blog, I never really questioned the two-state solution for Palestine/Israel, however, I'm beginning to see another side to this situation that hadn't really been obvious to me before.

The Palestinian population of Israel and Israeli settlements in the West Bank

One thing I didn't really grasp before I started researching for this blog, is the fact that 20% of Israel's population identifies as Arab/Palestinian.  After the 1948 nakba more than 700,000 Palestinians fled their homes and sought refuge in neighbouring countries like Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, where they remain to this day.  However, many Palestinians didn't flee, but chose to remain, particularly in places like Nazareth, which is still predominantly Arab-Palestinian.

As I've been researching the literature, movies, music of Palestine, time and again I'm coming across Palestinian culture originating from the modern state of Israel, as well as the West Bank and Gaza. Whether it's the music of the Palestinian rappers DAM, who grew up in al-Ludd/Lod, just a stone's throw from Ben Gurion International airport, or the movies of Elia Suleiman, who was born in Nazareth - the culture of Israeli-Palestinians seems incredibly vibrant and sure of itself and gives me some hope for the future.

I'm now wondering what would happen to Israeli-Palestinians in a two-state solution?  Not to mention, the post-1967 Israeli settlements that have been built in the West Bank, which put more than 300,000 Jewish settlers within what is traditionally defined as the West Bank and, under international law, would be part of the new Palestinian state.  By deliberately 'colonising' the West Bank, Israel has, in a way, bound the two states together for the foreseeable future.

Would Palestine and Israel be better together?

Perhaps a single, bi-national state would be better after all although, similar to the situation in post-apartheid South Africa, it would have to be a state where the Arab/Palestinian population plays as great a role as the Israeli/Jewish population.

Israeli flag in Palestinian colours

This isn't a popular idea at the minute - certainly not for right-wing Israelis, who are living according to the principles of a Jewish homeland and I understand how a single state with equal rights for Palestinians wouldn't appeal to them, as that goes against everything they believe in.  Equally for Palestinians, the idea of belonging to a single state where Palestinians might end up becoming second-class citizens isn't really a solution.  The legacy of the 20th century for Palestinians is so full of injustice, that it would be hard for any Palestinian in the West Bank, Gaza or elsewhere to accept anything less than full nationhood.

I find myself in the strange position of supporting recognition of the Palestinian state whilst also acknowledging that this could possibly prolong nationalist agendas on both sides for at least another century. Ultimately, even with a two-state solution, the question of living together peacefully remains.  I also find it hard to stomach the idea of any nation based on a religious or racial identity, so it's hard for me to see how a purely Jewish state of Israel will be sustainable in the 21st century.

Universal human rights

Getting back to Edward Said's ideas on humanism - it would be better to facilitate the basic rights of people and their access to recognised citizenship in Palestine/Israel, rather than think along religious or ethnic lines.  We're all human and the fact this fact alone should entitle us to basic rights regardless of which part of the world we happen to have been born in.

Image credits:

For this blog post, I wanted to highlight the work of Flickr member James_London - James is currently based in Nairobi, Kenya and you can see more of his images on his Flickr photostream.

Thanks James for sharing these images with us, using the Creative Commons license.  

Maharashtra - What ever happened to Bombay?

When I was born, in 1975, the map of the world looked a little bit different than it does today.  European colonialism was on its deathbed and most parts of Asia, Africa and the Americas had managed to gain independence and establish their own colours on a world map that had previously been British Empire pink.

I was born into a world where Zaire, Malagasy, Kampuchea, Upper Volta and Rhodesia were countries.  I grew up with the names Leningrad, Bombay and Peking firmly planted in my mental geography!

But the map of the world is continually changing - whether it's the addition of new countries, like South Sudan, or the renaming of cities, from Saigon, in the year of my birth to the more recent changes, such as St Petersburg, Mumbai and Beijing.  I guess the older one gets, the more confusing the map of the world becomes and some habits (like calling St Petersburg, Leningrad or Mumbai, Bombay) are hard to break!

Map of Hindoostan from 1831

So why do countries decide to change their names, or the names of their major cities?  Well, I guess it's a natural process of redefining your national identity.  For many ex-colonies, like India, name-changing is an opportunity to reclaim cultural identity.  India seems to have gone through a wave of name-changes in the last 20 years - some of the main ones being Bombay to Mumbai (1995), Madras to Chennai (1996), Calcutta to Kolkata (2001) and Bangalore to Bengaluru (2007).

I wonder how much the growth of nationalism, especially Hindu nationalist parties like the Marathi Shiv Sena party, have influenced this recent tendency to change the names of Indian cities.   Whilst Kolkata and Bengaluru seem to be more accurate spellings of the names of these cities, I was surprised to find out that Mumbai is not simply a 're-spelling' of Bombay, but is a name with its own significance, from the Koli goddess Mumba and the Marathi word Aai, which means 'mother'.

In other countries, like China and Korea, redefining the way their languages are romanised (ie. written in the Latin alphabet) has resulted in name changes that sometimes seem quite different to speakers of European languages.  Particularly in China, where many of the romanised names were originally based on Cantonese rather than Mandarin, the resulting changes meant that Peking became Beijing and Canton became Guangzhou.  It's interesting to note that the names haven't actually changed in Chinese, but are a result of the adoption of the pinyin system of writing Chinese by other, predominantly European languages. 

Map of France in Hindi

Countries in the ex-Soviet world have seen many name changes in the past century.  After the Russian revolution, many cities such as Petrograd, Yekaterinburg and Tver - were renamed after heroes of the revolution, Leningrad, Sverdlovsk and Kalinin - only to regain their former names after the death of Stalin or the collapse of communism.  Likewise, Tsaritsyn named in honour of the Tsars was renamed Stalingrad (1925) and then Volgograd (1961).  Bishkek, the capital of Kyrgyzstan was once called Frunze, Tajikistan's capital Dushanbe spent more than 30 years with the official name Stalinabad.

So is all this name-changing really worth it, especially if the purpose is to establish political supremacy or nationalism?  Perhaps the most controversial name where I come from is Derry or Londonderry, Northern Ireland's second biggest city.  I grew up calling it Derry and I still find it hard to think of Londonderry as a place that exists anywhere outside my adult experience of geopolitics.  It's a contentious name and, like Bombay, Calcutta or Madras, symbolises British rule for a population that is dissenting or independent.

Free Derry corner by Paolo Trabattoni

It's interesting to think about who has the right to decide a city's name.  Logic would say that it should be the people who live in the city who decide what it's called - in which case, I'd imagine Derry/Londonderry would end up being just 'Derry' - but what about others who have a relationship with the city?  The administrators in Belfast, Beijing or New Delhi?  As with the adoption of pinyin by European mapmakers, people in other countries/places also somehow have a right to decide what they will call the cities in other parts of the world and how they will spell these names in their own languages. 

Personally I think it's important for names to change - although I grew up with Bombay, Peking and Leningrad, I recognise the symbolic nature of city name-changing and see this as an important process in countries that are going through political and cultural change.  How the rest of the world reacts is another matter.  I'd imagine most of us have a very personal mental map of the world which captures our understanding of geography in a way that no paper or digital map ever could. 

It'll be interesting to see how the world continues to change as this blog ages (there have already been some small changes to the world map since I started in 2009).  Perhaps I'm blogging about places that will cease to exist - what will the countries and cities of the future be called?  I can't wait to find out!

Image credits:

The first two images are from Wikimedia commons and are in the public domain.

The image of Free Derry corner was taken by Italian photographer Paolo Trabattoni who is a graphic designer.  You can see more of Paolo's work on his Flickr photostream or on his website.  Thanks Paolo for sharing this image with us using the Creative commons license. 

Eritrea - A Nation Once Again

If Eritrea is known at all, to many people in the West, it will most likely be for its long and bitter independence struggle against the central government of Ethiopia.  In fact, judging by what I've read so far on the subject, it's probably fair to say that Eritrea has been defined by its struggle for nationhood.

Emperors and Revolutionaries

Whilst the rest of the world reacted by (at best) remaining indifferent or (at worst) actively supporting the various Ethiopian regimes, against all odds, the Eritrean People's Liberation Front fought for almost 30 years, defying the might of Hailie Selassie, the last Emperor of Ethiopia and his successor, the Communist Mengistu Haile Mariam. During that time they gained the respect and trust of the Eritrean people who suffered through years of hardship and war.  So successful was the Eritrean struggle that they not only freed Eritrea, but also helped rid Ethiopia of the Stalinist Dergue, as Meles Zenawi and the Tigrayan People's Liberation Front swept into Addis Ababa in 1991.

A Nation forged on the Battlefields

Eritrean woman by United Nations

Even if Eritrea had never been a nation before, it certainly became one after the years of fighting in the battlefields of Nafka and Keren.  As with any newly-independent nation that has gone through a long period of struggle against colonial rule, the question now remains as to how Eritrea will define itself outside the context of war. Having a well-defined enemy or coloniser can bring your national identity into sharp focus, but once that enemy is removed, what exactly is needed to hold the conceptual 'nation' together?

The Balkanisation of Africa?

Eritrea's claim to nationhood is quite different than many others in Africa.  On a continent struggling with multi-ethnic nations which were defined by European powers, with borders haphazardly criss-crossing linguistic, tribal and cultural divides, many Africans would like to see an Africa that has moved on from its colonial legacy.  Whilst the Organisation of African Unity is opposed to the balkanisation of Africa, some kind of redress is necessary, if not inevitable, and I think events like the recent independence of South Sudan are part of that process.  Eritrea, ironically, has fought to return to its colonial borders, which were politically, historically, perhaps even psychologically, established by the Italians in the late 19th century.

Welcome to Gelatoland

Ice-cream parlour by thecomeupshow

Whilst Eritrea, in some ways, owes its existence as a nation to lines drawn on the map by the Italians, being colonised by the Italians was, ultimately, Eritrea's downfall (although they did leave a legacy of stunning architecture and refreshing gelaterie or ice-creams parlours!).  Post-WW2 British and US governments weren't all that interested in preserving a state created by their erstwhile enemies and favoured the federation of Eritrea with Ethiopia, which is what eventually happened.  It's clear that the Eritreans never really wanted federation but, I guess the issue of Eritrea/Ethiopian identity is complex, considering the fact that tribes like the Afar and Tigrinya straddle both sides of the Eritrea-Ethiopian border.

Self-determination versus Federation

I find Eritrea's tenacity and commitment to self-determination fascinating.  I guess, being Irish, I can relate to the desire for 'nationhood' - although it's a modern concept and, equally, one that will be redefined in the next century, in Europe, as much as in Africa.  I guess the question of self-determination versus federation, is one that many nations have had to face and, in the case of places like Scotland, Catalunya or Quebec, will be facing in the near future.  Ireland was faced with this question at a time when the British Empire covered one third of the globe.  The consequences for us, as a nation, were pretty harsh. But we live in a different world now and, one might hope, nations should be able to go their separate ways in an amicable fashion.

So what happens next?

Eritrea addresses the UN by United Nations

Indeed, the separation of Eritrea and Ethiopia was relatively amicable in the beginning - a civilised agreement between revolutionary comrades - but this mutual goodwill, unfortunately, evaporated with a border war, which cost thousands of lives and devastated the Eritrean economy, in the late 90's.  It sounds as though things are still pretty tense between Eritrea and Ethiopia (and Djibouti and Sudan!). It's hard to stop fighting and move on but I believe that Eritrea will, eventually, need to accommodate its dominant neighbours - to recognise commonalities whilst respecting each nation's right to follow its own path.  That is, as long as nations continue to exist!

Zenawi, the Tigrayan People's revolutionary leader and Prime Minister of Ethiopia has just passed away. Eritrea's leader, Isaias Afewerki, keeps a firm grip on the reigns of power. Ethiopia's future seems as uncertain as ever.  Equally, Eritrea faces greater challenges than ever before, to forge a nation which is prosperous, future-proof and at peace with its past.

Image credits:

The image of the ice-cream parlour was taken by Flickr member thecomeupshow aka Adulis 'Chedo' Mokanan, a hip-hop and R&B DJ who is based in London, Ontario!  Adulis took a trip to Eritrea in 2011 and has shared his photos with us, using the Creative Commons license.

The other photographs are from the United Nations flickr account and have been provided using the Creative Commons license, as the UN wishes to foster greater understanding on the work they have done down through the years.  You can also find out more by visiting the United Nations website.