The 1948 Plebescite on the future of British Mandatory Palestine. Better late than never.
In its succession to the Ottoman Empire, Britain received sovereignty over a Semitic population in a unified territory called Palestine (yes, it was…).
When the collapsing British Empire acceded to the wishes of one Semitic tribe to sever the previously unitary sovereignty, it found that it could not be troubled with the nicety of a vote by the previously subject population.
This, of course, is not how we do things today. (cf. East Timor).
The failure to honor the principle of popular sovereignty continues to create tsooris to this day.
Let’s have the vote: We could define the electorate either as:
All the inhabitants of Mandatory Palestine in May 1948 still alive, plus one vote for each deceased inhabitant, cast by his/her heirs. Or,
All the present day inhabitants of Mandatory Palestine plus all those who would be eligible to return to Mandatory Palestine under the standards by which persons in the Jewish Diaspora qualify to return to Israel.
This should solve all the problems.
If a majority of the total vote for partition, then, and only then, we discuss the boundaries. (remember, the burden is on those wanting to change the status quo to get the majority agreement for partition before enforcing the partition…..Oh, I’m sorry—did I just challenge Israel’s right to exist??
Why, yes, yes you did. In a very succinct and reasonable way, too. Well done.
January 5, 2009 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
When would be too late?
Any reason why this shouldn't be done in India/Pakistan/Bangladesh too?
How about in the U.S., Canada, Australia, etc. (I recognize there are legal differences, but not their validity). More time has certainly passed.
January 5, 2009 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about in the U.S
We had our plebescites-13 of them, in each state, corresponding to the borders of the prior colonial entities.
Each separately ratified the consititution before losing their separate identity in the whole (in a sense the reverse of the partition process, but still necessarily grounded in *popular sovereignty.)
*"We, the People," and all that.
January 5, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but "Indians not taxed" couldn't vote. Nor could "all other persons," but I'm not sure where they fit in the analogy.
January 6, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indians not taxed..all other persons.
Not a trivial question, although for purposes of committing the assent of the tribe/community/locality to an allocation of sovereignty I think that historically it has been considered sufficient to get the agreement of the majority of fully politically empowered "persons", and that assent was supposed to drag along the rest.
In fact, I think that arrangement flawed, and if not ultimately addressed leaves serious lesions festering, as it were, in the society.
Hence, I favor reparations for the descendants of kidnapped Africans and casinos for the descendants of genocided Native Americans.
January 6, 2009 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm . . . ok :-)
January 6, 2009 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
rec'ing my own, 'cause you only get 24 hrs...
January 5, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink