Harry’s Place

Belgium effectively functions as two different countries, The Flemish and Walloons live completely separate lives and regard each other as foreigners. Having the country split in two would make very little difference.

The status quo with countries like Belgium, Scotland, the Basque country, Catalonia, South Ossetia, and others will only intensify nationalist feelings in these areas, and will slow the path to a post-nationalist europe. Ironically, if they were given the indepedance the wanted, nationalist feelings would most likely subside, and the path to a post-nationalist europe would be smoother.

Philip Roth (or his “fictional” alter-ego at least) compares Israel to Belgium in “OPeration Shylock” but his comparison is intended as a dig at both countries’ meagre cultural offerings.

If you think Belgium is nationalist and disharmonious now, try separating it into two states. The point about the Belgian model is not that it creates love between the two sides, but it manages their differences better than any alternative. Try to partition Brussels and then you will see how much worse things will get. Also, Palestine/Israel is not an exact analogy to Belgium. Whereas partition of Belgium is just about imaginable (although as I said partition of Brussels could conceivably result in war), partition of Palestine has proven impossible without ethnic cleansing, war, extreme human rights violations. Israel/Palestine is ALREADY functioning as a binational state but only one of the groups has rights. This cannot go on forever. Since partition is not feasible (although the dreamers think it still is) there will either be war, apartheid or a one state solution. But there will never be an independent viable Palestinian state.

I would add that the better model for Palestine is not Belgium but Northern Ireland. Palestine and Northern Ireland are both examples of failed partitions that exacerbated ethnic crisis and violence. In NI it was impossible to meet the mutually exclusive demands of both groups in the same territory (for exclusive sovereignty) nor was it possible to partition again what had been partitioned. So they have to share sovereignty and power whether they like it or not. And believe me many do not.

I don’t see why Belgium cannot function like Wales, Quebec and other places where are there are two languages spoken, which is that official business has to be done in both languages, with each language given priority in areas where it is predominant. So, in east Wales (and south Pembrokeshire), where the English and Welsh differ (although you get stupid exceptions, like the sign I once saw at my uni in Aberystwyth which said “Warden” twice), English appears first and Welsh second, and in Welsh-speaking areas, mostly in former Dyfed and Gwynedd, the opposite is true, and although individuals can do business in their own language, if someone can be found who speaks it, people producing official publicity have to organise translation, and this includes regional assemblies (if not individual town councils). Belgium is a bilingual country, and if the country is to survive as one country, they need to accept each other’s cultures and languages, which means teaching them in schools and making sure that all citizens are welcome in all parts of their own country.

Belgium is an excellent example of how not to do it. The Flemings there made the absence of French language and influence in Flanders the test of whether they reached their moment in the sun. Successfull binational states are ones in which the consensus is bilingualism on part of both nations.

I agree with Omri. Belgium might have some positive lessons for Palestinians and Israelis (after all Belgium HAS lasted since 1830 WITHOUT violence which is not a small achievement by the way). The Palestine/Israel binational state would be binational throughout its territory — equal status of both languages, all religions, nondiscrimination in housing.

Of course Judt was wrong - absurdly wrong. The EU is an association of nation states that has chosen to pool sovereignty in some areas. But nations guard their sovereignty in other areas - eg tax - jealously. I can’t therefore see that Belgium has any lessons for the Middle East at all.

I don’t think anyone has really made an argument for why Belgium matters.

Why not just expand France and Holland? Two countries that obviously do matter. (Think of the cheese alone between these 2 great nations.)

But there will never be an independent viable Palestinian state.

I concur. At least not as long as it’s inhabited by primitive genocidal maniacs/Palestinians who, if they’re not spending all of their time and resources trying to kill Jews, are trying to kill one another.

To blame the break-up of Belgium on the Flemish excluding the French language is preposterous. Not least because it ignores most of the country whereby the only avenues by which a Fleming could advance were a) to follow a career in the Church or b) to speak nothing but French.

Still today Francophones are unwilling to learn Dutch whereas French is commonly understood in Flanders; thanks to large-scale immigration from North and Central Africa, French is still a part of Flemish life. While the Walloons are keen on Belgium, they’re less keen on learning the languages, and taking therefore taking an interest, to keep it going. On the other hand, the Flemish have the languages, but are not so keen on staying in a state in order to subsidize depressed areas where people show no interest in them or their culture.

That it took so long to form a government is largely down to the electoral laws. There are ‘families’ or pairs of political parties, one from Flanders and the other from Wallonia, e.g. the Socialists (PS - Wallonia/SP - Flanders). The law requires the government to be formed of parties from the same ‘families,’ e.g. the Social Christians and the Liberals. This task is made somewhat harder by the fact that while the Socialists have traditionally been the party of choice in Wallonia, that role belongs to the Social Christians in Flanders. So unless you can get the four parties (two Socialist and two Social Christian) to agree on a programme, a large part of the country will feel disenfranchized.

Having said all that, the Dutch don’t have these problems, and forming governments isn’t easy in the Netherlands, either.

XU&*I! No bloody preview!

The above should read “most of the country’s history whereby…”

“I concur. At least not as long as it’s inhabited by primitive genocidal maniacs/Palestinians who, if they’re not spending all of their time and resources trying to kill Jews, are trying to kill one another.”

Well done Mike Hucknall: you have sucessfully produced the language that was always used for why Black people/Native Americans/Jews/Irish people and many others could never have their rights. Yes, all those too were once viewed in polite company as “primitive” and “genocidal.” But no one would dare say that about them now. But it is still polite to say it about Palestinians. Of course the fact that the number of Palestinians killed by Israel is consistently about 50:1 for every Israeli killed does not make Israelis “primitive” and “genocidal”. It makes them brave, noble, moral and exemplary. Shame on you.

When discussing divided societies it is often the “little” things that become major sticking points. In the case of Israeli-Palestinian relations forget “right to exist” declarations. That’s the EASY part. Wait until both sides sit down to discuss details of how to divvy up, say, riparian rights–that’s when the real fur will begin to fly.

In the case of the Belgiques the only insight one needs is to visit Brussels. Tangoko is right, partition in a city where one block is cable wired for Flemish TV and turn the corner and the next street and block is wired for French-speaking TV, would be a nightmare to carry out.

This is nonsense. The lesson of Belgium, the threatened breakup of the UK, and my city, London, is that there is no necessity for a strong nation state in a free and prosperous land. Belgium will not descend into civil war any more than the UK did with separatist tendencies in Ireland or will do with a potential vote on independance in Scotland. We will carry on with our science, industry and whatnot regardless of whatever government is ruling over us.

tangoko: Do not recall American Blacks or Irish ever blowing themsevles up in buses, nightclubs, restaruants etec. If you think that the Palestinians are taking part in some sort of civil rights or even national struggle, as apart from wanting to kill as many as Israelis posssible as the be-all and end-all of their existence then you probably think Arafat is the Palestinian Martin Luther King. In another words, your judgement is non-existence.

tangoko, far more Palestinians have been killed by their Arab “Brothers” such as in the Jordanian Civil War of Sept. 1970 then have ever been killed by those supposedly cruel genocidal, Apartheid Nazi Zionists!

Thank you, Mick Hucknall for stating clearly why there will never be a sucessful Palestinian state without a major change in Palestinian beliefs.

“In the case of the Belgiques the only insight one needs is to visit Brussels. Tangoko is right, partition in a city where one block is cable wired for Flemish TV and turn the corner and the next street and block is wired for French-speaking TV, would be a nightmare to carry out.”

Brussels should be an independent city-state on its own, like the Vatican of the EU or something.

It would seem that Belgium has already spilit into Flemish and French sections that no longer have anything in common with each other. Separation into two nations including separate political parties has already occurred. It seems what needs to be done is to how to formally separate the Flemish and the French so that the break-up of Belgium resembles the break-up of Czechslovakia and not that of Yugoslavia.

Whether the Flemish and the Wallons will join the Netherlands and France, respectively is an interesting question. I suspect not. Mostly Catholic Flanders probably would not be welcomed in predominately Protestant Netherlands where the addition of 5 million or so Flemings would result in Catholics becoming close to a majority. The Wallons may not like becoming a small part of a much bigger France. Moreover they may not like becoming part of the French beauacracy with loss of local and provincial control. My guess is is that Belgium would become two countries with the Wallons being granted free acess to Flemish ports in return for some sort of shared control and use of Brussels. Hopefully all this can be done peacefully without violence and deployment of EU peacekeepers.

As to what happens to the Belgian Monarchy, perhaps it can remain as head of a Flemish-Wallon trading community, Or perhaps the Belgium Royal Family can be simply be sent back to the German province it came from.

Brussels as an independent city-state sounds like an interesting idea. Perhaps King Albert II of the Belgians can become King Albert II of Brussels.

Concerning Israel/Palestine: Ireland/Ulster is a good comparison. Also the product of the second British partition of a colony upon independence, that of India with the resulting nations of India & Pakistan might a good model for Israel/Palestine.

“Are the French-speaking Walloons and the Dutch-speaking Flemish really on the cusp of breaking Belgium apart?”

And what of the German-speakers?

There’s no necessity whatsoever for states, politicians, religions, ethnicities, cultures, or money. We can get rid of all of these by getting behind a vanguard who aren’t afraid to make an omelette.

Also the product of the second British partition of a colony upon independence, that of India with the resulting nations of India & Pakistan might a good model for Israel/Palestine.

Oh noooo. I can’t think of anything worse.

Two neighbouring states that essentially hate each others guts (look! one of them started out having two separate territories on the opposite sides of the one that had one pice, too)

How much death, bloodshed and ethnic cleansing/division of communities/ unsettling of formerly mixed places at partition?
(Without even needing to bring up the formation of Bangladesh later on)

Then the rumours and constant threats of war, military build up, hair-pin tension, nuclear arms race, unresolved territorial disputes for decades afterwards, all the while as one of the states rapidly degenerates to become…what, the most dangerous place on earth, and the major centre for inciting and training extremism internationally (but, it’s OK, they’re our friends, we won’t mention it, and pretend other places are worse), and the polity of one of the two states is perpetually unstable, with the military having an outsize role

No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no. India/Pakistan is a disaster, the biggest flashpoint on earth. It is most determinably not a good role model for anything. Indeed, let us hope, even, for eventual reunification.

Northern Ireland would be a far more promising example, were either of the parties between the Med and the Jordan as reasonable as those around the Foyle and the Bann. But I see absolutely nothing to indicate that is the case, from either side, to differing degrees.

Venichka, I apologize for saying that India/Pakistan would be a good model for Israel/Palestine. I wrote my words poorly. What I meant to say, more or less that India/Pakistan would be a good model to compare to, i.e. roughly similar to what Israel/Palestine has been and might become. I agree with you that the conflict between over Kashmir between nuclear-armed India and nuclear-armed Pakistan is the most dangerous one in the world. And that Pakistan is a barely functioning country that has become a center of extremists and terrorists who have increasing influence with the military. Northern Ireland is a more hopeful role model for Israel/Palestine then India/Pakistan, but odds that Israel/Palestine will follow Northern Ireland’s path rather then a path closer to that of India/Pakistan are not good.

The way I see it, Israel is a well functioning country and a modern society.
What the Palestinians do in their cities, does not concern me, as long as they don’t affect my right to life.
When they have finally outgrown the jihad and behave like rational human beings (like, for example, not soaking your hands in the blood of lost travellers, or sniping babies), they will get their state too. And if they think this is racist they can fuck off back to any Arab state. It is really that simple.
Civilization or Barbary.

Nation states are so 20th Century. The new action oriented liberal utopian Europe transcends states so that all ‘countries’ devolve into their constituent tribes and clans. The victory of open ended tolerant post modern diversity is that only people who look, speak, worship alike should be allowed to self organize into political bodies. And anyone who disagrees with that fundamental retarded racism, is a racist.

And for Israel is has nothing at all to do with idiot far left ideals of ethnicity. For Israel is 25% non Jewish and half the Jews aren’t Azkenazic. 4 out 5 Jews don’t are non observant. No the real issue is do you want to live with a culture that embraces failure, stupidity, babarism be they white, black, Palestinian or Martian. If the BNP suddenly had tanks and decided to fight to the death for a neo Nazi state, would you endlessly analyze why they are like that? No you would at some point, wish them well and tell them to go the fuck off wherever it is they need to go and don’t let the door hit you.

Vencihka and David All:

Boy I really agree with you about Pakistan. I used to fool myself by thinking that in even the worst case scenario of internal disintegration the nukes would be safe because the vast majority of the older officer corps are Sandhurst graduates and a certain discipline and rationality would prevail. Then I read an interview in Atlantic mag somewhere around 2003-4 (I saved it but I’m not at home now so can’t quote) that made my blood run cold. It was a senior colonel (one of the types upon whom I was staking my hopes) who quite directly stated that he would just as soon see nuclear wpns used sooner, rather than later, to resolve differences with India–that he was sick of the whole long, drawn out affair and would just as well see it all end once and for all as soon as possible. Talk about chilling! And this from one of the more SENIOR officers, not some young hot-head, non-Sandhurst trained, religious zealot of a junior officer.

Ever since I read that article I’ve felt that we have all been living on borrowed time, as my view is that if nukes are flying, everyone else in the region will decide it’s as good a time as any to settle old scores….All in all not a pretty prospect.

If the BNP suddenly had tanks and decided to fight to the death for a neo Nazi state, would you endlessly analyze why they are like that? No…

I think the antizionist position be it far left or far right, Arab, Muslim, or international, is precisely the opposite. With one exception, they close all the doors of analysis that would seriously ask why the political/religious culture which inhabits Gaza and the West Bank extols violence and death, murders and tortures Arab dissenters, murders Arab wives, mothers, sisters, murders anyone related to a clan member with which one claims to have a grievance, while promoting and inculcating canards, blood libels, and racist hatred through political, educational, recreational and religious institutions. The one door antizionists do leave open for analysis is one where if a particular dysfunction is allowed to be acknowledged openly, the main causal factor for the dysfunction can only be explained as Zionism/Israeli Jews.

I love short trips to Belgium, which I describe as “a land flowing with beer and chocolates”. Those are two things the Belgians have in common, as well as mostly being Catholics.

Yusuf Smith 22 August 2008 @ 8:41 pm
Omri 22 August 2008 @ 9:02 pm

are of course right, but Belgians have repeatedly emphasised their differences instead of agreeing to respect and accommodate them. For an example of a country that has got its multilingualism right, they only have to look up the Rhine to Switzerland.

In Belgium, there is no duty to respect and accommodate the language of the other Belgians. There are municipalities in the suburbs of Brussels that require all official paperwork to be in Flemish, and this in quite legal.

I’d like to comment but I fear I would just Waffle.

There is no model solution that can be adopted in the context of the Israel/Palestinian issue - it is unique. Efforts should be made towards trust-building between the Israelis and Arabs, which involves political sacrifice from both sides. Unless both sides accept that, there will be no progress.

Wombat: “4 out 5 Jews don’t (sic) are non observant.” That makes it sound as if these 4 out of 5 are completely free of any religious tradition whatsoever. This is not the case. In actual fact, Israeli Jews who are completely secular, and do not observe any Jewish religious traditions at all, are quite a tiny minority in Israel. Around 70% of Israeli Jews eat strictly kosher; around 35% observe the Sabbath (and that’s a complete orthodox observance - with a larger percentage keeping the Sabbath partially (Sephardi tradition tends to be more accepting of the less rigidly observant)); over 90% have a proper Passover Seder every year. The amount of people who decide not to circumcise their baby boys, with the full religious service, is, I hazard a guess, probably no more than three digit in the whole country, if that.

“No the real issue is do you want to live with a culture that embraces failure, stupidity, babarism be they white, black, Palestinian or Martian.”

I disagree. If the Palestinian people suddenly became complete mensches, it wouldn’t make any difference to how most Israeli Jews feel about a one-state solution, although it would probably greatly increase the feasibility of a two-state solution in our lifetime.

Israelis Jews overwhelmingly want a state where Jews are a majority; where we get to decide our own fate for a change; where we are free to observe our religion without shame (in my case, as much of it or as little of it as I choose); where the likelihood of our children leaving the faith is relatively small; where we are free to grumble about our own politicians in our own language; and, most importantly, where we can defend ourselves when the people who don’t like us come knocking.

And we want all this to be in our historic homeland.

All this is non-negotiable and is completely incompatible with the one-state solution. Therefore, all those jabbering on about it should shut up already and stop wasting everyone’s time. It’s not going to happen. Period.

One of the factors behind all this, only briefly touched on, is that most North Africans are francophone. The Flemish speakers can be persuasive to a kind regionalist, small nation leftist, hostile to nasty centralising French speakers, and do well to conceal that a lot of their dislike comes from their hostility to those of Magbreban origin.

As for their cause being just, anyone who regularly reads Le Soir can see what a load of petty language problems the Flemish authorities make of their own accord in the Brussels suburbs. As Lan notes, though there are far pettier cases involving libraries and bus time-tables. Anyway who reads the far-right material of the Vlaams Blok knows that the (very large) nationalist Flemish right considers Brussels ‘its’ historic territory. Hence the feeling in the city of being ‘encircled’ and recent talk about a ‘corridor’ to connect it to Francophone territory. There are other divisions naturally, since the Beligum state encourages a form of communal separatism for all religious-cultural groups, including immigrants, and Brussels has its own splits between North African quarters and others.

I would say that Beligium is a case where soft-communalism (the so-called Pillar system those doing Political Science used to study) has become hard.

Imshin - beautifully put. The one state solution is the latest name for the ‘democratic, non-sectarian’ state which the non-democratic, Muslim Fatah movement used to pretend to want. It is a re-packaging of the idea of the destruction of Israel, in wrapping designed to appeal to naive European liberals, and not so naive European Jew haters who want a formula which can enable them to disguise their Jew hatred. The thing our enemies should realise already - for their sake more than ours - is that whether you likes us or not, we arent pieds noirs and we arent Rhodesians. We are an ancient nation on its ancient land. As such, we will defend our right to sovereignty with the same tenacity as any other nation. Trying to persuade us to willingly give up sovereignty stands as much chance as trying to persuade the Irish Republic to give up sovereignty and rejoin the UK. Dont waste your breath.

“half the Jews aren’t Azkenazic” - why is that relevant?

Imshin: superb. Absolutely correct and incisive.

One of the main problems with most anti-Israel raving maniacs in the West, most of them motivated by plain antisemitism, is that they have no clue about Israel. It is not a place about which they know the first thing: it is merely a place-holder, so they claim to be anti-Israel instead of anti-Jews, which is what they are.

… so they CAN claim to be anti-Israel instead of anti-Jews, which is what they are.

This fools only their mates, but not those who have some knowledge about the realities of the situation.

“But it is still polite to say it about Palestinians. Of course the fact that the number of Palestinians killed by Israel is consistently about 50:1 for every Israeli killed does not make Israelis “primitive” and “genocidal”. It makes them brave, noble, moral and exemplary. Shame on you”

And once again this brainless ‘argument’ is trotted out by the slow-of-thinking.
The point is not how many you kill, but what is the motivation and the reason for killing.
Let’s see if this will work:
I am alone at home, minding my own business. A gang of drunken bikers breaks down the door and attacks me with metal chains. I grab my (legally owned) shotgun and use it to defend myself from being murdered. The result is that 3 bikers are dead, and the rest flee.
According to your laughable ‘argument’, I am a barbarian murderer and they are noble and innocent victims. After all, 3 of them died and I didn’t: 3 vs. 0.
Now go and peddle your antisemitic nonsense somewhere else.

N.O. The problem with the antisemites is that they don’t recognize that the Jews have a home at all. They consider us aliens everywhere. We were aliens in Europe and we are aliens in Israel for them. (see how easily they accept the notion that Palestinians are “natives” and Jews are “European settlers”)
Even those who can entertain the notion that Israel can be accepted maximum as a ghetto for Jews, still think that launching rockets in from outside the ghetto walls needs to be allowed, excused or justified.

This has to be one of the worst and most tendentious pieces on Belgium I’ve ever read. Shocking, just shocking.

And it’s Die Tageszeitung by the way, not Der.

I entirely agree, Fabian. That is why I am saddened and disgusted by the universal acceptance (even in Israel, to my despair) of the label ‘Palestinian people’, because it leads to the following false syllogism:
1. They are Palestinian people
2. Ergo, their country is Palestine*)
3. Ergo, they are the natives
4. Ergo, the Jews are not natives
5. Ergo, the Jews are European colonisers / imperialists / Nazis
*) and since they were expelled by the non-native Jews from their homes all over the place, incl. Tel-Aviv, it follows that all of it is Palestine.
You know and I know on how many lies, distortions, false logic and conflations this laughable argument rests. But not everyone does.

“That is why I am saddened and disgusted by the universal acceptance (even in Israel, to my despair) of the label ‘Palestinian people’”

What do you propose to call them? And how would you deal with the indigenous population in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and their rights and needs?

As human beings, to give the short answer.

They are Arabs.

How do you feel about Palestinian Arabs?

My point is that the meme of ‘a Palestinian nation, quite distinct from the Arab nation’, is a con trick. From this con trick flows the fallacious argument I wrote about.

“My point is that the meme of ‘a Palestinian nation, quite distinct from the Arab nation’, is a con trick. From this con trick flows the fallacious argument I wrote about.”

There is a significant body of people located in a certain geographical area that calls itself Palestinian. As such, I think they have a right to self-determination. So does the Israeli state, according to agreements it has signed. The contentious issue is not that the Palestinians exist as a nation or that they should not have self-determination - the problem is the route that should be pursued to achieve this goal, the failure of either side to proceed in good faith and the extent of the Palestinian territory.

What about the Ost Kantone? If the Flemish and Walloons split, what happens to the ethnic German areas? Perhaps an analogy in the Israel/Palestine issue is the Bedouin, who generally do not identify with Palestinian nationalism but have as much right to respect for their culture, heritage and political self-determination.

“The contentious issue is not that the Palestinians exist as a nation or that they should not have self-determination … and the extent of the Palestinian territory”

By saying this, you are pre-judging the issue, because you have already decided that there should (must?) be a ‘Palestinian territory’. I don’t think you are entitled to make this decision, or propose that as axiomatic. Nor can you decide what is or isn’t ‘the’ [sic] contentious issue, or that axiomatically ‘the Palestinians exist as a nation’. You may hold that opinion, of course, just as I am entitled to hold mine. I can put forward arguments for the non-existence of such a nation. Indeed, your categorical statement that neither side proceeded in good faith is counterfactual.

“the Bedouin, who generally do not identify with Palestinian nationalism but have as much right to respect for their culture, heritage and political self-determination”

Are you equating that with territorial self-determination?

“By saying this, you are pre-judging the issue, because you have already decided that there should (must?) be a ‘Palestinian territory’. ”

I didn’t decide, the Israelis decided this. They signed the Oslo Accords. I suggest you read them.

“Are you equating that with territorial self-determination?”

No. Just some form of political representation of their own.

I would say that Beligium is a case where soft-communalism (the so-called Pillar system those doing Political Science used to study) has become hard.

Verzuiling has been a fact of life ever since independence in 1830. Anyone who’s lived in the Benelux will know that they have been hard and affect where you live, which school you go to, what newspaper you take, which union you belong to, what you do with your free time and, in Holland from the 50s to the 70s, even what TV you watched. Verzuiling is largely a thing of the past in the Netherlands, but not so in Belgium.

From the last few election results, it seems that Vlaams Belang (what used to be the Vlaams Blok) has peaked with nowhere to go.

Any talk of Wallonia joining France is nonsense. The last thing the Walloons want is to become a minor, depressed region in a much larger country. As for Flanders joining the Netherlands, there are a few cultural differences: for instance, there’s a cop show set in Bruges on Dutch TV which has subtitles because the Dutch can’t understand it.

My uncle lives near Spa, so I often visit that part of Belgium - he runs a rather good guesthouse there with his French Belgian wife: http://www.bretts.be/ (I recommend it, of course - good vegetarian food). The overwhelming feeling I get from Belgians is their pride in their diversity and the absolute belief in a Europe without borders. I’ve not seen any Flemish-v-Waloon rivalry or animosity in that part of Belgium. I don’t know the country that well, but everyone loves the idea of just getting along with each other, as French- Flemish- and German-speakers. Perhaps there is a desire for a little more subsidiarity, but I don’t get the impression that this is expressed in the form of nationalism.

Almost entirely unreported by newspapers and broadcasters based a short train ride from Brussels, there continues apace the neocon-backed Flemish secessionist movement with deep Nazi roots (like the neocons’ friends in Bosnia, Kosovo and Denmark), which, in the cause of the anti-conservative “free” market and in order to destroy a social democracy based squarely on Catholic Social Teaching, wishes to destroy a state closely resembling the United Kingdom, historically our principal ally and trading partner on the Continent, and headed by a monarch of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Why does nobody want to know?

David Lindsay: When did they let you out?

@Shmuel: a couple of things:
1.-Meagre cultural offerings. I think you should check a little bit your knowledge of art history. Even today, I know many countries with a poorer cultural offering.
2.-When you are Belgian (like me, unlike you) it’s not just as easy as becoming French and Dutch. It matters because there are over ten million people who call this country home. (You should also check your history book and understand the role of Belgium as a bumper state… not that it really worked in the second world war but…)
3.-If you were joking (which is the only possible explanation to your second comment) disregard this comment.

Vezuiling may be a fact of life but my point was about how it has incorporated post-War immigration, badly I would say.

It equally may be true that, as Hasan says, that the Vlaams Belang has peaked but Flemish nationalist ideology has not decreased. I have heard the stuff about Brussels being ‘really’ theirs from all kinds of Dutch speaking Beligiums. Despite claims that they speak fluent French while the contrary is not the case, I have not noticed this myself, from Bruges onwards. I have visited Brussels a number of times, and found the French speakers often have a sense of being under seige - whether rightly or wrongly that is.

There are also, btw, differences betwene French in Beligium and in France, septante, and saying s’il vous plait for merci for example. Though unlike some French speakers from Canada I have never seen them subtitled on the telly (I imagine however that real Waloon speakers, or the equivalent of Ch’its would need to be).

In any case, it was largely the Flemish who stopped the country becoming a republic after the Second World War - La question Royale as the near civil war was called. That is equally an important part of their tradition as well.

Almost entirely unreported by newspapers and broadcasters based a short train ride from Brussels, is that the Classical-Biblical synthesis was spoted running naked through the streets, shouting something about the end of the world. He answers to the name “Martin Miller”. But not always.

“By saying this, you are pre-judging the issue, because you have already decided that there should (must?) be a ‘Palestinian territory’. ”

“I didn’t decide, the Israelis decided this. They signed the Oslo Accords. I suggest you read them.”

Oh, my word, you are so witty!
I am not talking about Realpolitik. I am talking about general principles.
The Oslo accords are pretty much blue-parrot dead, by the way, having been comprehensively torn to shreds by the Arabs.

The problem with the Israel/Belgium analogy is that for the Palestinian Arabs to have a state, they need find a reason to have one, beyond hating Israel and Jews.
The issue with Belgium is about two ethnic groups who have never been independent of one another (owing to dynastic states and the formation of modern Belgium as a counter to French ambitions).
The issue with Israel is Arab rejection of Israel as an offence to their collective honour and their collective shame at having been defeated in 1948 (attempting to, at the very least, ethnically cleanse the Jews from Islamic/Arab lands).

“I am not talking about Realpolitik. I am talking about general principles.”

Both Israel and the Palestinians have officially accepted the right of each other to have self-determination; the PNA recognises Israel’s right to exist and Israel recognises Palestinian right to statehood. Jordan and Egypt have also officially recognised Israel’s right to exist, while the Arabian Gulf states have effectively accepted political reality with Bahrain even entering into a trade pact. Of course, the biggest sponsor of anti-Israeli terrorism is not Arab.

The principle of Arab-Israeli mutual recognition has been established as the basis of negotiation between both sides. The rest is realpolitick.

“Both Israel and the Palestinians have officially accepted the right of each other to have self-determination”

So what is the claim of the “right of return” that the Palestinians demand if not the denial of Jewish/Israeli self-determination?
I warn you: it is not small potatoes. Over this the Camp David and Taba talks failed.

In case you hadnt noticed, Dan, 40% of the Palestinian population currently live under the rule of an authority which has not recognised Israel’s destruction, and which is currently in a state of effective cold war with both Israel and Egypt.

oops - not recognised Israel’s right to exist, I meant

“So what is the claim of the “right of return” that the Palestinians demand if not the denial of Jewish/Israeli self-determination?”

I would hope that this grievance could be solved through some alternative means than the mass resettlement of Palestinians to Israel. It’s clear that these people cannot remain stateless refugees for eternity and that they will have to be given somewhere to live at some point if this conflict is ever to be settled. Whatever happens, a settlement of this dispute will have to entail big political sacrifices from both sides and a big leap of faith - something that happened at Oslo but which was, for various reasons, not followed through. The situation is so complex that I doubt anyone will be able to come up with a magic formula. It has to be worked through by painful and protracted negotiations that have the support of other interested parties that recognise both Israel’s right to exist and Palestinian right to statehood and have something positive to contribute (EU, US, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey).

Weiss: I’m not sure what your point is.

All this talk about the Palestinians and Israels; an endless circle, like the Caucus Race in Alice in Wonderland:

`I beg your pardon!’ said the Mouse, frowning, but very politely: `Did you speak?’

`I know what “it” means well enough, when I find a thing,’ said the Duck: `it’s generally a frog or a worm. The question is, what did the archbishop find?’

Certain facts have to be recognized (and I know, I don’t have a lock on what’s a fact and what’s not): Hamas is not going to shed their hatred of Israel; Hamas is growing in strength even on the West Bank. What happens when they are ruling the West Bank? Furthermore, even under a rosy scenario, what if there were a PA state on the WB and Gaza. How would they communicate with each other? Are the Israelis to ignore the near constant terror threat from Palestinians? Would there be some sort of sealed roadway connecting the two? Wouldn’t that cut Israel in half? What happens about Jerusalem? The Israelis will never give up Jerusalem, never. So then what? And, why should they? When they didn’t control the Eastern part of it, they were completely excluded from their holy places.

But speaking of the PA only: Why do people assume it’s a good player in all of this? It’s books teach Jew hatred, as virulently as does Hamas. They even publish maps showing no Jewish presence in Israel at all.

From what I can gather (purely my guess), the Israelis, in order to mollify the Americans, make nice noises about negotiations, but they know in reality the status quo will continue until some outside force or some new inner dynamic within the Palestinians themselves, acts decisively. Absent this, the Palestinians will sink further and further into poverty, especially in Gaza where, and probably soon, there will be a large scale military assault (the rocket provocations cannot remain unanswered indefinitely; when they escalate, the Israelis will act). Israel will continue to prosper (this has been a banner year economically for them).

Just my view.

Dan - re my point. You said “Both Israel and the Palestinians have officially accepted the right of each other to have self-determination; the PNA recognises Israel’s right to exist.”

My point was and is that in light of current political realities, it is impossible to coherently claim that the Palestinians have recognised Israel’s existence or ‘right to exist.’ Currently, there are two movements and authorities among the Palestinians of roughly equal strength. One of them is openly committed to Israel’s destruction (Hamas.) The other has an ambiguous attitude in this regard, with some elements accepting a two-state solution (Abbas), and some arguing for Israel’s destruction (Qaddumi and others), and neither side having the ability to impose its authority over the other.

So i would say that your idea that the Palestinians have accepted Israel’s ‘right to exist’ and that this matter is now closed is unsustainable. This was my point.

“So i would say that your idea that the Palestinians have accepted Israel’s ‘right to exist’ and that this matter is now closed is unsustainable.”

What you have said is also true of the Israelis. There are a significant number who believe that Israel has a right to take over the entire West Bank and the Gaza Strip - some think Israel should never have given up Sinai and a small number of fanatics who think they have a divine right to establish an Israeli state from the Nile to the Euphrates (although most of these are messianical Christian fundamentalists). There are Egyptians who think Sadat sold out the Arab nation by recognising Israel.

The fact is that this conflict will only end when there is a viable Palestinian state with agreed borders (perhaps some land can be sacrificed on either sides - the 1967 borders are not sacred). Oslo may not be working at present, but it is ultimately the only way forward as it is impossible to eradicate the desire for Israel and Palestinian nationhood without the physical liquidation of Jews or Arabs in the area.

The Palestinians will also be unable to formulate and united and coherent negotiating stance so long as Iran and Syria are meddling in their political affairs. A change of regime in Tehran would probably lead to a very fast resolution of this conflict.

Goodness me. While I recognise some of what he’s talking about here, there a couple of problems with Burama’s article here:

Why rely on London, say the Scots, if Brussels offers greater advantages.

The Scots say this? Evidence? There isn’t any. Is the rest of the article so poorly researched?

More importantly there’s the bizarre idea that Belgium is being held up as a model for Israel/Palestine! Eh? By whom?

Furthermore, even if his pessimistic predications vis-a-vis Europe were realised, the logic of this would be, surely, another nail in the coffin for those who imagine a one-state solution for the Middle East?

Fabian From Israel is his comment of 23rd August, 4:45AM makes the best brief summary of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and how it will continue until the Palestinians give up their Hate of Israel and accept responsiblity for their actions.

Regardless of what happens to Belgium, can anybody really believe that the Flemish and the Wallons will descend to Balkans-like atrocities? And that if they started to do so, that NATO would not intervene to put a stop to it?

As long as production of Mandarine Napoleon continues uninterrupted, I’m ok with whatever they end up doing…

Regardless of what happens to Belgium, can anybody really believe that the Flemish and the Wallons will descend to Balkans-like atrocities?,

No.

And Russians and Ukrainians of Ukraine, ditto.

A question occurs to me.

If Belgium had not been a founder-member of the European Union, would it now be allowed to join?

“can anybody really believe that the Flemish and the Wallons will descend to Balkans-like atrocities?”

The Belgians are far too polite. I don’t think the Flemish and Walloons hate each other anyway. Ironically, the split is probably inspired by the effective dissolution of the nation state within the European Union - a project the Belgians are enthusiastic about. Living on an island, it is hard for the British to truly appreciate what the removal of national boundaries means. But when you go to Belgium, you realise how absurd this is, particularly with bizarre enclaves-exclaves owned by Germany and Belgium, which are largely uninhabited. These territorial issues no longer matter because nation-states no longer matter. Subsidiarity is enshrined within the Maastricht Treaty and this is what the Flemish are looking towards. They are not interested in a seat on the UN, but the empowerment of their region within the EU. This issue is just one of many the EU will face - keep an eye on Wales, Catalonia, Brittany, Bavaria, etc. The nation state is dead.

Dan, when you write about “bizarre enclaves-exclaves owned by Germany and Belgium, which are largely uninhabited.” Are you referring to the border areas of both countries that use to be heavily fortified?

“Are you referring to the border areas of both countries that use to be heavily fortified?”

I don’t know why these odd territorial issues remain. I just remember being driven around the Belgium-German border by an ethnic German Belgian who kept laughing “we’re now in Belgium, ooh now we’re in Germany, ooh now we’re in Belgium”, etc, along the same stretch of road - these were international borders that were meaningless and silly, with narrow strips of land divided between the two countries for no good reason. Perhaps there was some historical reason, but all I could see is fields that straddled these borders, with livestock failing to respect national borders. To Belgians, this is all nonsense and a bit of a joke. I think Belgians would feel comfortable with a break-up of their state if everyone else believed that Europe should be a union of culturally and historically defined regions rather than nation-states. They want the whole of Europe to be like Belgium!

“Dan, when you write about “bizarre enclaves-exclaves owned by Germany and Belgium, which are largely uninhabited.” Are you referring to the border areas of both countries that use to be heavily fortified?”

I think you are talking about the Vennbahn, and the odd boder arrangements around that. Since that railway line has been shut since 2001, and it’s tracks lifted, that area may be returned to Germany in the near future.

Dan, Tagnuzlsx, thanks for the explanations. The Belgian-German border does seem to contain some interesting twists of land.

Imagine if the Flemish and Walloons ever fight, it would be like the commercial where demonstrators and riot police battle each other with pillows!