Given the current conversation about issue of Palestinian culture and its relationship to politics and economics, I feel it's appropriate for me to add my own Palestinian-American perspective.
Palestinian culture has developed in the broader Arab, and more specifically Levantine, contexts. Contemporary Palestinian Arabs are among the primary, although not the sole, heirs of the accumulation of history in their land, including prehistoric, ancient, biblical and Jewish, Roman, Islamic, Crusader, Ottoman and British periods. Their distinct national identity emerged contemporaneously with and parallel to the Israeli identity and Zionist movement. Palestinians differ from other Arabs culturally in many ways, but within different localities they also differ from each other.
It is the experiences of the 20th century, particularly the British mandate, the encounter with Zionism and Israel, and the often tense interaction with other Arab societies and states that has given the Palestinians their distinctive national culture. The persistence of the Palestinian issue for so many decades reflects the tenacity and resilience of their national identity and culture.
The Palestinian quest for excellence in education isn't culturally hardwired or built into their DNA. It is rather the specific byproduct of the Palestinian experience in the past century. Palestinians, particularly of my generation, were forced to confront a reality without national institutions to rely on. Our parents and we knew, after the Nakba in 1948, that we had few real alternatives other than education in making our way in the world.
The Palestinian spirit of entrepreneurship has been reflected around the region and the globe, and continues to resiliently operate in both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. This entrepreneurship and the knowledge-set acquired through intensive education significantly contributed to the whole region in the 50s-70s as Palestinians helped to develop many Arab societies.
As former president Bill Clinton noted in 2011, Palestinians "have done remarkably well outside their country. I have never met a poor Palestinian in the United States; every Palestinian I know is a college professor or a doctor." This is not to say, of course, that all Palestinians belong to an elite group. But it does mean that there are other explanations for a struggling Palestinian economy in the occupied territories than simply the Palestinian mentality.
Every serious study of the Palestinian economy has noted the deeply onerous effects of the restrictions of the Israeli occupation. Without them, there is no question that Palestinians would be faring better.
During the first Intifada that began 1987 and the second that began in 2000, education among Palestinians was significantly disrupted and has not yet fully recovered. A World Bank report issued on July 25 recognized the centrality of occupation restrictions to hampering the development of a more robust Palestinian economy, but it also emphasized the need for Palestinians to revamp their educational system to better prepare their people for private-sector employment.
Like most of the Arab, and much of the developing, world, Palestinian education tends to emphasize rote learning rather than fostering analytical skills and critical thinking. Prime Minister Salam Fayyad recognized this in an important speech on education he gave on August 8, 2010, in which he said the educational system in the West Bank should focus on critical thinking, language skills and combating fanaticism.
Palestinian politics has, not surprisingly, mirrored that of other Arab societies and included elements of patronage, corruption, and a lack of transparency and accountability. But since at least the 1970s there has been an active and dynamic Palestinian civil society that was unusual in most of the Arab world. This relative political pluralism and openness, however imperfect, may be among the key reasons that Palestinians have not experienced their own uprising during the current "Arab Spring." And importantly it was the Palestinians themselves who began seriously tackling problems with governance and emphasizing self-reliance, particularly through the state and institution building program launched in 2009.
Even before the "Arab Spring," serious reforms aimed at good governance, transparency and accountability were underway in one of the most unlikely Arab contexts: the occupied West Bank. The institution-building program led by Fayyad still stands as one of the most thoroughgoing efforts at reform in the Arab world and anticipated many of the key demands that erupted throughout the region in the past 18 months. Palestinian society is currently the scene of a wide-ranging set of debates about the role government, the rights and responsibilities of citizens, and the quality of private and public institutions. This debate should be acknowledged and encouraged.
Over the past 30 years, the rise of religious fanaticism in some parts of Palestinian society, mirroring that in the broader Arab world as well as among Jewish Israelis, has also undermined healthy social, cultural and educational attitudes. However, such fanaticism does not define the Palestinian mainstream or essential national culture. To the contrary, most Palestinians, while devout and socially conservative, remain essentially secular and fundamentally worldly.
Palestinians are no better or worse than any other group of human beings. They've reacted to a series of harsh developments over the past century much as any other group of people probably would have. As long as they remain without a country in which they can be first class citizens, this will continue to hamper their economic viability and stunt the development of their society and institutions. Palestinians deserve the opportunity they've been denied for so long, to build their own state and develop their culture in independence and freedom.
Omar Kholeif: The Problem With Arab Culture
My dad was in Israel for a conference in 1969. He recalls the docility and obsequiousness of the Arabs. That was discussed. The conclusion: They knew of their murderous instincts to the Jews and thought the Jews harbored the same feelings. When they saw that all the Jews desired was peace and it was safe to come out they came out in full force and that's what we have now.
Further more, he is correct that the Palestinian people have received harsh treatment over its years. The Mufti Husseni ordered its people to evacuate their homes with promise of a zionist defeat. The people have to worry about their government condemning innocent civilians to death for collaborating with the "zionist". Fathers and mothers have to send their children to school that mirrors an Al Qaeda training camp with the taught of hate from UN funded organizations. The Palestinians were even subjected to illegal occupation by their own "brothers" between 1948-1967 by Egypt and Jordan; Which respectively, the Arab countries couldn't even lifted a finger to create a Palestinian State. And now, the Palestinian people are subjected to the status of refugee for 3 generations, considering the Arab countries refuse to assimilate them as citizens and PA leaders refuse to accept a land deal which would involved peace with Israel.
Thus, Arab unity leads to the liberation of Palestine, the liberation of Palestine leads to Arab unity.”
So there you have it: The Palestinians’ political philosophy in a nutshell... and in their own words. The aspiration for the liberation of Palestine – a.k.a. the destruction of Israel – is the force for Arab unity, while the achievement of such liberation/ destruction will provide the impetus for pan-Arab unity – presumably via the sense of empowerment and achievement it will generate.
Think of it. What other nation declares that its national identity is merely a temporary ploy to be “safeguarded” and “developed” for the “present stage” alone? Does any other nation view their national identity as so ephemeral and instrumental? The Italians? The Brazilians? The Turks? The Greeks? The Japanese? Of course none of them do.
But what is the purpose of this temporary ruse? The Charter is quite explicit: For Palestinians “...to contribute their share to the attainment of [the] objective of Arab Unity.” And Arab unity, to what end? The liberation of Palestine, “illegally partitioned” in 1947, which is both the goal of, and the vehicle for, Arab unity.
Again, check for yourself. Article 13 says it all: “Arab unity and the liberation of Palestine are two complementary objectives, the attainment of either of which facilitates the attainment of the other.
Following the debacle of June 1967, the thrust of Arab “liberation” efforts changed.
Whereas prior to this date, the focus was on the land west of the “Green Line,” Arab endeavor now switched to that lying east of it, and which had fallen under Israeli control as a result its victory in the defensive war forced upon it – despite Israel’s entreaties to Jordan not to join the planned Arab onslaught against it.
This, however, was only an intermediate aim in a staged strategy to eliminate the Jewish state entirely, whatever its borders.
Perhaps the most explicit articulation of the post-1967 design was that of the oft-quoted, but yet-to-be repudiated, Zuheir Muhsein, former head of the PLO’s Military Department and a member of its Executive Council.
Echoing the identical position set out in the introductory excerpt by Azmi Bishara, a self-proclaimed “Palestinian” who represented the anti-Zionist Arab list Balad in the Knesset until forced to flee because of allegations of treason, Muhsein also opined that “the Palestinian people does not exist.”
He elaborated: “The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity.... It is only for political and tactical reasons that we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism.”
Until 1988, all were Jordanian citizens.
Moreover, the 1964 version of the Palestinian National Charter explicitly proclaimed, not only that the “West Bank” was not part of the Palestinian homeland, but that it was part of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. (Article 24). Don’t take my word for it. Check it.
So had the Arabs not launched a war of annihilation against Israel, the Arab residents of the “West Bank” would have been Jordanians, and territory of the “West Bank” would have been Jordan.
Of course, this leaves unanswered the previously posed question of who the Palestinians would have been, and where Palestine would have been. Let me urge patience. There will be more on that later.
After all, the Arabs did launch their overtly genocidal aggression against the Jewish state, which resulted in spectacular failure.
From this mixture of defeat and disappointment, “a seemingly magical process of transformation/creation” began to emerge before our very eyes. Poof! As if by some mysterious alchemist mechanism, Jordanian nationals were transformed into a “Palestinian nation” and Jordanian territory was transformed into a “Palestinian homeland.”
Only if compared to Saudi Arabia or Stalinist Soviet Union.
Regardless, no one remotely familiar with despotic fundamentalist regime in Gaza can talk with any degree of credibility about "pluralism and openness."
Has there been an honest pro-Palestinian blogger here? Ever?
"Like most of the Arab, and much of the developing, world, Palestinian education tends to emphasize rote learning rather than fostering analytical skills and critical thinking."
"Palestinian politics has, not surprisingly, mirrored that of other Arab societies and included elements of patronage, corruption, and a lack of transparency and accountability"
"Over the past 30 years, the rise of religious fanaticism in some parts of Palestinian society, mirroring that in the broader Arab world as well as among Jewish Israelis, has also undermined healthy social, cultural and educational attitudes."
I think this is exactly the "culture" thing that Romney was talking about...
Not true. The "Israeli identity" is nothing but a variety of the Jewish identity, which has existed for millenia. Modern Zionism is nothing but a practical embodiment of a quest for freedom & "return to Zion", which has also existed for millenia. Throughout the 1920s, the Palestinian Arabs' "distinct national identity" manifested itself through the wish to join Syria! The Palestinian "distinct national identity" is nothing but a political tool manufactured to serve as an anti-Israel weapon.
>>>"Palestinians differ from other Arabs culturally in many ways, but within different localities they also differ from each other."
They "differ in many ways"?? In which ways? National identity requires two aspects:
- Significant differences from neighboring nations;
- Considerable level of internal similarity.
In other words, the members of a distinct nation tend to be much more similar to each other than they are to neighbors. The Palestinian Arabs fail this test (in fact, they fail BOTH criteria above). They are NOT a distinct nation.
Arabs living in the area did not refer to themselves as Palestinians. International documents referred to the Jews as Palestinians and the Arabs were referred to as Arabs. Interesting note the Palestinian Post
became the Jerusalem post and we all know that is an Israeli newspaper.
You've just admitted that they're Arabs, Dr. Asali, and that "the occupation" means all of Israel.
The only "harsh developments" they've endured is of their own making. They became enraged over sharing land from which the Jewish people emanated and attacked the Diaspora Jews who returned to their homeland. They insisted on quotas from the British to stop desperate refugees from entering the region. They started the 1948 war that killed over 6000 Jews and have been bent on revenge ever since. Until they, and you, stop blaming "the Nakba" and Israel for decades of futile behavior, nothing will ever change.
I will just mention that it's actually worse: the Palestinian Arabs did not "insist on quotas from the British". In reality, the only quota they insisted on was 0 (zero) Jewish immigration. It bears recalling in this context that the Arab High Committee (the "government" of the Palestinian Arabs) REJECTED the British White Paper of 1939. That British decision harshly limited the Jewish immigration to a maximum of 15,000 per year for 5 years, after which no additional Jewish immigration was to be permitted, except with the agreement of the Arabs; the Paper also harshly limited the possibility of land purchase by Jews. The Palestinian Arab representatives REJECTED the White Paper; they wanted the Jewish immigration and land purchases to cease immediately. They also wanted a "revision of the status" of immigrants already in Palestine, with a view of expelling them.