When in human history should reasonable people find a "cut-off" of the right of title by conquering?

[Bricker]

Some time back, I asked a question (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=559049) that was perhaps a spirtual cousin of this one.

This question's immediate inspiration is the Palestine/Israel brouhaha ignited by Helen Thomas' unfortunate ejaculation (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=566191), but as that discussion has shown, it's a question that comes up for any land conquered by force. Should the U.S. return Texas to Mexico? Hawaii to the native Hawaiians? Should the island of Britain be returned to the Celts?

Obviously those are extreme examples.

Or are they?

It's undeniable that for much of human history, gaining title and authority to govern land was accomplished by conquest, and this was done without much in the way of hand-wringing over the rights of the conquered. I am no history expert, but I'm willing to bet that we won't find William the Conqueror penning pensive asides about how he'd interfered with the native landholders.

I think it's pretty much undeniable to acknowledge that we cannot now unwind the clock and undo the results of every known conquest.

At the same time, it seems clear that today, we stand pretty squarely against the idea that a nation-state may expand its territory by right of conquest.

So ... if both of these are true, then the question is obvious: where do we draw the line?

[Ají de Gallina]

I can't imagine the idea even appearing in people's minds vefore the 16th century, and that's being generous. I'd go for late 18th early 19th.
Damn good question, though.

[Quartz]

It's undeniable that for much of human history, gaining title and authority to govern land was accomplished by conquest, and this was done without much in the way of hand-wringing over the rights of the conquered.

It seems to me that that is still the way in much of the world. Africa (passim). Asia (e.g. Tibet, possibly Sri Lanka). South America (Falklands).

[astro]

So ... if both of these are true, then the question is obvious: where do we draw the line?

Where it's always been drawn. right about the point where I, or my allies, can inflict enough hurt on you through multiple points (ie physical, economic, reputational etc.) of attack. to make this a non-profitable exercise. In the final equation your "right" to be unmolested as a nation state is entirely dependent on how strong a defense you can muster. A right of any kind between states only exists to the degree you can make others respect it.

[John Mace]

I think it's pretty much undeniable to acknowledge that we cannot now unwind the clock and undo the results of every known conquest.

At the same time, it seems clear that today, we stand pretty squarely against the idea that a nation-state may expand its territory by right of conquest.

So ... if both of these are true, then the question is obvious: where do we draw the line?

I think "we" draw the line where we practically can. And that almost always happens as the conquest is taking place, not 10, 20 or 50 years later.

As for Israel, as I said in the Pit thread, I can't see the Israeli Jews leaving Israel without there being a full blown war in the Middle East, into which much of the West would be drawn. Ain't gonna happen. Israel is a fait accompli, and the only question is how the Palestinians are going to live in peace with that state.

[Pleonast]

I'm not sure exactly what I think, but here are some thoughts.

The first is that descendants should not be punished for the crimes of their ancestors. If we're going to live together peaceably on this planet, then we need to have some amount of forgiveness.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Second thought: right by conquest is still a valid method of holding territory (or other property; see Elgin marbles and others). After all, if you can hold the territory against anyone willing to try to take it and it is in your possession to do as you wish, then it is yours for all practical purposes.

The caveat is that by claiming possession by right of conquest, you can hardly complain when another state takes it from you via conquest. That is the real reason states do not use right by conquest anymore.

So while we can rightfully condemn a state for conquering territory and asserting its right by conquest, I don't think we can deny that the right does exist.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Third thought: in any case, the right of a state to control territory must be subservient to the sovereign right of its residents to determine their own government. There may be accommodation on both sides (for example, independence vs limited autonomy), but a state that is not supported by the people it governs is illegitimate.

Ultimately, a state's right of conquest is limited by the people's right of revolution.

[Lumpy]

Is the OP asking how far back from today we should "grandfather" ownership by conquest? Is Israel illegal by our current standards? How about the present day boundaries of Poland? The Dakotas?

[Revenant Threshold]

At the same time, it seems clear that today, we stand pretty squarely against the idea that a nation-state may expand its territory by right of conquest. I'm not against it, at least, i'm not against it in terms of it being based upon right of conquest. I have no issue with conquest, in and of itself, being a means by which to expand territory.

Really it seems to me that when we say we're against expansion via conquest a lot of the time we're saying we're against those things which often occur in such an event; general horrifying acts towards the native populace, motivations for some shallow or only leadership-improving measures, the manner in which war is waged as regard the effects to opposing military and civilians. Those things, to me, seem to be a pretty good measure of "cut-off" right of title by conquering. It's less what you do and more how you do it.

[Laudenum]

Depending on how you count it, Britain's conquests in Ireland can be said to start as long as 800 years ago.

Even if you count it as later, they still held much of it for centuries, yet it always, IMO, belonged to the Irish. Mrs. Winsor never held valid title.

I would have to say that the Palestinians have a right to their land and the Israeli's don't (except maybe Tel Aviv - that was pretty much desert).

[jtgain]

Is the question posed by the OP:

1) At what point in history did civilized people no longer consider conquest a legitimate means to take new lands?

or

2) How far back in time do we go before we say that People X have a right to Land Y regardless of whether or not they conquered that land by force?

[John Mace]

Depending on how you count it, Britain's conquests in Ireland can be said to start as long as 800 years ago.

Even if you count it as later, they still held much of it for centuries, yet it always, IMO, belonged to the Irish. Mrs. Winsor never held valid title.

I would have to say that the Palestinians have a right to their land and the Israeli's don't (except maybe Tel Aviv - that was pretty much desert).

Except "Palestine", as an autonomous political entity, has never existed. Like most countries in the Middle East, the two states were set up somewhat arbitrarily by powers outside the region. In that sense, "Palestinians" are anyone living there when the UN partitioned the area.

[Laudenum]

Except "Palestine", as an autonomous political entity, has never existed. Like most countries in the Middle East, the two states were set up somewhat arbitrarily by powers outside the region. In that sense, "Palestinians" are anyone living there when the UN partitioned the area.

Within living memory they lived there and their land was given away without their consent, an act which has created a collective identity known as Palestinian.

The idea of Ireland and Irish only really came into being when outside forces came into the country, before that there were several clans - do you doubt the validity of the Irish identity?

[John Mace]

Within living memory they lived there and their land was given away without their consent, an act which has created a collective identity known as Palestinian.

You are confusing political authority with land ownership. No one's land was given away.

[Ají de Gallina]

Bricker...why the f&$% did you have to mention Israel. you simply set this thread into auto-derail.

[E-Sabbath]

The answer appears to be 'Riiiiiight around the end of WWII'. I'm not sure if it _was_ Israel or if it was the Communist Menace that caused the sea change, though.

[aruvqan]

You are confusing political authority with land ownership. No one's land was given away.
Funny, there were a whole hell of a lot of absentee german and polish and russian landlords for centuries that were not collecting the rent from those pesky brown skin palistinian types.......so obviously back in the late 40s they got fed up and decided to turf them buggers out of their homes and businesses so they could get out of the german death camps and move in with the Brits help. :rolleyes:

How do *you* explain this funny area known as Palestine, inhabited by Palistinians, that suddenly by british and UN decree changed to european heritaged people moving in that wore funny little hats and prayed in hebrew... :dubious:

[Lemur866]

Bricker...why the f&$% did you have to mention Israel. you simply set this thread into auto-derail.

Because the thread is about Israel. It's not an auto-derail, it's the point of the thread.

Back at the end of WWII, there were some pretty serious boundary changes instigated by the winners. Both the western and eastern borders of Poland were shifted to the west, Poland gaining former German territory and the USSR gaining former Polish territory. You didn't hear too many complaints from the Germans at the time, because that was the whole point of the war they started, and now the shoe was on the other foot.

[John Mace]

Funny, there were a whole hell of a lot of absentee german and polish and russian landlords for centuries that were not collecting the rent from those pesky brown skin palistinian types.......so obviously back in the late 40s they got fed up and decided to turf them buggers out of their homes and businesses so they could get out of the german death camps and move in with the Brits help. :rolleyes:

How do *you* explain this funny area known as Palestine, inhabited by Palistinians, that suddenly by british and UN decree changed to european heritaged people moving in that wore funny little hats and prayed in hebrew... :dubious:
No one's land was taken away. There was a transfer of political authority in an area that had never been politically autonomous. Some of the locals didn't like it and fought a war. They lost. Boo-hoo. That's what happens.

Now the job is to move forward. But pretending there was ever a politically autonomous "Palestine" is simply false. The land had been ruled by various empires for thousands of years. The UN took it upon itself to set up two politically autonomous states where none had existed before. You can fight it, or live with it. Those who decided to fight lost. That's history. And it's hardly unique. Most countries that exist today have set their borders through various wars. It's SOP.

[Ají de Gallina]

No one's land was taken away. There was a transfer of political authority in an area that had never been politically autonomous. Some of the locals didn't like it and fought a war. They lost. Boo-hoo. That's what happens.

Now the job is to move forward. But pretending there was ever a politically autonomous "Palestine" is simply false. The land had been ruled by various empires for thousands of years. The UN took it upon itself to set up two politically autonomous states where none had existed before. You can fight it, or live with it. Those who decided to fight lost. That's history. And it's hardly unique. Most countries that exist today have set their borders through various wars. It's SOP.

you make an interesting point regarding who controlled Israel7Palestine. Before the mandate it was the Ottomans (who are Turks),Egyptians, Ottomans, Mamluks (originally slaves of various religious and ethinc groups), Arabs (who gaines the land by conquest), Byzantines, Romans, Jews, Greeks, Persians.....
It has not been ruled by natives in the last 2000 years.

[Ají de Gallina]

Because the thread is about Israel. It's not an auto-derail, it's the point of the thread.

Back at the end of WWII, there were some pretty serious boundary changes instigated by the winners. Both the western and eastern borders of Poland were shifted to the west, Poland gaining former German territory and the USSR gaining former Polish territory. You didn't hear too many complaints from the Germans at the time, because that was the whole point of the war they started, and now the shoe was on the other foot.

(my bolding)
No it isn't.

This question's immediate inspiration is the Palestine/Israel brouhaha ignited by Helen Thomas' unfortunate ejaculation, but as that discussion has shown, it's a question that comes up for any land conquered by force. Should the U.S. return Texas to Mexico? Hawaii to the native Hawaiians? Should the island of Britain be returned to the Celts?

Obviously those are extreme examples.

Or are they?

It's undeniable that for much of human history, gaining title and authority to govern land was accomplished by conquest, and this was done without much in the way of hand-wringing over the rights of the conquered. I am no history expert, but I'm willing to bet that we won't find William the Conqueror penning pensive asides about how he'd interfered with the native landholders

[Alessan]

I think the question is this: should there be a cut-off date, or should there be a statute of limitations?

[Mops]

One thing that settles the question of most past conquests is the (eventual) acquiescence of the conquered:

- when a diminished country accepts the losses of territory in a treaty (e.g. Mexico, Germany)

- when the population of a wholly conquered/absorbed country is now overwhelmingly OK with the new status (e.g. Hawaii)

- when the people of a conquered country does not exist anymore as a separate entity (e.g. Britain)

So Mexico, Germany, Britain and Hawaii are not really pertinent to the Israel/Palestine question.

[marshmallow]

How many divisions can the right to not be conquered field? How many allies can it marshal to its defense? Does it count for anything after its houses are burned, women raped and...well hell, it's the modern age, how about vaporized by a flying robot?

[even sven]

I don't think you can generalize. There are so many factors, for example:

How many people of each population are there? If it's something like Hawaii, there may be just too many settled and assimilated "conquerers" to fairly kick them out. But if it's an area that is held in name but is still mostly settled by the original inhabitants, there may be the possibility of doing it somewhat fairly.

What do the people involved think? Tibet has been pretty much under martial law for two decades because people are so grumpy about how things turned out. This is different than someplace where the situation has been pretty much accepted, like most of the United States.

How important is the held area to the conquering state? Hawaiian independence would vastly change America strategically and culturally in a way that Puerto Rican independence wouldn't. China argues that Tibet is an essential part of China culturally and historically, but I think plenty of people find that claim suspect.

How were the borders drawn? I think there are plenty of randomly-drawn colonial borders that can be adjusted without too much trauma, but something with a greater historic basis will be harder to change.

[septimus]

You move on. There's a cute .sig that plays on "All rights reserved." It's "All wrongs reversed." But it's not going to happen. Dr. Pangloss was wrong: this world is imperfect.

Many claims may seem silly upon detailed inspection. Irish grievances against England? Their genes have been diluted by intermarriage, but principle (English-hating) landowners throughout Ireland own their land because of Anglo-Norman conquests against native Irish centuries ago.

A rule of thumb that makes some sense to me is the question: Are the dispossessed still alive? 130 years ago, it might have made sense for renegades to compensate the widows of Sioux warriors, but do we need the renegade's g-g grandson to compensate the g-g- grandson of the warrior today? Note that Palestinian refugees who "want their homes back", in general never saw or lived in those homes, nor did, in most cases the parents! And in many cases they did not lose the homes due to Israeli eviction, but rather voluntarily, to allow their military wing to wage massacres against innocent Jewish settlers more easily.

(Sorry for the hijack, BTW, but last time I read a thread at SDMB complaining about Jews stealing Palestinian land, the poster was not informed or articulate enough to explain whether his complaint was against the 1967 War, the 1947 Arab aggression, the Balfour declaration, ... or perhaps Joshua's siege against Jericho 3200 years ago. :smack: )

[Tom Tildrum]

The question seems somewhat poorly conceived, if Israel is the point here. Israel is perhaps unique among states in having been established by an act of international law rather than conquest.

(One might claim that international law is simply another form of conquest, but if that's true and there's no such thing as "law," then it's meaningless to talk about "rights").

I guess Israel does claim to have conquered the Golan Heights and intends on keeping them, but I don't think it has ever claimed to own the West Bank or Gaza, as opposed to simply occupying them.

[John Mace]

The question seems somewhat poorly conceived, if Israel is the point here. Israel is perhaps unique among states in having been established by an act of international law rather than conquest.

It was established by the UN, but weren't all the Middle Eastern states set up as acts by "The Powers that Were" at the time? The Ottoman empire got carved up, and the Brits, French etc. decide what the new borders would be, post colonial rule. I don't see that as substantially different, and I think the Kurds would agree.

[Malthus]

The question seems somewhat poorly conceived, if Israel is the point here. Israel is perhaps unique among states in having been established by an act of international law rather than conquest.

(One might claim that international law is simply another form of conquest, but if that's true and there's no such thing as "law," then it's meaningless to talk about "rights").

I guess Israel does claim to have conquered the Golan Heights and intends on keeping them, but I don't think it has ever claimed to own the West Bank or Gaza, as opposed to simply occupying them.

Israel was established by force. The UN recognized the declaration of Israeli independance, but the state so recognized never existed (it was one-half of the 'partition plan', which was never enacted).

The best way to put it is that the new Israeli gov't gained some legitimacy from official recognition. Were it not for force, i.e. winning the resulting War of Independance, the Israeli state would not now exist.

In this, they are exactly like most other states in the world. International law of war & peace Reminds me of:

Treason doth never prosper. What's the reason?
If it prosper, none dare call it treason!


The establishment of a state is often an example of "treason, prospering". International recognition is a sign of that "prospering".

When is a conquest or treasonous rebellion "valid"? When it has successfully "prospered".

That's always been true in the past, and as far as I can see, remains true. We haven't seen very many examples of "prospering" conquest, because the big powers have not been to war recently - but think (for example) of South Vietnam. Is that a legitimate part of the country of "Vietnam", or not?

[ElvisL1ves]

A rule of thumb that makes some sense to me is the question: Are the dispossessed still alive? 130 years ago, it might have made sense for renegades to compensate the widows of Sioux warriors, but do we need the renegade's g-g grandson to compensate the g-g- grandson of the warrior today?Yes. That's part of the concept behind affirmative action, that dispossessing one generation dispossesses the generation who would have been its heirs, and the generation after that, and so on. But the principle of living in a community with equal respect for all requires some active compensation.

Note that Palestinian refugees who "want their homes back", in general never saw or lived in those homes, nor did, in most cases the parents!So? If it should have been theirs, and is not, how is that unreasonable? And in many cases they did not lose the homes due to Israeli eviction, but rather voluntarily, to allow their military wing to wage massacres against innocent Jewish settlers more easily.THAT's voluntary? You really think so?

(Sorry for the hijack, BTW, but last time I read a thread at SDMB complaining about Jews stealing Palestinian land, the poster was not informed or articulate enough to explain whether his complaint was against the 1967 War, the 1947 Arab aggression, the Balfour declaration, ... or perhaps Joshua's siege against Jericho 3200 years ago. :smack: )The complaints are about a pattern of behavior, and the attitudes behind them, that continue to this day, and could be redressed if there was any recognition of an obligation or desire to. Does that help clarify it?

[JoelUpchurch]

There is also the question of how many ancestors of the Palestinians actually owned land in the area before the state of Israel was declared. I remember reading an article by H. L. Mencken about his visit there in the thirties. A lot of the Palestinians were tenants living on land that was actually owned by absentee landlords in Cairo or Istanbul or whatever. The Jews that moved there in the thirties actually bought the land from the landlords that actually held legal title to the land.

Naturally, the Arabs that were dispossessed were royally pissed off about this and tended to direct their resentments at the people who bought the land, rather than the people who sold it out from under them. It didn't help that the Jewish farmers brought in modern farming methods and quite a bit of investment capital and made what were subsistence farms into prosperous enterprises. Even back then Jewish farmers plowed their fields with a rifle on their back in some areas.

Mencken didn't think a peaceful resolution was likely back then either.

I checked and the chapter is called "Pilgrimage" in his book "Heathen Days". It was later collected into book, "The Days of H. L. Mencken".

[Zeriel]

No one's land was taken away. There was a transfer of political authority in an area that had never been politically autonomous. Some of the locals didn't like it and fought a war. They lost. Boo-hoo. That's what happens.

Now the job is to move forward. But pretending there was ever a politically autonomous "Palestine" is simply false. The land had been ruled by various empires for thousands of years. The UN took it upon itself to set up two politically autonomous states where none had existed before. You can fight it, or live with it. Those who decided to fight lost. That's history. And it's hardly unique. Most countries that exist today have set their borders through various wars. It's SOP.

To expand on this, I am given to understand that much of the pre-Balfour and pre-WWII Jewish immigration consisted of Jews immigrating, buying what land was for sale, and working it. I am not aware of any significant or systematic attempt by the Jews/Israel to evict Arabs or persecute them until well after the 1948 war had started (by neighboring Arab nations who were offended by the partition plan for political reasons, and who decided the best way to protest the UN deciding territorial borders was to blame it on the Jews and declare the intent to cause genocide).

Or, what Joel said. Essentially, one of the bigger problems with deciding who's "rightfully entitled to the land in Palestine" is bound up in the fact that in many cases the tenant-farmer Palestinians were sold out by their rich/powerhungry fellow Arabs and blamed it on the Jews they could reach instead of the absentee landlords they couldn't. Add in the fact that the current hatred of Jews by Arabs is largely a product of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem whipping up anti-Jewish sentiment as a precursor to whipping up anti-Colonialist-British sentiment.

[John Mace]

Israel was established by force. The UN recognized the declaration of Israeli independance, but the state so recognized never existed (it was one-half of the 'partition plan', which was never enacted).

The best way to put it is that the new Israeli gov't gained some legitimacy from official recognition. Were it not for force, i.e. winning the resulting War of Independance, the Israeli state would not now exist.

In this, they are exactly like most other states in the world. International law of war & peace Reminds me of:




The establishment of a state is often an example of "treason, prospering". International recognition is a sign of that "prospering".

When is a conquest or treasonous rebellion "valid"? When it has successfully "prospered".

That's always been true in the past, and as far as I can see, remains true. We haven't seen very many examples of "prospering" conquest, because the big powers have not been to war recently - but think (for example) of South Vietnam. Is that a legitimate part of the country of "Vietnam", or not?

I pretty much agree with that. Is there any doubt that had the Americans lost their war of Independence, that the leaders would have been tried for treason? It was, after all, a treasonous act. But we won, and so it wasn't.

[Steve MB]

I think the question is this: should there be a cut-off date, or should there be a statute of limitations?

Old joke:

Jew: The conflict started when Moses was in the desert, and from out of nowhere without provocation got a rock thrown at him by a Palestinian Arab.
Arab: What are you talking about? There were no 'Palestinian Arabs' in those days!
Jew: A-HA!

[Malthus]

I pretty much agree with that. Is there any doubt that had the Americans lost their war of Independence, that the leaders would have been tried for treason? It was, after all, a treasonous act. But we won, and so it wasn't.

Who was it who said something like:

'Gentlemen, we must all hang together or assuredly we will all hang individually'

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Who was it who said something like:

'Gentlemen, we must all hang together or assuredly we will all hang individually'

Ben Franklin.

[Malthus]

Ben Franklin.


Thanks! Sounds like something he would have said, all right. :D

[septimus]

So? If it should have been theirs, and is not, how is that unreasonable?

:confused: The thread asks: When do we "cut off" right of title? Mexians aren't bombing us to get Texas back. Germans aren't bombing Poland to get their possessions there back. And Palestinians would be prospering if not for cynical Arab "leadership." (And do note, as others in the thread point out, that title to much of the disputed land was transferred to Israelis by Arabs.)

The complaints are about a pattern of behavior, and the attitudes behind them, that continue to this day, and could be redressed if there was any recognition of an obligation or desire to. Does that help clarify it?

:confused: Gaza fires rockets into Israel to kill Israeli civilians and proudly gloats that it's at war, yet Israel is then condemned for asking an embargo-running ship to submit to inspection. :smack: Arab oil is dear, but anti-Semitism available very cheaply. Does that help clarify things for you?

[Tom Tildrum]

It was established by the UN, but weren't all the Middle Eastern states set up as acts by "The Powers that Were" at the time? The Ottoman empire got carved up, and the Brits, French etc. decide what the new borders would be, post colonial rule. I don't see that as substantially different, and I think the Kurds would agree.

Their boundaries may have originally been drawn by western powers, but if memory serves, most of the Middle East nations were members of the UN in 1948 and participated in the partition vote. They lost the vote, but they weren't excluded from the process.

[ElvisL1ves]

:confused: The thread asks: When do we "cut off" right of title? Mexians aren't bombing us to get Texas back. Germans aren't bombing Poland to get their possessions there back.We don't cut off right of title, not if we want to live in true peace. We reach settlements on a just, equitable, and mutually respectful basis, as I would suggest to you occurred in both your examples.

And Palestinians would be prospering if not for cynical Arab "leadership." (And do note, as others in the thread point out, that title to much of the disputed land was transferred to Israelis by Arabs.)Yes, yes, all the responsibility for everything bad in the region is on the Arabs, and Israel has no responsibility for any bit of it. We know. That gets said here repeatedly. :rolleyes:

:confused: Gaza fires rockets into Israel to kill Israeli civilians and proudly gloats that it's at war, yet Israel is then condemned for asking an embargo-running ship to submit to inspection. :smack:Care to go back a little further into the past than just last week? The origins of the problem in something a little more subtle than "The Arabs simply hate Israel and it's all their fault" might emerge.

[John Mace]

Their boundaries may have originally been drawn by western powers, but if memory serves, most of the Middle East nations were members of the UN in 1948 and participated in the partition vote. They lost the vote, but they weren't excluded from the process.
I didn't mean to imply that they were excluded. Just that all those countries were set up by outside authorities. Israel is not unique in that sense.

[Jackmannii]

The answer appears to be 'Riiiiiight around the end of WWII'. I'm not sure if it _was_ Israel or if it was the Communist Menace that caused the sea change, though.There's an interesting discussion in James Bradley's Flyboys (dealing with WWII and its origins) about the resentment of the Japanese when their imperial ambitions and attempted conquests in the Far East were challenged by Western nations (notably Great Britain and the U.S.).

After all, the British had established a large empire which included posessions in the area, and the U.S. had only stopped expanding its territory at the expense of others a few decades earlier. So why couldn't the Japanese conquer China and establish its own empire by force?

The answer was that other world powers were no longer willing to accept such actions, in part for selfish reasons and in part because attitudes about colonial conquest had changed.

By all historic precedent up until recent years, Israel has every right to hold onto the land it occupied as the result of war, and can also argue that it's even more entitled to do so seeing that its gains resulted from misguided aggression against it.

The problem is that the rest of the world (for varying reasons) will not accept Israel's keeping that territory in perpetuity. Times have changed and there's a new reality, unfair as it may seem to Alessan and his countrymen.

Rather than pointlessly debating the "fairness" of it all, the challenge remains whether Israel can barter that land for a chance at peaceful existence.

Pretty simple, really. :)

[Malthus]

There's an interesting discussion in James Bradley's Flyboys (dealing with WWII and its origins) about the resentment of the Japanese when their imperial ambitions and attempted conquests in the Far East were challenged by Western nations (notably Great Britain and the U.S.).

After all, the British had established a large empire which included posessions in the area, and the U.S. had only stopped expanding its territory at the expense of others a few decades earlier. So why couldn't the Japanese conquer China and establish its own empire by force?

The answer was that other world powers were no longer willing to accept such actions, in part for selfish reasons and in part because attitudes about colonial conquest had changed.

By all historic precedent up until recent years, Israel has every right to hold onto the land it occupied as the result of war, and can also argue that it's even more entitled to do so seeing that its gains resulted from misguided aggression against it.

The problem is that the rest of the world (for varying reasons) will not accept Israel's keeping that territory in perpetuity. Times have changed and there's a new reality, unfair as it may seem to Alessan and his countrymen.

Rather than pointlessly debating the "fairness" of it all, the challenge remains whether Israel can barter that land for a chance at peaceful existence.

Pretty simple, really. :)

I seriously don't think anything has fundamentally changed. If a country can take land in war, and hold it against all others, eventually it becomes "theirs". Questions will be raised by outsiders if the original inhabitants object, but if they don't, or their objections are ignored or unpopular, or if the country that took the land has some sort of pre-existing claim on it and can convince outsiders that the objection is an "internal matter", the land is considered for all intents "theirs".

While recent examples are rarer now than previously, certainly they exist post-WW2. Think of the conquest of South Vietnam by North Vietnam, or the conquest of Tibet by China; and think of the threat that Taiwan exists under right now - if it were not for US protection, China would have snapped Taiwan up long ago and claimed it was an 'internal matter".

The world will only "not except" those changes where someone has the power and will to make this lack of acceptance tell. Japan was unfortunate (or rather, foolish) enough to think that, basically, it could get away with snatching its colonial empire from under the noses of the established powers - but it hadn't the power to do it. In short, it was not that Japan was somehow behind the times, it was that they lacked power - big powers fighting each other for control of colonial empires is certainly nothing new; nor is such powers, having fought, lacking the will, power or ability to keep command of the empires once won (think of the Seven Years War and the American Revolution).

[John Mace]

Apparently, the conclusion is: Might makes right. Which isn't much of a surprise, really.

[Malthus]

Apparently, the conclusion is: Might makes right. Which isn't much of a surprise, really.

On the international stage, various attempts have been made to disguise this unpalatable truth with the comforting fictions embodied in the United Nations. Unfortunately, might will continue to make right, until our planet has a true world sovereign power, able to actually lay down binding, enforcable laws.

[John Mace]

On the international stage, various attempts have been made to disguise this unpalatable truth with the comforting fictions embodied in the United Nations. Unfortunately, might will continue to make right, until our planet has a true world sovereign power, able to actually lay down binding, enforcable laws.

Yep.

[Lumpy]

On the international stage, various attempts have been made to disguise this unpalatable truth with the comforting fictions embodied in the United Nations. Unfortunately, might will continue to make right, until our planet has a true world sovereign power, able to actually lay down binding, enforcable laws.Made right by might of course. :p

[Voyager]

I didn't mean to imply that they were excluded. Just that all those countries were set up by outside authorities. Israel is not unique in that sense.

I think there is a difference between colonial powers splitting up countries behind closed doors and it being done through international law. In high school I read the complete debates on this at the UN library, and Arabs were definitely included in the process. In fact the Russians and the West both supported the creation of Israel, so it was not even a close thing.

[Voyager]

Some have touched on this already, but it seems to me the answer is by consulting the residents of the area. If the people are allowed to vote on their destiny, you'll probably get a good answer. The residents of Texas will (unfortunately) probably choose not to become Mexicans. If Kuwaitis were allowed to vote after the Iraqi invasion they would not have wanted to be Iraqis. Puerto Rico is one of the few "occupied" territories I know of which gets a chance to vote - their decision to stay in their present status legitimizes it.

Now this clearly encourages movements of populations, but to a certain extent even if the occupying country was wrong to send people in X years ago, it is just as wrong to exile them now.

[Strassia]

I seriously don't think anything has fundamentally changed. If a country can take land in war, and hold it against all others, eventually it becomes "theirs". Questions will be raised by outsiders if the original inhabitants object, but if they don't, or their objections are ignored or unpopular, or if the country that took the land has some sort of pre-existing claim on it and can convince outsiders that the objection is an "internal matter", the land is considered for all intents "theirs".

While recent examples are rarer now than previously, certainly they exist post-WW2. Think of the conquest of South Vietnam by North Vietnam, or the conquest of Tibet by China; and think of the threat that Taiwan exists under right now - if it were not for US protection, China would have snapped Taiwan up long ago and claimed it was an 'internal matter".

The world will only "not except" those changes where someone has the power and will to make this lack of acceptance tell. Japan was unfortunate (or rather, foolish) enough to think that, basically, it could get away with snatching its colonial empire from under the noses of the established powers - but it hadn't the power to do it. In short, it was not that Japan was somehow behind the times, it was that they lacked power - big powers fighting each other for control of colonial empires is certainly nothing new; nor is such powers, having fought, lacking the will, power or ability to keep command of the empires once won (think of the Seven Years War and the American Revolution).

While I mostly accept your point in principle, Vietnam an Taiwan are not good examples. Vietnam was partitioned into North and South by outside powers and would have reunited earlier without outside interference. If all outside powers had left after WWII, the country would have stayed unified either peacefully, or have had what anyone would consider a civil war to establish who was in control.

Both Taiwan(Republic of China) and mainland China (People's Republic of China) maintain that there is only one China. Any invasion from one side or the other would just be a continuance of the civil war that started after WWII.

In both cases, neither would strictly be a case of a foreign invasion.

[China Guy]

China is a bit interesting in that their historical claims go back maybe a thousand years. The Mongolian aka the Yuan Dynasty was 1271 to 1368.

The really interesting part is claiming the Mongolian empire as being "Chinese." Yep, anywhere the Genghis Khan or his decendants conquored, become part of the historical Chinese claim (Tibet, Xinjiang, Mongolia, Manchuria). Same for the Manchurian empire.

And to add weight to the claim, the ethnic Han Chinese have literally flooded since 1949 into the areas of Tibet, Inner Mongolia, Manchuria, Xinjiang such that the locals have gone from usually an overwhelming majority of the population to less than 50%. IIRC, Manchurians make up at most a few percent of what used to be Manchuria.

So, historic claims (however dubious) going back at least hundreds of years followed by a majority population.

[Perciful]

On the international stage, various attempts have been made to disguise this unpalatable truth with the comforting fictions embodied in the United Nations. Unfortunately, might will continue to make right, until our planet has a true world sovereign power, able to actually lay down binding, enforcable laws.

It reminds me of Lemkins description of Genocide.

Lemkin presented a draft resolution for a Genocide Convention treaty to a number of countries in an effort to persuade them to sponsor the resolution. With the support of the United States, the resolution was placed before the General Assembly for consideration. Defining genocide in 1943, Lemkin wrote:

Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.[13]

from wiki

[septimus]

Care to go back a little further into the past than just last week? The origins of the problem in something a little more subtle than "The Arabs simply hate Israel and it's all their fault" might emerge.

I posted only a few sentences, sorry they weren't subtle enough for you. Can you synopsize your views in a brief but subtle paragraph? Will it mention that one side wants peace and the other side intends to keep killing innocents until it drives the Israelis into the sea and back to ... Poland? I don't defend every single Israeli action, and want to perceive shades of gray rather than black and white. But which side do you paint with the darker shade?

"a little further into the past than just last week" is rather vague. Are we going to reconsider Joshua's siege of Jericho or what? :D

[Alessan]

I think the idea of a cut-off date offends me because it sort of assumes that history is something that happened in the past, with rules that don't apply to the modern world. That's an incredibly arrogant and utopian point of view. The fact is that history continues whether we want it or not, and the same rules that governed the world a century ago largely govern the world today.

[Martini Enfield]

The fact is that history continues whether we want it or not, and the same rules that governed the world a century ago largely govern the world today.

The last time I checked, sending a Gunboat and some Maxim Guns to deal with recalcitrant native chieftains isn't considered a viable foreign policy tool anymore.

Similarly, if one sees a man wearing a skirt nowadays, one doesn't get to shoot him and nick his country (to borrow a line from Captain Blackadder).

So no, the same rules that governed the world a century ago don't generally govern the world today. It's a different game of cricket entirely, IMHO.

[Alessan]

The last time I checked, sending a Gunboat and some Maxim Guns to deal with recalcitrant native chieftains isn't considered a viable foreign policy tool anymore.


You're right.

Nowadays, they use Predator drones.

[septimus]

I think the idea of a cut-off date offends me because it sort of assumes that history is something that happened in the past, with rules that don't apply to the modern world.

What do you mean? Surely you don't suggest that Mexico be returned to Spain, who would then return it to the Aztecs, who in turn would return it to yet an earlier culture? IANAL, but surely there's a Latin phrase meaning, roughly, "possession is 9/10 of the law", without which legal, political and social systems couldn't function?

Where I live today, 45 years ago was a place where one's "land title" border ended at a rifle's-shot distance! And many of those property lines are observed to this day! (My sister-in-law's brother-in-law was a very famous "Robin Hood" type strongman in those days, and many locals are surprised when I mention that he's still alive, an unassuming retired old villager, though I think he has a certain proud sparkle in his eyes.)

[ivan astikov]

I think the idea of a cut-off date offends me because it sort of assumes that history is something that happened in the past, with rules that don't apply to the modern world.

It did, and they don't.

[Malthus]

Made right by might of course. :p

Of course. That is, after all, exactly how domestic laws "work".

If you don't obey the law, a cop comes and arrests you, backed up with the whole force of the state and society. That's "might".

The reason "international law" of war & peace doesn't work like that is that there is no "cop" who is above the fray. It is more like "law" in a frontier town, relying on one's armed neighbours to lynch 'bad guys' - when the neighbours may (objectively speaking) *be* the 'bad guys'.

[Malthus]

While I mostly accept your point in principle, Vietnam an Taiwan are not good examples. Vietnam was partitioned into North and South by outside powers and would have reunited earlier without outside interference. If all outside powers had left after WWII, the country would have stayed unified either peacefully, or have had what anyone would consider a civil war to establish who was in control.

Both Taiwan(Republic of China) and mainland China (People's Republic of China) maintain that there is only one China. Any invasion from one side or the other would just be a continuance of the civil war that started after WWII.

In both cases, neither would strictly be a case of a foreign invasion.


I disagree that there is a difference in kind here. Many modern invasion and conquests (and many pre-modern ones) were based on some sort of existing historic claim - to "reunify" a group that had been "split by an accident of history", or based on some bit of dynastic juggery, or to protect the frontiers. All that differs is the degree to which outsiders 'buy" the motive as legitimate.

Look at the origins of WW2. According to Hitler, at least initially he wasn't after conquest at all - only to correct the 'historic mistake" made of splitting the "German nation" up into a bunch of smaller countries by the powers after WW1. Seems to me exactly the same notion as that North & South Vietnam are 'really one country', that Taiwan is an indissoluble bit of China, that Tibet is a "historic part of China" (referenced by China Guy above), etc. etc.

The odd man out or historically somewhat anomalous situation is the scramble by european nations for colonies, which lacked even a shred of that excuse. There have of course been empire-builders before, and probably will be again, but the conditions that make for empire-building probably do not exist right now.

Invasions and conquests without some theory of historic or other legitimacy are rare.

[Malthus]

The last time I checked, sending a Gunboat and some Maxim Guns to deal with recalcitrant native chieftains isn't considered a viable foreign policy tool anymore.

Similarly, if one sees a man wearing a skirt nowadays, one doesn't get to shoot him and nick his country (to borrow a line from Captain Blackadder).

So no, the same rules that governed the world a century ago don't generally govern the world today. It's a different game of cricket entirely, IMHO.

How can one look at the present-day invasion of Afganistan and *not* be in any way reminded of the numerous times the Brits invaded Afganistan for much the same reasons in the 19th century?

The world hasn't changed very much at all. The rhetoric is different, but not the reality.

[[Undecided] Adrian]

The point of the UN is that it shouldn't be that way any longer. Of course it's difficult to get a consensus there, but it can happen, and already prevented bad things such as in Bosnia.
Other than the Balkans, Europe currently enjoys one of the longest peaceful periods in its history, and it doesn't look like this will change anytime soon - shouldn't the world aspire to something similar?
Letting go of the Sudetenland is a small price to pay for that.

Alessan, do you really think it would be preferable not to have the UN, and duke it out with Iran all by yourselves?

[Lumpy]

Of course. That is, after all, exactly how domestic laws "work".

If you don't obey the law, a cop comes and arrests you, backed up with the whole force of the state and society. That's "might".

The reason "international law" of war & peace doesn't work like that is that there is no "cop" who is above the fray. It is more like "law" in a frontier town, relying on one's armed neighbours to lynch 'bad guys' - when the neighbours may (objectively speaking) *be* the 'bad guys'.Except that there is no such thing as "above the fray". You can be sure that the very first order of business of any world sovereign would be to guarantee the continued power of the world sovereign. Everybody has a self-interest. And to suppose that some authority could somehow be above that is Utopian in the mocking sense of the word.

[Malthus]

Adrian;12558706']The point of the UN is that it shouldn't be that way any longer. Of course it's difficult to get a consensus there, but it can happen, and already prevented bad things such as in Bosnia.
Other than the Balkans, Europe currently enjoys one of the longest peaceful periods in its history, and it doesn't look like this will change anytime soon - shouldn't the world aspire to something similar?
Letting go of the Sudetenland is a small price to pay for that.

Alessan, do you really think it would be preferable not to have the UN, and duke it out with Iran all by yourselves?

The UN isn't only located in Europe, and is not really responsible for lenghty European peace since WW2. It could be pointed out that Europe enjoyed a similar lengthy period of peace in the 19th century, sans UN, following the Napoleonic/Revolutionary Wars, and that the great powers were similarly interested in the 19th century to prevent, mitigate or contain Balkan violence (ultimately, of course, unsuccessfully - in the 20th century).

The various organs of inter-state cooperation in matters of war and peace such as the UN Security Council are, at best, a formalization of the sort of great power concert that has existed in one form or another since there were great powers. The issues that interest them are the same - to avoid clashes that are not in the interests of the powers, particularly those between smaller client states that have the potential to drag the powers in to battles they don't want.

[Malthus]

Except that there is no such thing as "above the fray". You can be sure that the very first order of business of any world sovereign would be to guarantee the continued power of the world sovereign. Everybody has a self-interest. And to suppose that some authority could somehow be above that is Utopian in the mocking sense of the word.

How is that different from the domestic national sphere? The first order of business of the state is to stay the state. Yet, in democratic countries at least, the state has legitimacy. Few think of the cops as being nothing more than the oppressive organs of the state to keep itself alive (although in a sense they are).

What is needed for a true world sovreign is for an international force to have that sort of widely acknowledged legitimacy - of the same type as that generally enjoyed by domestic forces of a democratic nation.

We are nowhere near that yet, and of course it does no good to *pretend* we are. But I do not regard it as impossibly utopian any more than I regard Western-style democracy as "impossibly utopian".

[Evil Captor]

I think the idea of a cut-off date offends me because it sort of assumes that history is something that happened in the past, with rules that don't apply to the modern world. That's an incredibly arrogant and utopian point of view. The fact is that history continues whether we want it or not, and the same rules that governed the world a century ago largely govern the world today.

Yes, things never change ... until they do.

[ElvisL1ves]

... because somebody with the capacity to learn makes them change.

[Voyager]

The last time I checked, sending a Gunboat and some Maxim Guns to deal with recalcitrant native chieftains isn't considered a viable foreign policy tool anymore.

No, we have more modern weapons -see Grenada and see Panama, just on our side. And cue Tom Lehrer's "Send the Marines" from about 45 years ago.

"all their rights respected,
until someone we like can be elected."

[Alessan]

... because somebody with the capacity to learn makes them change.

Sorry, I'm just too cynical. Whenever there are human beings there will be tribes, and whenever there are tribes there will be bloodshed. So it ever was, so it ever shall be.

[ElvisL1ves]

You're not cynical, just blinkered. Many, many counterexamples exist, several of which have been pointed out to you in detail in this and previous threads.

[Alessan]

Oh, you can make part of the world better, for a while. I just don't think it will last.

[Strassia]

I disagree that there is a difference in kind here. Many modern invasion and conquests (and many pre-modern ones) were based on some sort of existing historic claim - to "reunify" a group that had been "split by an accident of history", or based on some bit of dynastic juggery, or to protect the frontiers. All that differs is the degree to which outsiders 'buy" the motive as legitimate.

Look at the origins of WW2. According to Hitler, at least initially he wasn't after conquest at all - only to correct the 'historic mistake" made of splitting the "German nation" up into a bunch of smaller countries by the powers after WW1. Seems to me exactly the same notion as that North & South Vietnam are 'really one country', that Taiwan is an indissoluble bit of China, that Tibet is a "historic part of China" (referenced by China Guy above), etc. etc.

The odd man out or historically somewhat anomalous situation is the scramble by european nations for colonies, which lacked even a shred of that excuse. There have of course been empire-builders before, and probably will be again, but the conditions that make for empire-building probably do not exist right now.

Invasions and conquests without some theory of historic or other legitimacy are rare.

The reason Vietnam and Taiwan are different is that both sides considered them part of the same country (although that is starting to fade out in young Taiwanese today). The disagreement was only in which government should be in charge.

[Lumpy]

How is that different from the domestic national sphere? The first order of business of the state is to stay the state. Yet, in democratic countries at least, the state has legitimacy. Few think of the cops as being nothing more than the oppressive organs of the state to keep itself alive (although in a sense they are).

What is needed for a true world sovreign is for an international force to have that sort of widely acknowledged legitimacy - of the same type as that generally enjoyed by domestic forces of a democratic nation.

We are nowhere near that yet, and of course it does no good to *pretend* we are. But I do not regard it as impossibly utopian any more than I regard Western-style democracy as "impossibly utopian".A true world sovereign would have to replace the sovereign nation-states that exist today. Today's democracies are either former monarchies or dictatorships that reformed, or federal governments like the United States or Switzerland where formerly independent states agreed to cede at least some of their sovereignty and band together in the face of overwhelming external threat. A world government would have to emulate how the monarchies of sixteenth-century Europe abolished feudalism, bringing the local dukes to heel and making sure they knew who was boss. I'm not saying the legitimacy you speak of couldn't somehow arise, although I don't envision how.

[bengangmo]

Sorry, I'm just too cynical. Whenever there are human beings there will be tribes, and whenever there are tribes there will be bloodshed. So it ever was, so it ever shall be.

Well I would quite strongly urge you to take a look at New Zealand's history then - there may well be some lessons there for you.

[DrDeth]

This question's immediate inspiration is the Palestine/Israel brouhaha ignited by Helen Thomas' unfortunate ejaculation (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=566191), but as that discussion has shown, it's a question that comes up for any land conquered by force. Should the U.S. return Texas to Mexico? Hawaii to the native Hawaiians?

Well, you choose two bad examples. Texas and the rest were more or less bought or seceded by the will of their occupants. California never considered itself part of Mexico, and Mexico's soverienity over AZ, NM and such was limited and even of doubtful legality. In those cases, the population of actual Mexicans in those areas was around 20%. A good case can be brought that some of those areas seceded by the will of the inhabitants, and the rest was bought- at the point of a gun, yes, but Mexico was on the point of both bankruptcy and dissolution from within. There might not be a Mexico today if the USA hadn't bailed the struggling government out with a large infusion of hard cash.

Hawaii also overthrew it's Monarch by the will of the citizens, who did not accept that the Monarch had the right to unilaterally abrogate the lawful Constitution. Yes, many of the citizens who took part in the revolt were white, but they had legitimately established their citizenship- many by being born there. Dole, for instance had been born in Honolulu. Does the fact he was white mean he had no right to citizenship or to participate in a government? So was Thurston, in fact I think his parents had been born there. The Queens "new Constitution" would have made her a near absolute monarch, and stripped white people of the right to vote.

Hawaii was not in any way conquered by force, as in outside force. Rather, the Queen attempted a coup, and the government tossed her out.

[sleeping]

It's undeniable that for much of human history, gaining title and authority to govern land was accomplished by conquest, and this was done without much in the way of hand-wringing over the rights of the conquered. I am no history expert, but I'm willing to bet that we won't find William the Conqueror penning pensive asides about how he'd interfered with the native landholders.

I think it's pretty much undeniable to acknowledge that we cannot now unwind the clock and undo the results of every known conquest.

At the same time, it seems clear that today, we stand pretty squarely against the idea that a nation-state may expand its territory by right of conquest.

So ... if both of these are true, then the question is obvious: where do we draw the line?

Assuming this is a question of morality, rather than mere pragmatism (which can be twisted in any number of directions), I would say that a group of people defined by ethnicity/culture has the right to demand reparations/redress of some sort if that group is still suffering from those events. So, it's not so much a certain timeframe (although more recent events would no doubt be more likely to qualify) than it is the persistence of the effects of those events.

Generally, military conquest results in misery for the conquered, even after the war. In theory, if country A seizes country B, and then proceeds to treat the citizens of B equally and provide them due representation, there isn't much of a moral claim to redress. But that never happens, of course.

[Martini Enfield]

Well I would quite strongly urge you to take a look at New Zealand's history then - there may well be some lessons there for you.

NZ's history is full of inter-tribal wars, though- especially from the 19th century onwards, when some of the tribes acquired firearms from the Europeans and proceeded to put them to extremely effective use against their enemies.

[[Undecided] Adrian]

A true world sovereign would have to replace the sovereign nation-states that exist today. Today's democracies are either former monarchies or dictatorships that reformed, or federal governments like the United States or Switzerland where formerly independent states agreed to cede at least some of their sovereignty and band together in the face of overwhelming external threat. A world government would have to emulate how the monarchies of sixteenth-century Europe abolished feudalism, bringing the local dukes to heel and making sure they knew who was boss. I'm not saying the legitimacy you speak of couldn't somehow arise, although I don't envision how.

The EU didn't form because of an internal threat, there was NATO to take care of that. The EU was formed to prevent internal wars. And regardless how far the integration goes, it already is sufficient to prevent that.

[bengangmo]

NZ's history is full of inter-tribal wars, though- especially from the 19th century onwards, when some of the tribes acquired firearms from the Europeans and proceeded to put them to extremely effective use against their enemies.

WAS being the operative word, nowadays there is a very significant porportion of Maori that no longer identify by tribe, but rather by race. THis would have been unthinkable in the 1800s. The Maori were a very warlike culture, and did have both a lot of inter-tribal wars (and conversly, intertribal trade) with quite defined "tribal borders'

Indeed the founding document of New Zealand specifically recognises this by the fact that it did a tour of the country to be signed by all of the various chieftans (I know the number well exceeds 100, but I would have to google to find the exact number)

There is also a good amount of the population that identifies themselves by their nationality, totally eschewing race as a valid descriptor for who they are.

Which is what I was (trying to) indicate, just because in the past there was a lot of inter-whatever conflict, doesn not mean that its going to be that way forever, or needs to be that way forever. I would hazard a guess that New Zealand would stand as a really good example where previously warring groups have now buried thier differences. Of course it has taken around a century or so, but still, it can be done.

[Alessan]

But despite that, NZ is still part of the world. New Zealanders still fought in WW2, and there's always a chance that they might be dragged into some other global conflict far from home. No nation is ncompletely isolated, no matter how much it might want to be.

Besides, NZ might be a stable country right now, but who knows what the future may bring? Everything falls apart, eventually. Enthropy and chaos always wins in the end.

[bengangmo]

But despite that, NZ is still part of the world. New Zealanders still fought in WW2, and there's always a chance that they might be dragged into some other global conflict far from home. No nation is ncompletely isolated, no matter how much it might want to be.

Besides, NZ might be a stable country right now, but who knows what the future may bring? Everything falls apart, eventually. Enthropy and chaos always wins in the end.

What point are you trying to make here?

Yes, NZ fully took part in both WW, in WWI, our per capita casulties were very very high, we even lost some brave soldiers in the Boer war. SO? What does that mean, other than New Zealanders took responsibility for what they (as a nation) thought was right?

As to the future? Things are suddenly going to start going backwards?

The point to be made, is that tribes that had extreme amounts of enmity for each other, and then the "white man" who hated them and who every tribe was hated in return came to make things worse.

These have all now been overcome. They all live in harmony (no it's not Nirvana, but "race crimes" between Maori / Caucasian are very rare - except for uber skinhead type groups). If this can happen, why is it that one day Isreali / Palestinian can't share a country? What makes them so unique that they can't ever live together?

[Alessan]

There's nothing unusual in history about warring tribes settling their differences and eventually joining together. The thing is, eventually they split into new warring tribes, or a fight starts with some outside tribe, or both.

[bengangmo]

There's nothing unusual in history about warring tribes settling their differences and eventually joining together. The thing is, eventually they split into new warring tribes, or a fight starts with some outside tribe, or both.

Well a war with an outside tribe is irrelevant to the issue at hand isn't it? If Palestine and Israel were to join, and then 80 years later go to war against Canada, what would that mean? How does it add to your argument?

And what exactly are you trying to imply? That in some unspecified time frame there is going to be a civil war in New Zealand?

And yes, in time "warring tribes" do SETTLE THEIR DIFFERENCES so why can't this be done in the ME instead of one tribe being subjugated by the other?

[IClaudius]

The best way to put it is that the new Israeli gov't gained some legitimacy from official recognition. Were it not for force, i.e. winning the resulting War of Independance, the Israeli state would not now exist.

Isn't that a rather pointless addition when the whole point of the thread is to ask at what point the status quo crystallises and becomes settled over and above aggrieved historical rights-claims. Empirical power is obviously a necessary condition for whether the question of legitimacy is ever raised, but nobody was contesting any antecedent facts of Israel's existence. The whole point is that the UN's creation of Israel is the proper nexus of its legitimacy as a state.

Indeed, as anybody who has studied international law will testify, modern states can only exist with recognition. Most of the settled criteria are contained in the Montevideo Convention, at least as far as declarative theory is concerned.

[E-Sabbath]

There's nothing unusual in history about warring tribes settling their differences and eventually joining together. The thing is, eventually they split into new warring tribes, or a fight starts with some outside tribe, or both.

This is what bothers me deeply about the EU.

[Malthus]

The reason Vietnam and Taiwan are different is that both sides considered them part of the same country (although that is starting to fade out in young Taiwanese today). The disagreement was only in which government should be in charge.


If the tanks of North Korea were to roll over the south tomorrow - would that be a "conquest" or an "internal matter"?

I think of this more as a continuum issue than some sort of blackline either-or.

Usually, conquorers have some sort of historical validation for their conquest. The issue is whether other can be made to 'buy it".

[Malthus]

A true world sovereign would have to replace the sovereign nation-states that exist today. Today's democracies are either former monarchies or dictatorships that reformed, or federal governments like the United States or Switzerland where formerly independent states agreed to cede at least some of their sovereignty and band together in the face of overwhelming external threat. A world government would have to emulate how the monarchies of sixteenth-century Europe abolished feudalism, bringing the local dukes to heel and making sure they knew who was boss. I'm not saying the legitimacy you speak of couldn't somehow arise, although I don't envision how.

What overwhelming external threat did the EU face?

[Malthus]

Isn't that a rather pointless addition when the whole point of the thread is to ask at what point the status quo crystallises and becomes settled over and above aggrieved historical rights-claims. Empirical power is obviously a necessary condition for whether the question of legitimacy is ever raised, but nobody was contesting any antecedent facts of Israel's existence. The whole point is that the UN's creation of Israel is the proper nexus of its legitimacy as a state.

Indeed, as anybody who has studied international law will testify, modern states can only exist with recognition. Most of the settled criteria are contained in the Montevideo Convention, at least as far as declarative theory is concerned.

Why "pointless"? My whole thesis is that the statement "the UN's creation of Israel is the proper nexus of its legitimacy as a state", is wrong. The "proper nexus" is its success in keeping and holding power, over a long period of time.

UN recognition was not sufficient to gain legitimacy as a state (many contest Israel's legitimacy even now) and was not necessary to gain legitimacy as a state - power plus longevity does that. It certainly was a factor, but neither a necessary nor sufficient factor.

The notion that "modern states can only exist with recognition" is simply incorrect. Look for example at Taiwan. It appears to "exist" without recognition.

[Damuri Ajashi]

I think it's pretty much undeniable to acknowledge that we cannot now unwind the clock and undo the results of every known conquest.

At the same time, it seems clear that today, we stand pretty squarely against the idea that a nation-state may expand its territory by right of conquest.

So ... if both of these are true, then the question is obvious: where do we draw the line?

WWII seems like a pretty watershed moment.

[bengangmo]

Why "pointless"? My whole thesis is that the statement "the UN's creation of Israel is the proper nexus of its legitimacy as a state", is wrong. The "proper nexus" is its success in keeping and holding power, over a long period of time.

UN recognition was not sufficient to gain legitimacy as a state (many contest Israel's legitimacy even now) and was not necessary to gain legitimacy as a state - power plus longevity does that. It certainly was a factor, but neither a necessary nor sufficient factor.

The notion that "modern states can only exist with recognition" is simply incorrect. Look for example at Taiwan. It appears to "exist" without recognition.

That may well be a fair point.

But let me ask you, if not for the support of the rest of the world in terms of things like arms sales, embargoes, political support, aid etc etc, how long would Israel have been able to last do you think?

IF not for US support, how long would Taiwan last?

So while "force" might be the ultimate test of statehood, what was it that enabled and supported that force?

[E-Sabbath]

What overwhelming external threat did the EU face?

No idea! (wanders off, playing Stars and Stripes Forever. Loudly. Out of tune. Stepping on a human face. Forever.)

[Malthus]

What point are you trying to make here?

Yes, NZ fully took part in both WW, in WWI, our per capita casulties were very very high, we even lost some brave soldiers in the Boer war. SO? What does that mean, other than New Zealanders took responsibility for what they (as a nation) thought was right?

As to the future? Things are suddenly going to start going backwards?

The point to be made, is that tribes that had extreme amounts of enmity for each other, and then the "white man" who hated them and who every tribe was hated in return came to make things worse.

These have all now been overcome. They all live in harmony (no it's not Nirvana, but "race crimes" between Maori / Caucasian are very rare - except for uber skinhead type groups). If this can happen, why is it that one day Isreali / Palestinian can't share a country? What makes them so unique that they can't ever live together?

In the case of New Zealand, the Maori were made to accept European domination by being throrougly conquored, much or their land taken away, and being demographically swamped, on an isolated set of islands far from any possible Maori allies who could intervene (whereas the White New Zealanders could count, on the last resort, on the power of the greatest maritime empire on earth for their support).

Israel simply is not in a position to do the same to its Palestinian neighbours, even if it wanted to. The "New Zealand solution" of beating the Palestinians so throughly that they give up any hope of reconquest and are forced to live in a societal structure created by the Israelis is not open to them, because unlike New Zealand, they are located in the middle of the middle east, surrounded by neighbours who far outnumber them and who are all without exception potential Palestinian allies - if not now, in the future.

That is not to say that they cannot live in harmony some day, only that they cannot do so using the same mechanism as New Zealand.

[Malthus]

That may well be a fair point.

But let me ask you, if not for the support of the rest of the world in terms of things like arms sales, embargoes, political support, aid etc etc, how long would Israel have been able to last do you think?

IF not for US support, how long would Taiwan last?

So while "force" might be the ultimate test of statehood, what was it that enabled and supported that force?

Looking back on the past, I'd say it could easily survive without outside help at all, at least in the foreseeable future, Its most dangerous moment was 1948 - invaded by all its neighbours - and it survived that, at a time when it lacked any outside help by major powers. In 1967, it smashed the Egyptians, Syrians and Jordainians, at a time when the US quite positively declined its help (Israel had asked it for a token naval force to break the Egyptian blockade; the US turned Israel down).

Now, Egypt has no appetite for foreign adventures of this sort; Jordan is in no condition to do so; and Lebanon is split. The only nation that borders Israel that is at all interested in conflict is Syria - and Israel could easily handle Syria, if the ROTW gave Israel no support.

Edit: that is of course assuming that Israel does nothing to re-unite some sort of grand ME alliance against it. An actual massacre of Palestinians might have the potential to do just that - as in attempting the 'New Zealand Solution'.

[Banquet Bear]

In the case of New Zealand, the Maori were made to accept European domination by being throrougly conquored, much or their land taken away, and being demographically swamped, on an isolated set of islands far from any possible Maori allies who could intervene (whereas the White New Zealanders could count, on the last resort, on the power of the greatest maritime empire on earth for their support).

Israel simply is not in a position to do the same to its Palestinian neighbours, even if it wanted to. The "New Zealand solution" of beating the Palestinians so throughly that they give up any hope of reconquest and are forced to live in a societal structure created by the Israelis is not open to them, because unlike New Zealand, they are located in the middle of the middle east, surrounded by neighbours who far outnumber them and who are all without exception potential Palestinian allies - if not now, in the future.

That is not to say that they cannot live in harmony some day, only that they cannot do so using the same mechanism as New Zealand.


...dude. Don't forget the Treaty of Waitangi. If you want to talk about the history of New Zealand and race relations you cannot do that without discussing the Treaty.

The New Zealand solution was getting the "two" sides together to sort out an agreement. Compared to what happened in other colonial countries this was pretty unique. I won't pretend there were no problems or any disputes regarding the treaty. I won't pretend that this was the perfect solution. But it could have been a hell of a lot worse.

I am surprised that you regard the New Zealand solution of sorting out an agreement or a treaty as not doable between the Palestinians and the Isrealis. Can you explain why you find this difficult to do?

My dad is Samoan and his father suffered under the hand of New Zealand occupation as a member of the Mau. My mum is Maori of Nga Puhi: hailing from Ahipara in the north. And you know what? I don't hate my Pakeha brothers and I love living in this country. And I don't dwell on the mistakes of the past and I look forward to the future.

I'm reminded of something the late Maori Queen Dame Te Atairangikaahu said in a television interview many years ago. The interviewer asked her something and she replied repeating the question:

"How do you get rid of the Pakeha?"

The camera zoomed in. The interview leaned forward.

"Marry them." She responded.

Find some common ground. Sit down and talk. Draw up a treaty. Stop demonizing each other. Then have lots of babies. This would be an example of the "New Zealand solution", not your ridiculous portrayal of massacre.

[bengangmo]

In the case of New Zealand, the Maori were made to accept European domination by being throrougly conquored, much or their land taken away, and being demographically swamped, on an isolated set of islands far from any possible Maori allies who could intervene (whereas the White New Zealanders could count, on the last resort, on the power of the greatest maritime empire on earth for their support).

Israel simply is not in a position to do the same to its Palestinian neighbours, even if it wanted to. The "New Zealand solution" of beating the Palestinians so throughly that they give up any hope of reconquest and are forced to live in a societal structure created by the Israelis is not open to them, because unlike New Zealand, they are located in the middle of the middle east, surrounded by neighbours who far outnumber them and who are all without exception potential Palestinian allies - if not now, in the future.

That is not to say that they cannot live in harmony some day, only that they cannot do so using the same mechanism as New Zealand.

Actually that's wrong, prior to the treaty of Waitangi, the Maori were never "thoroughly conquered". It simply didn't happen. Where did you pull that nugget from?

Just look at the name of the founding document. TREATY. not surrender, or secession, but treaty. It was in both languages, and real efforts were made to get the "buy in" of the entire native population.

Well if Israel is surrounded by friends of Palestine, why not make an effort to make Palestine your friend, you on the theory of "a friend of them is a friend of me"?

If this level of hate and justification goes on, you will never get anywhere. And the more you justify like this the more apparent it becomes that you don't really want peace, you just want reasons to continue the subjugation.

Where you should be looking for reasons to make friends, you are out there looking for reasons why they are out to get you, and quite naturally that is what you are finding.

Th

[bengangmo]

...dude. Don't forget the Treaty of Waitangi. If you want to talk about the history of New Zealand and race relations you cannot do that without discussing the Treaty.

The New Zealand solution was getting the "two" sides together to sort out an agreement. Compared to what happened in other colonial countries this was pretty unique. I won't pretend there were no problems or any disputes regarding the treaty. I won't pretend that this was the perfect solution. But it could have been a hell of a lot worse.

I am surprised that you regard the New Zealand solution of sorting out an agreement or a treaty as not doable between the Palestinians and the Isrealis. Can you explain why you find this difficult to do?

My dad is Samoan and his father suffered under the hand of New Zealand occupation as a member of the Mau. My mum is Maori of Nga Puhi: hailing from Ahipara in the north. And you know what? I don't hate my Pakeha brothers and I love living in this country. And I don't dwell on the mistakes of the past and I look forward to the future.

I'm reminded of something the late Maori Queen Dame Te Atairangikaahu said in a television interview many years ago. The interviewer asked her something and she replied repeating the question:

"How do you get rid of the Pakeha?"

The camera zoomed in. The interview leaned forward.

"Marry them." She responded.

Find some common ground. Sit down and talk. Draw up a treaty. Stop demonizing each other. Then have lots of babies. This would be an example of the "New Zealand solution", not your ridiculous portrayal of massacre.

Thanks Banquet, you have said it better than me, but you did remind me of something.

Wasn't the concept of "marry them" a very traditional way of building alliances in Europe?

[bengangmo]

Looking back on the past, I'd say it could easily survive without outside help at all, at least in the foreseeable future, Its most dangerous moment was 1948 - invaded by all its neighbours - and it survived that, at a time when it lacked any outside help by major powers. In 1967, it smashed the Egyptians, Syrians and Jordainians, at a time when the US quite positively declined its help (Israel had asked it for a token naval force to break the Egyptian blockade; the US turned Israel down).

Now, Egypt has no appetite for foreign adventures of this sort; Jordan is in no condition to do so; and Lebanon is split. The only nation that borders Israel that is at all interested in conflict is Syria - and Israel could easily handle Syria, if the ROTW gave Israel no support.

Edit: that is of course assuming that Israel does nothing to re-unite some sort of grand ME alliance against it. An actual massacre of Palestinians might have the potential to do just that - as in attempting the 'New Zealand Solution'.

Oh come on, how long would Israel last of the rest of world wouldn't trade with it?

How much aide does Israel get per year from the US?

Is Israel really self sufficient in terms of oil and food?

Please take the blinkers off. If Israel didn't have the acknowledgement of the rest of the world it would be no-where.

[Malthus]

...dude. Don't forget the Treaty of Waitangi. If you want to talk about the history of New Zealand and race relations you cannot do that without discussing the Treaty.

The New Zealand solution was getting the "two" sides together to sort out an agreement. Compared to what happened in other colonial countries this was pretty unique. I won't pretend there were no problems or any disputes regarding the treaty. I won't pretend that this was the perfect solution. But it could have been a hell of a lot worse.

I am surprised that you regard the New Zealand solution of sorting out an agreement or a treaty as not doable between the Palestinians and the Isrealis. Can you explain why you find this difficult to do?

My dad is Samoan and his father suffered under the hand of New Zealand occupation as a member of the Mau. My mum is Maori of Nga Puhi: hailing from Ahipara in the north. And you know what? I don't hate my Pakeha brothers and I love living in this country. And I don't dwell on the mistakes of the past and I look forward to the future.

I'm reminded of something the late Maori Queen Dame Te Atairangikaahu said in a television interview many years ago. The interviewer asked her something and she replied repeating the question:

"How do you get rid of the Pakeha?"

The camera zoomed in. The interview leaned forward.

"Marry them." She responded.

Find some common ground. Sit down and talk. Draw up a treaty. Stop demonizing each other. Then have lots of babies. This would be an example of the "New Zealand solution", not your ridiculous portrayal of massacre.


Dude, if you are claiming that the treaty of Treaty of Waitangi ended the conflict between the Maoiri and settlers over land, you are wrong. Note that the so-called "New Zealand Land Wars" [note title] happened after the signing of the Treaty:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Land_Wars

Note that the effect of the treaty was not to help the Maori at initially:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Waitangi

The treaty was never ratified by Britain and carried no legal force in New Zealand for over a century, finally receiving limited recognition in 1975 with the passage of the Treaty of Waitangi Act. The Colonial Office and early New Zealand governors were initially fairly supportive of the Treaty as it gave them authority over both New Zealand Company settlers and Māori. As the settlers were granted representative and responsible government with the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852, the Treaty became less effective, although it was used to justify the idea that Waikato and Taranaki were rebels against the Crown in the wars of the 1860s. Court cases later in the 19th century, especially Wi Parata v Bishop of Wellington (1877), established the principle that the Treaty was a 'legal nullity' which could be ignored by the courts and the government. This argument was supported by the claim that New Zealand had become a colony when annexed by proclamation in January 1840, before the treaty was signed. Furthermore, Hobson only claimed to have taken possession of the North Island by Treaty. The South Island he claimed for Britain by right of discovery, by observing that Māori were so sparse in the South Island, that it could be considered uninhabited.

Despite this, Maori frequently used the Treaty to argue for a range of issues, including greater independence and return of confiscated and unfairly purchased land. This was especially the case from the mid 19th century, when they lost numerical superiority and generally lost control of most of the country.

Is this the "solution" you want for the Palestinians? If I were a Palestinain, it wouldn't be for me.

[Malthus]

Actually that's wrong, prior to the treaty of Waitangi, the Maori were never "thoroughly conquered". It simply didn't happen. Where did you pull that nugget from?



Yeah, that happened mostly AFTER the Treaty was signed.

Your point being?

[Malthus]

Oh come on, how long would Israel last of the rest of world wouldn't trade with it?

How much aide does Israel get per year from the US?

Is Israel really self sufficient in terms of oil and food?

Please take the blinkers off. If Israel didn't have the acknowledgement of the rest of the world it would be no-where.

What's your claim - that (a) Israel would probably not survive complete embargo, or (b) Israel would not survive a cut-off of military support and subsidy?

As for (a) you may be correct, but it is hardly likely.

As for (b), you are not correct - history demonstrates that.

[bengangmo]

Malthus, you have heard from a Maori and a Pakeha (although I don't like the term, much preferring New Zealander) in this thread telling you that race relations are pretty damn good in New Zealand. You have also heard that very real attempts were made for a settlement at the time of the treaty. Which is very much borne out by the facts.

Yes, as Banquet rightfully notes, not everything was a bed of roses - however in comparison to other stuff that was happening at the same time it was a pretty damn good solution. Even with the land wars.

To look at how quickly the cultures integrated, just look at how far back the Haka goes as a cornerstone of our prematch sporting preparations (is pretty much given as much prominence as the National Anthem).

So, the treaty wasn't ratified by London, it is still what is seen as important in our land and to us. To try and argue with you war tinged glasses and put down New Zealand is showing up just how nasty you really are.

And if you want to accuse me of having a Pollyanna complex, I would actually take that as a compliment. I would much rather live this way than with your black as coal, nasty and perverse view of the world and the people in it,.

[Malthus]

More on the 'New Zealand solution':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_land_confiscations

Treaty of Waitangi: 1840

New Zealand Land Wars begin: 1845

New Zealand land confiscations: 1860s

[bengangmo]

What's your claim - that (a) Israel would probably not survive complete embargo, or (b) Israel would not survive a cut-off of military support and subsidy?

As for (a) you may be correct, but it is hardly likely.

As for (b), you are not correct - history demonstrates that.

OK then pray tell, lay it out for me.

If Israel were under a complete embargo, can it supply 100% of its oil, coal, food, iron ore, concrete and bauxite needs?

Is that seriously your contention? Really truthfully and honestly?

[Malthus]

Malthus, you have heard from a Maori and a Pakeha (although I don't like the term, much preferring New Zealander) in this thread telling you that race relations are pretty damn good in New Zealand. You have also heard that very real attempts were made for a settlement at the time of the treaty. Which is very much borne out by the facts.

Yes, as Banquet rightfully notes, not everything was a bed of roses - however in comparison to other stuff that was happening at the same time it was a pretty damn good solution. Even with the land wars.

To look at how quickly the cultures integrated, just look at how far back the Haka goes as a cornerstone of our prematch sporting preparations (is pretty much given as much prominence as the National Anthem).

So, the treaty wasn't ratified by London, it is still what is seen as important in our land and to us. To try and argue with you war tinged glasses and put down New Zealand is showing up just how nasty you really are.

And if you want to accuse me of having a Pollyanna complex, I would actually take that as a compliment. I would much rather live this way than with your black as coal, nasty and perverse view of the world and the people in it,.

I don't care if the other person in a debate is the Queen of England. I agree that New Zealand race relations are good now, but I disagree on how they got there, and the facts (as cited - admittedly in Wiki form, but they hardly invented a whole series of wars) support my position.

If you find me 'nasty' and 'perverse' for pointing out the facts, please feel free to pit me for it. Slinging insults won't change the facts, which do not support your stated position, and if that's too upsetting, too bad.

[Malthus]

OK then pray tell, lay it out for me.

If Israel were under a complete embargo, can it supply 100% of its oil, coal, food, iron ore, concrete and bauxite needs?

Is that seriously your contention? Really truthfully and honestly?

What part of "you may be correct" did you fail to understand?

[bengangmo]

What I am claiming, is that in the founding of New Zealand, real and genuine attempts were made to reach understanding and consensus.

The founding of the country was very far from being won at the point of a gun or via gunboat diplomacy. Sure there were problems.

Think for a moment, even with a starting point of genuinely wanting to get along, look what happened. What more chance do you have of ever reaching a solution if you don't want to get along?

As to the idea that Israel could survive without military support - that would depend upon how you define it.

But straight up. If the US cut of aid today. Totally. What difference do you think that would make to day to day life in Israel?

[Malthus]

What I am claiming, is that in the founding of New Zealand, real and genuine attempts were made to reach understanding and consensus.

The founding of the country was very far from being won at the point of a gun or via gunboat diplomacy. Sure there were problems.

Think for a moment, even with a starting point of genuinely wanting to get along, look what happened. What more chance do you have of ever reaching a solution if you don't want to get along?

As to the idea that Israel could survive without military support - that would depend upon how you define it.

But straight up. If the US cut of aid today. Totally. What difference do you think that would make to day to day life in Israel?

The Treaty of Waitangi is analogous to the Balfour Declaration - also a sincere attempt to balance the two sides. Sure, there have been subsequent problems. :smack:

If the US cut off aid to the ME altogether, Israel would survive just as it did before the US gave it aid.

[bengangmo]

The Treaty of Waitangi is analogous to the Balfour Declaration - also a sincere attempt to balance the two sides. Sure, there have been subsequent problems. :smack:

If the US cut off aid to the ME altogether, Israel would survive just as it did before the US gave it aid.

So from what I've heard so far, you think the solution is for Israel to totally subjugate, cut off and destroy and then the others will be ready to come around and accept the new nation?

Would that be correct?

You do of course realise that even during the wars, one opposing party never had the power to in any way blockade the other right? That the crux of the land wars was individual vs collective ownership of land? That even during the wars Maori were given every opportunity to make a living and support their families?

Does any of this sound just a little bit different to what Israel is doing?

You do also realise that the land wars were 140 years ago, when the social norms and expectations were quite a bit different to what they are today, that by (European) standards of the time the Maori were being treated well. Is Israel treating the Palestinians well by the standards of today?

[Banquet Bear]

Dude, if you are claiming that the treaty of Treaty of Waitangi ended the conflict between the Maoiri and settlers over land, you are wrong. Note that the so-called "New Zealand Land Wars" [note title] happened after the signing of the Treaty:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Land_Wars

Note that the effect of the treaty was not to help the Maori at initially:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Waitangi



Is this the "solution" you want for the Palestinians? If I were a Palestinain, it wouldn't be for me.

...nope. I never said that the Treaty of Waitangi ended the conflict. Never claimed that at all.

The Treaty was only the beginning.

It was the opening dialog. It was the first stanza. It was round one.

It was the start of discussion on how to bring the nation together as one.

Racism still exists in New Zealand. My parents experienced it. I have lived through it: I have sat in living rooms while white people have called Jonah Lomu a black nigger. I have had Samoan people come up to me and say that I am acting too white.

There is a huge divergence in Maori health care statistics and incarceration rate than with the Pakeha population.

Land claims are still being settled and there are still major disputes. The foreshores and fisheries act of a few years ago still has many Maori angry all over the country.

New Zealand is not perfect. We are not a utopia.

But right now in parliament is the Maori Party, democratically elected into seats that have been set aside for Tāngata whenua. And under the current national government they have made substantial gains and some major losses.

Maori culture is integrated into our society. You may have seen our national sports team, the All Blacks, preform the Haka before every game. Most secondary schools have their own Haka. There is nothing that makes me more proud as a Kiwi to watch a school full of children: European, Maori, Pacific Islander, Chinese and Indian preforming the Haka in all its glory. Our national anthem is sung in both Maori and English.

And while I have experienced racism it is by no means prevalent. I don't worry when I go to job interviews that I'm going to loose out due to my colour. I normally loose out because my zip has broken and my fly is down. :( (You do not want to hear that story)

This is the country that I want to live in. And I say that as one of the, how you would say, "conquered". But to call me conquered would be to insult the memories of my ancestors and also to the Europeans that strived to make this nation whole.

You maybe able to gain a cursory understanding of the Treaty by looking up the wiki page, but that would be like me gaining cursory knowledge of the US Constitution by reading a few paragraphs. The Treaty is our Constitution. It is our founding document. We learn about it when we are little kids. We learn about it as we grow older. We debate it on talk shows and argue it on message boards. We study it in University and we have cocktail parties in its shadows. http://www.tepapa.govt.nz/WhatsOn/exhibitions/Pages/SignsofaNation.aspx

Please do not pretend that by reading a few words on some wiki pages that you understand what those words mean. And I had a good giggle when you cited that the land wars happened after the Treaty was signed: as if I didn't know that. :D But thanks for the history lesson though.

The Treaty was the beginning. And it was through blood, sweat and tears that we ended up where we are today. And that has taken over 150 years.

So you ask: is that the solution I want for the Palestinians?

Well, I would like to think that the world has grown up a bit since then, don't you? I highly doubt that if a treaty were drawn up today that there would be a problem with two different versions saying two different things. We have international commissions and all sorts of things that: if two groups put there minds to it, can help keep things enforced. The world is a different place now, don't you agree?

Peace is something that needs to be fought for. It will come when both sides decide that it is time for peace. New Zealand gained that by both sides giving up a little, and at times a lot in order to gain that peace. And that process started many years ago, when Hobson sat down with the representative Maori Chiefs and put pen to paper. There has been many false starts in the Israeli/Palestinian peace process: isn't it time to give it a proper go? And if its done right, don't you think it would take less than 150 years?

(Nearly five in the morning here! Off to bed now...)

[Malthus]

So from what I've heard so far, you think the solution is for Israel to totally subjugate, cut off and destroy and then the others will be ready to come around and accept the new nation?

Would that be correct?

No, that would be utterly and totally wrong. Whatever made you think that this was what I think the best solution would be? :dubious:

My preferred solution would be a viable Palestinian state, or states, existing alongside Israel.

I do not think the "one state solution" is viable, because such a solution would in effect require one group to subjugate the other (and in spite of the heart-warming present-day understanding between Maoiris and White New Zealanders, yes that is what happened in the 19th century).

Since I do not regard such "sujugation" as desireable in any way, I reject the "one state solution".

In short, I am suiting my theory to the facts, and not my facts to the theory.

You do of course realise that even during the wars, one opposing party never had the power to in any way blockade the other right? That the crux of the land wars was individual vs collective ownership of land? That even during the wars Maori were given every opportunity to make a living and support their families?

Does any of this sound just a little bit different to what Israel is doing?

You do also realise that the land wars were 140 years ago, when the social norms and expectations were quite a bit different to what they are today, that by (European) standards of the time the Maori were being treated well. Is Israel treating the Palestinians well by the standards of today?

What "standards"? Who sets them - by theory, or by practice? The 20th century was a catelogue of horrors unimaginable to the 19th century. Israel was set up in the same decade as witnessed the expulsion of the Germans from Eastern Europe and the mutual expulsion of Muslims from India and Hindus from Pakistan - both of which with much greater violence and indeed atrocity. By the standards of the time, the Palestinians were treated well (indeed with kid gloves).

What I'm saying is that throughly "subjugating" the Palestinians and demographically dominating them, as was done in New Zealand, is not a practical (or for that matter, desireable) solution to the problem.

[Malthus]

...nope. I never said that the Treaty of Waitangi ended the conflict. Never claimed that at all.

The Treaty was only the beginning.

It was the opening dialog. It was the first stanza. It was round one.

It was the start of discussion on how to bring the nation together as one.

Racism still exists in New Zealand. My parents experienced it. I have lived through it: I have sat in living rooms while white people have called Jonah Lomu a black nigger. I have had Samoan people come up to me and say that I am acting too white.

There is a huge divergence in Maori health care statistics and incarceration rate than with the Pakeha population.

Land claims are still being settled and there are still major disputes. The foreshores and fisheries act of a few years ago still has many Maori angry all over the country.

New Zealand is not perfect. We are not a utopia.

But right now in parliament is the Maori Party, democratically elected into seats that have been set aside for Tāngata whenua. And under the current national government they have made substantial gains and some major losses.

Maori culture is integrated into our society. You may have seen our national sports team, the All Blacks, preform the Haka before every game. Most secondary schools have their own Haka. There is nothing that makes me more proud as a Kiwi to watch a school full of children: European, Maori, Pacific Islander, Chinese and Indian preforming the Haka in all its glory. Our national anthem is sung in both Maori and English.

And while I have experienced racism it is by no means prevalent. I don't worry when I go to job interviews that I'm going to loose out due to my colour. I normally loose out because my zip has broken and my fly is down. :( (You do not want to hear that story)

This is the country that I want to live in. And I say that as one of the, how you would say, "conquered". But to call me conquered would be to insult the memories of my ancestors and also to the Europeans that strived to make this nation whole.

You maybe able to gain a cursory understanding of the Treaty by looking up the wiki page, but that would be like me gaining cursory knowledge of the US Constitution by reading a few paragraphs. The Treaty is our Constitution. It is our founding document. We learn about it when we are little kids. We learn about it as we grow older. We debate it on talk shows and argue it on message boards. We study it in University and we have cocktail parties in its shadows. http://www.tepapa.govt.nz/WhatsOn/exhibitions/Pages/SignsofaNation.aspx

Please do not pretend that by reading a few words on some wiki pages that you understand what those words mean. And I had a good giggle when you cited that the land wars happened after the Treaty was signed: as if I didn't know that. :D But thanks for the history lesson though.

You might have noted it in your initial post, then, since it pretty well makes nonsense of your position.

The Treaty was the beginning. And it was through blood, sweat and tears that we ended up where we are today. And that has taken over 150 years.

So you ask: is that the solution I want for the Palestinians?

Well, I would like to think that the world has grown up a bit since then, don't you? I highly doubt that if a treaty were drawn up today that there would be a problem with two different versions saying two different things. We have international commissions and all sorts of things that: if two groups put there minds to it, can help keep things enforced. The world is a different place now, don't you agree?

Peace is something that needs to be fought for. It will come when both sides decide that it is time for peace. New Zealand gained that by both sides giving up a little, and at times a lot in order to gain that peace. And that process started many years ago, when Hobson sat down with the representative Maori Chiefs and put pen to paper. There has been many false starts in the Israeli/Palestinian peace process: isn't it time to give it a proper go? And if its done right, don't you think it would take less than 150 years?

(Nearly five in the morning here! Off to bed now...)

See, we disagree here. You think that you could get from "there" (a New Zealand inhabited entirely by Maoiris) to "here" (a New Zealand with a majority non-Maoiri population, albeit with reasonably good race realtions with Maoris) without a couple of hundred years of conflict, merely with the application of a little good-will.

That may be true in some circumstances, but I doubt very much it is was true in New Zealand, and even more so that it would be true in the Middle East.

Obviously, one must take history as it is dealt, and the lession from New Zealand is not (sadly) that one can settle one's differences without conflict, since in fact it is a history containing much conflict.

[bengangmo]

No, that would be utterly and totally wrong. Whatever made you think that this was what I think the best solution would be? :dubious:

My preferred solution would be a viable Palestinian state, or states, existing alongside Israel.

I do not think the "one state solution" is viable, because such a solution would in effect require one group to subjugate the other (and in spite of the heart-warming present-day understanding between Maoiris and White New Zealanders, yes that is what happened in the 19th century).

Since I do not regard such "sujugation" as desireable in any way, I reject the "one state solution".

In short, I am suiting my theory to the facts, and not my facts to the theory.



What "standards"? Who sets them - by theory, or by practice? The 20th century was a catelogue of horrors unimaginable to the 19th century. Israel was set up in the same decade as witnessed the expulsion of the Germans from Eastern Europe and the mutual expulsion of Muslims from India and Hindus from Pakistan - both of which with much greater violence and indeed atrocity. By the standards of the time, the Palestinians were treated well (indeed with kid gloves).

What I'm saying is that throughly "subjugating" the Palestinians and demographically dominating them, as was done in New Zealand, is not a practical (or for that matter, desireable) solution to the problem.

Except that you are wrong, the Maori never were thoroughly subjugated in New Zealand. It simply didn't happen. The entire country was (supposed to be) under joint governance. Now there were very different versions and ideas as to exactly what the meant, which lead to serious problems. Though one thing to note, even through all the wars, one group was never disenfranchised.

Because you are starting from a wrong perspective, you are drawing wrong conclusions, and making assertions that are frankly bordering on insulting.

You are also still adhering to this notion that Israel somehow gets a pass, that Israel gets to set what is right and appropriate treatment and that what Israel sees as fair is right and just.

Forget that people like Red Cross say that what is happening is screwed up. Forget that virtually all of the developed world is calling on Israel to lift the restrictions, forget the Israel is being called upon to stop expansion, even by its closest ally, what you are doing is still not subjugation right?

And you are trying to justify it and rationalise it by saying that what happened in New Zealand 150 years ago was the total decimation, subjugation and destruction of a Maori. Some thing that Banquet, who quite obviously has more than a passing familiarity with the subject didn't happen as you are claiming it did.

[Malthus]

Except that you are wrong, the Maori never were thoroughly subjugated in New Zealand. It simply didn't happen. The entire country was (supposed to be) under joint governance. Now there were very different versions and ideas as to exactly what the meant, which lead to serious problems. Though one thing to note, even through all the wars, one group was never disenfranchised.

Because you are starting from a wrong perspective, you are drawing wrong conclusions, and making assertions that are frankly bordering on insulting.

You are also still adhering to this notion that Israel somehow gets a pass, that Israel gets to set what is right and appropriate treatment and that what Israel sees as fair is right and just.

Forget that people like Red Cross say that what is happening is screwed up. Forget that virtually all of the developed world is calling on Israel to lift the restrictions, forget the Israel is being called upon to stop expansion, even by its closest ally, what you are doing is still not subjugation right?

And you are trying to justify it and rationalise it by saying that what happened in New Zealand 150 years ago was the total decimation, subjugation and destruction of a Maori. Some thing that Banquet, who quite obviously has more than a passing familiarity with the subject didn't happen as you are claiming it did.

:dubious:

You appear to be arguing with someone else, yet you are quoting my posts. Where do I say any of this:

You are also still adhering to this notion that Israel somehow gets a pass, that Israel gets to set what is right and appropriate treatment and that what Israel sees as fair is right and just.

?

This seems as odd as you claiming I want to see Palestinians destroyed:

So from what I've heard so far, you think the solution is for Israel to totally subjugate, cut off and destroy and then the others will be ready to come around and accept the new nation?

Perhaps you would have a better time and feel less "insulted" if you take the time to read what I actually post, and not respond to what you think I am advocating.

[bengangmo]

See, we disagree here. You think that you could get from "there" (a New Zealand inhabited entirely by Maoiris) to "here" (a New Zealand with a majority non-Maoiri population, albeit with reasonably good race realtions with Maoris) without a couple of hundred years of conflict, merely with the application of a little good-will.

That may be true in some circumstances, but I doubt very much it is was true in New Zealand, and even more so that it would be true in the Middle East.

Obviously, one must take history as it is dealt, and the lession from New Zealand is not (sadly) that one can settle one's differences without conflict, since in fact it is a history containing much conflict.

See this is the problem, take New Zealand as an object lesson, in a country where there was more than just a little good will and genuine attempts to reach a consensus solution, there were still substanial amounts of bloodshed.

Are race relations in New Zealand good today? Yes they are, not perfect by a long shot, but one hell of a lot better than the vast majority of the rest of colonised nations.

Even with goodwill and honest attempts on both sides, there was still bloodshed. Understand this.

When there is no evidence of goodwill and honest attempts what chance do you think there is for any sort of solution with Israel? Whether it be one state or 15?

And NO I don't think continuing to expand settlements and banning coriander constitute any sort of honest attempt at anything other than subjugation and decimation in the hope that they will just give up and leave so that Israel can expand further.

Mind you, neither do I think suicide bombs and mortar attacks are honest attempts either. However I don't see anyone in this thread trying to claim they are in anyway justified.

What I do see is a people trying to justify that a blockade is a great way to peace, (its a great way to win a war, but not a very good way to peace) and that the current good relations in New Zealand are only because the weaker party was subjugated.

I am not an idiot, I am able to draw a line from "the Maori were subjugated and now New Zealand has peace" to "If we can subjugate the Palestinians, Israel will have peace". Except you won't - all you will have achieved is ethnic cleansing.

[bengangmo]

:dubious:

You appear to be arguing with someone else, yet you are quoting my posts. Where do I say any of this:




These aren't your words?
"I do not think the "one state solution" is viable, because such a solution would in effect require one group to subjugate the other (and in spite of the heart-warming present-day understanding between Maoiris and White New Zealanders, yes that is what happened in the 19th century)."

Looks pretty much like a claim of subjugation to me....unless I am not reading english?

[Lumpy]

What overwhelming external threat did the EU face?The fact that economically the United States is as big as all of Europe put together, Russia is (potentially) as big as all of Europe put together, Japan just by itself is almost as big as all of Europe put together and a rapidly modernizing China in addition to the rest of the Pacific Rim could be bigger than all of Europe put together. So the threat is economic competition and the response is a limited unity based on economic interests, and even that limited unity is shaky and uncertain.

The day that everyone simply agreed to abide by a single world government would almost be the same day that everyone's interests were so peaceful and compatable that you'd hardly need a world government at all.

[bengangmo]

:dubious:

You appear to be arguing with someone else, yet you are quoting my posts. Where do I say any of this:


.

So these are not your words either?

"What "standards"? Who sets them - by theory, or by practice?"

This looks pretty much like a rejection of the "right"* of the rest of the world to set standards of behaviour to me? Except that you don't want to come right out and say it, you want to imply and insinuate so that you can claim innocence when called on it.

* yeah, it's not the correct word, but it'll do for now

[Damuri Ajashi]

Now the job is to move forward.

I agree that at this point you can't undo Israel but the stance that the status quo should be the starting point for moving forward without considering the past seems very convenient for the victors. I guess that you point might be that the victors have that privelege, its kind of the point of winning.

But pretending there was ever a politically autonomous "Palestine" is simply false.

Well Palestine has never been an autonomous state but it has been called a non-independent state.

Most countries that exist today have set their borders through various wars. It's SOP.

Most of those borders were not set as recently as 1967.

[Damuri Ajashi]

This is different than someplace where the situation has been pretty much accepted, like most of the United States.

What are you trying to say kemosabe?

[Damuri Ajashi]

It was established by the UN, but weren't all the Middle Eastern states set up as acts by "The Powers that Were" at the time? The Ottoman empire got carved up, and the Brits, French etc. decide what the new borders would be, post colonial rule. I don't see that as substantially different, and I think the Kurds would agree.

As would most of Africa. relative to Africa, the middle east is a success story.

[Malthus]

I am not an idiot, I am able to draw a line from "the Maori were subjugated and now New Zealand has peace" to "If we can subjugate the Palestinians, Israel will have peace". Except you won't - all you will have achieved is ethnic cleansing.


So, even when I say the exact opposite, you simply refuse to believe me?

Then we're done.

[bengangmo]

Most of those borders were not set as recently as 1967.

I guess also, depending upon exactly which definition of borders you are talking about, nor were they borders that have yet to be recognised (or is ratified a better word?) by the UN.

But then, I guess, who gave the UN to "right" to rule on what is the acceptable law and who should have statehood......

[bengangmo]

So, even when I say the exact opposite, you simply refuse to believe me?

Then we're done.

Well that's a nice sidestep.

So did you or didn't you claim that that only reason New Zealand has peace now is that the Maori were subjugated?

If you did claim that, what do you think the plainly evident lesson is that we should be taking from it?

[Malthus]

The fact that economically the United States is as big as all of Europe put together, Russia is (potentially) as big as all of Europe put together, Japan just by itself is almost as big as all of Europe put together and a rapidly modernizing China in addition to the rest of the Pacific Rim could be bigger than all of Europe put together. So the threat is economic competition and the response is a limited unity based on economic interests, and even that limited unity is shaky and uncertain.

The day that everyone simply agreed to abide by a single world government would almost be the same day that everyone's interests were so peaceful and compatable that you'd hardly need a world government at all.

You make a good point that the "threat" need not be a threat of external violence, but something else (in this case, economic competition). Such a threat may result in a degree of cooperation which, even if as a mere side-effect, makes actual military conflict less likely.

Similarly, I can see a genuine world government emerging from an as yet unforeseen crisis which requires such a thing to overcome. For example, a genuinely existential environmental situation. Cooperation in such matters may pave the way, indirectly, to a situation which makes violence more likely.

[Damuri Ajashi]

There is also the question of how many ancestors of the Palestinians actually owned land in the area before the state of Israel was declared.

I have had this argument with Finn. There is some insistence that land ownership is the dispositive fact in determining rights. What makes it even more unusual is that apparently only one type of ownership (ownership in fee simple) counts. Apparently communal ownership (ownership by a village or tribe) doesn't count, the inheritable 9as in you can leave this right to occupy the land to your kids) right to occupy land doesn't count, etc.

Indians did not have the same sort of notions of ownership that the guys that bought manhattan for $24 worth of beads might have had, but everyone pretty mucha grees that we took something from them when we drove them all onto reservations.

I don't see why ownership (and more specifically fee simple ownership) is so important.

[Damuri Ajashi]

To expand on this, I am given to understand that much of the pre-Balfour and pre-WWII Jewish immigration consisted of Jews immigrating, buying what land was for sale, and working it. I am not aware of any significant or systematic attempt by the Jews/Israel to evict Arabs or persecute them until well after the 1948 war had started (by neighboring Arab nations who were offended by the partition plan for political reasons, and who decided the best way to protest the UN deciding territorial borders was to blame it on the Jews and declare the intent to cause genocide).

Or, what Joel said. Essentially, one of the bigger problems with deciding who's "rightfully entitled to the land in Palestine" is bound up in the fact that in many cases the tenant-farmer Palestinians were sold out by their rich/powerhungry fellow Arabs and blamed it on the Jews they could reach instead of the absentee landlords they couldn't. Add in the fact that the current hatred of Jews by Arabs is largely a product of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem whipping up anti-Jewish sentiment as a precursor to whipping up anti-Colonialist-British sentiment.

I'm not trying to defend taht Grand Mufti's actions but if there was a large influx of Mexican immigrants, I think the Grand Mufti would have taken pretty much teh same stance against Mexican immigration.

BTW the "owned land" in palestine comprised a small portion of the land anywhere away from the Mediterranean coast or in the north.

Palestinians "owned" (frequently as a community) most of the land in every province of Palsestine.

http://domino.un.org/maps/m0094.jpg

[Zeriel]

I'm not trying to defend taht Grand Mufti's actions but if there was a large influx of Mexican immigrants, I think the Grand Mufti would have taken pretty much teh same stance against Mexican immigration.

I agree with that pretty much completely--the Jews were originally a convenient target for a dispossessed poor population to hate, it could have easily been any immigrant group that was buying land and doing well.

[Strassia]

I have had this argument with Finn. There is some insistence that land ownership is the dispositive fact in determining rights. What makes it even more unusual is that apparently only one type of ownership (ownership in fee simple) counts. Apparently communal ownership (ownership by a village or tribe) doesn't count, the inheritable 9as in you can leave this right to occupy the land to your kids) right to occupy land doesn't count, etc.

Indians did not have the same sort of notions of ownership that the guys that bought manhattan for $24 worth of beads might have had, but everyone pretty mucha grees that we took something from them when we drove them all onto reservations.

I don't see why ownership (and more specifically fee simple ownership) is so important.

The Native Americans don't understand property meme is a little overblown. The North Eastern nations understood property just fine. The problem with the sale of Manhattan was the Dutch bought the land from Indians from Long Island who were rivals of the Indians from Manhatten. It was more like me selling you my noisy neighbor's house for half market value. We both get a great deal, just my neighbor is screwed.

[Banquet Bear]

You might have noted it in your initial post, then, since it pretty well makes nonsense of your position.


...if I had said the things you were claiming I was saying, you would have read them in my post. Since you didn't read them: I didn't say them. If you want to read things into my post that is hardly my fault. So even when I say the exact opposite, do you simply refuse to believe me? And if you believe my post makes a nonsense of my position, can you explain to me what you consider my position to be?


See, we disagree here. You think that you could get from "there" (a New Zealand inhabited entirely by Maoiris) to "here" (a New Zealand with a majority non-Maoiri population, albeit with reasonably good race realtions with Maoris) without a couple of hundred years of conflict, merely with the application of a little good-will.


Are you saying you can't? If not, why not?


That may be true in some circumstances, but I doubt very much it is was true in New Zealand, and even more so that it would be true in the Middle East.


Oh, your saying you can. Well, if you think it is possible, that is a good thing. How do you go about applying it in the Middle East?


Obviously, one must take history as it is dealt, and the lession from New Zealand is not (sadly) that one can settle one's differences without conflict, since in fact it is a history containing much conflict.

It is unfortunate that this is the lesson you take from what I have said. Because as we have taken pains to point out that this isn't the lesson we have learnt. Do you think that conflict is inevitable?

[E-Sabbath]

The Native Americans don't understand property meme is a little overblown. The North Eastern nations understood property just fine. The problem with the sale of Manhattan was the Dutch bought the land from Indians from Long Island who were rivals of the Indians from Manhatten.

This is true. It's more a Plains Indian thing. Nomadic, and really, it's miles and miles of miles and miles.

Does anyone disagree with me that it _is_ a circa-WWII issue, though?