The Golan Heights and the West Bank (including East Jerusalem).
- So any country which has gained any territory by war is automatically “the belligerent” in any conflict forever after, even if the other side is clearly engaged in “unconscionable” conduct?
Or does your standard apply only to Israel?
- Do you agree that under your standard, Israel was not “the belligerent” in the Arab/Israeli conflict between 1948 and 1966?
Israel acquired all of its territory by war, including that within its 1967 borders.
The previous owners of the territory on which Israel now sits also acquired that by war - the Brits from the Ottomans, the Ottomans from the Mamluks, etc.
In fact, almost every country on the planet at some point acquired all of its territory by war, successful rebellion, etc.
Sure. But over time a consensus emerged that this is not such a great thing. Not every country can give back territory that it acquired way back when. International conventions that were not in force before have made treating new instances of territorial aggression much clearer. It’s a little late to get into the wartime expansion game.
Well the question is not whether it’s “not such a great thing.” The question is whether having done it automatically makes you “the belligerent” in every conflict forever more.
Another question is whether the same standard should be applied everywhere or whether there should be a special standard if the country in question happens to be Israel.
Perhaps. But several important modern nations were “created” or had their borders defined by violence in exactly the same era as Israel - and no-one is suggesting that they be reformatted.
Israel was created by violence in 1948. In the previous year, so was India and Pakistan - in fact the “partition” of the British Empire in India resulted in a human disaster and population displacement that far dwarfs tiny Israel.
Pakistan and India both disputed the region of Kashmir ever since and fought a territorial war over it in 1965 (roughly analogous to Israel fighting one in 1967).
In 1971, India fought and won a decisive victory over Pakistan and the entire terrirory of what had been “East Pakistan” was ceded by force and made the new state of “Bangladesh”. Again, roughtly at the same time as an Arab-Israeli war (1973).
This, despite the “consensus”.
There are numerous other cases, but the Indian subcontent example is instructive because (a) the wars happened at nearly exactly the same time as Arab-Israeli wars; and (b) the results were significantly more important in terms of numbers of people and amount of territory affected.
As far as I know, there is no significant movement to demand that all of these territorial arrangements are illegitimate and that they be reversed because of that.
Clearly, force is still a significant factor - as it always has been - in the creation and identity of states.
The Jews and the Arabs have shared the lands of the middle east peacefully *** for centuries***. As long as Jews accept their second class citizenship and pay their Jew taxes then there is no problem. The Arabs will tolerate them . It is only when the Jews get all uppity and assert for full citizenship that turmoil results.
Are you trying to use “belligerent” as a technical term here? Taking something that is not yours and refusing to let it go, much to the suffering of the previous owners, qualifies as belligerence. Everyone here gets that you think this is justified, but this doesn’t exactly represent the most progressive and aspirational thinking on the issue.
I honestly don’t see your point. Many people would agree that the partition of India was absolutely deplorable and major tensions still exist over Kashmir. Plenty of people want to reformat it badly enough that India and Pakistan point nuclear weapons at each other. Pakistani separatists have bombed the crap out of Mumbai, so there’s some people who want to reformat aggressively.
But all three peoples at least have (perhaps unresponsive) states that guarantee their claims and can advance their interests internationally. While we can certainly lament the condition of human rights in South Asia, it’s at least possible to think of people having rights that a state can honor.
The Gazans have no rights because they have no state.
Anyone who looks at the world can see that force is still significant. This conflict is still in flux and can be settled. Permitting a stateless, largely minor-aged population a state won’t magically solve their problems. But it would at least give this population the chance of having basic human rights, which they deserve as human beings regardless of the abuses of the people who claim to govern them (i.e., Hamas).
This statement is reminiscent of the Palistinian situation pre 1948 when neither the Palistinian arabs or the Palistinian jews or the Palistinian christians had a state, suffering under the British or the Turks.
Well the jews now have a state and the arabs have lots of states in the larger region. The jews now have their basic human rights, but do you think the arabs do in their countries ? Especially the jewish and christian remnants ?
You seem to be shifting ground here. I thought you were arguing that a nation acquiring territory through war is now considered illegitimate, so presumably Israel should not be allowed on that basis to gain territory from war. We said nothing whatsoever about Gazan statehood - an entirely different topic.
I merely pointed out that, if states gaining terrirory through war is now illegitimate because of this “consensus”, these south Asian nations’ existence is problematic. Presumably, for example, Bangladesh should be returned to Pakistan.
I don’t see your point, either. Minorities in some other countries have a state to appeal to. Sometimes this doesn’t go well for them and that is also deplorable. A state isn’t a cure-all, but it is necessary in this world at the moment. Just about everyone has one, even if they aren’t currently the ethnic or political majority. It was true that you needed a state in 1948 just as much as it’s true today.
Every state’s existence is problematic. The Kurds already live in states but want their own. What to do? Can we invest a supercomputer with the power to shift around state borders such that everyone is happy simultaneously? Probably not. But that doesn’t mean it is not possible to consider the interests of the people affected. At the time of the subcontinent’s growing pains, it might (and I wasn’t there so I cannot say) have been reasonable to call territorial changes “illegitimate” and to try to intervene to reverse them. Despite the possibly illegitimate origins of their state, do Bangladeshis want reunion with Pakistan? Would they be better off if their sovereign state were destroyed and their obligations shifted to Karachi?
So look at Gaza. No party thinks that this issue is settled. The Gazans don’t have a state to reverse. It is possible to take action. Gaza is a human rights catastrophe. Taking the Gazans’ interests into account, it is hard to imagine that statehood would leave them worse off than their current situation. They cannot even negotiate directly with their occupiers. They have to rely on Morsi, and right now, the only think I would rely on him for is to make himself a dictator.
Israel has very important reasons for this occupation that I think are impossible to deny or just attribute to some genocidal desire to destroy the nation of Palestine. I also don’t think that disagreeing with Israel’s reasons makes someone an anti-Semite. But no matter how good these reasons are, Israel is still causing horrendous, illegitimate damage to a large number of innocent people. That something can be justified to someone does not make it legitimate. I don’t expect Israel to back down unilaterally because they have interests of their own that need to be taken into account, but that’s another story.
No, I am using the term offered by gamerununknown. His position is that Israel is “the belligerent” in the conflict, i.e. (as I understand his position) that the conflict is solely the result of Israel acting improperly.
My position is the opposite – that the conflict is solely the result of the Arabs acting improperly. I believe – based on solid evidence – that no matter what Israel does or doesn’t do; no matter what Israel did or did not do, there would be an Arab/Israeli conflict. As long as Israel exists as a Jewish state.
Well that’s just a matter of semantics. The ultimate question is whether this is a situation where (1) there are two groups of people who just can’t get along; (2) there would be a conflict no matter what the Jews did; or (3) there would be a conflict no matter what the Arabs did.
To me, it is pretty clear that situation (2) is the most accurate description of the world. And I would go further and state that even if there were no Jews at all in the Middle East, there would still be endless bloody conflict.
Well, then it seems progressive and aspirational thinking is wrong.
Just because someone gives you something, doesn’t mean you have to live in it.
More importantly, I would counter that we should give Salt Lake City to the Jews, Liberia to the Mormons, Crete to Argentina, send freed slaves to the Falklands, and let the British have some plantations in Georgia. I’m not sure who gets the Kuril Islands, but I’m leanings towards the Kurds.
Wait. Israel isn’t exactly “occupying” Gaza. Israel famously ended its occupation of Gaza and pulled out of there years ago. There is not a single Israeli soldier or settler in Gaza.
What Israel is doing, is treating Gaza as hostile territory - by blockading it. This is because the current government of Gaza, Hamas, has declared war on Israel and refuses to make any sort of peace. All it will do is arrange various “truces” (not to be confused with a peace deal). Note that Egypt shares a border with Gaza and is blockading it, too.
How would Gaza being officially a “state” change any of this? The government would still be Hamas, would still be at permanent war with Israel, and would still refuse a peace deal. And Israel would still be blockading it.
And Hamas would continue its murderous misconduct towards Israelis and Gazans alike. And Leftists would continue to blame Israel (in whole or in part) for the consequences, encouraging more murder on the part of Hamas.
That’s Israel’s position. Israel argues that Gaza is no longer occupied, but this is by no means accepted. Wiki correctly notes that Israel controls Gaza Strip’s airspace, territorial waters and controls the movement of people or goods in or out of Gaza by air or sea.
In other words, you are asking how Israel would benefit. That’s shifting the terrain. Gazans would not be worse off if they had sovereignty, political institutions backed by legitimate use of force within the Gaza strip, international representation in the UN, a legitimate organization that Gazans themselves can make claims against for the fulfillment of their basic rights, and the international recognition necessary to make direct negotiations possible. None of these things have anything to do with whom the Gazans choose as a government. A state is a necessary precondition for all of these things. It’s a popular enough way of organizing that everyone else in the world has one.
If one simply doesn’t consider the interests of Gazans, especially those ineligible to vote, in this decision, then it’s pretty easy to come to another conclusion.
Of course they would, since it would only strengthen the hand of Hamas to pursue its goal of destroying Israel and its strategy of putting its own people in harm’s way in order to undermine Israel.
Ironically, the blockade also benefits individual Gazans since it prevents Hamas from bringing in more and bigger weapons which can be used to provoke Israel into more aggressive reactions which will harm more of the human shields.
The fact is that Hamas is committed to the destruction of Jewish Israel and is totally willing to harm its own people (as well as Israelis) in order to advance its goals. In evaluating what is good for whom, you should not ignore this fact.
Yes, that is known in technical terms as a “blockade”. Note again that this blockade is not in fact completely Israeli, as Gaza shares a land border with Egypt.
A blockade has been used since time immemorial as a tool of warfare - in the Napoleonic Wars, England blockaded Nappy’s Empire. It did not follow then that England was thereby “occupying” Nappy’s Empire.
Similarly, in the latter stages of WW2 the Allies blockaded the Nazis and controlled its airspace, too. Again, that did not equal “occupation” as the Nazis had to be defeated on the ground.
Huh? How do you figure that? I’m saying it would make no difference to what you are complaining about (the blockade). Not that Israel would not benefit. Rather, Gaza would not benefit, at least in this manner.
Interestingly, for years Hamas was against Palestinian statehood.
As for myself, I think it makes sense to create two states (Gaza and the WB). A single unitary Palestinian state makes no sense, as the two parts are ruled by mutually antagonustic factions.
Under international law, a belligerent is any entity engaged in war. Occupation is a military tactic, so any state occupying territory is a belligerent. That said, Palestine could be a belligerent party too. I should have been more cautious in using a legal term of art.
That depends. Israel responded to a blockade with invasion during the Suez Canal Crisis. Were both parties belligerents in that situation?
I think there are structural differences. Both territories were under British rule. However, the Indian Independence Act was arrived at after consensus from the Hindu majority, the Sikhs and the Muslims. The creation of Israel was not acceded to by the Arab states, nor the early Palestinian nationalists.
Another structural difference: Operational Searchlight was instituted against Bengali nationals (which had historically been a region independent of Pakistan) and the territory is now autonomous, not ruled by India (which would be the analogy). So no acquisition of territory by war by a state.
No, because no state gained a territory by war. A state was created by war. As for consensus, it’s merely international law: see the preamble to the United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 for instance.
Imposing a blockade is certainly an act of war. However, in the case of Gaza and Israel, there already exists a state of war, as Hamas refuses to make peace.
I disagree that such a “structural difference” makes, or should make, any actual difference in the legitimacy of the state created thereby. Otherwise, you are in effect rewarding rejectionism.
In point of fact, the borders of the states were not agreed, and have remained controversial (to say the least) to today.
How is this “structurally different” from the creation of Israel by war … ?
Yes, as Israel, the state, was created by war. Yet for some reason a question has been raised about its legitimacy, and not the legitimacy of Bangladesh.
“International law” is somewhat of a misnomer when it comes to matters of war and peace. There exists no sovereign to enforce it, save to the extent the SC cooperates to do so. This results with rights without remedies, which would be inadvisable to unilaterally enforce.
Note the aspirational nature of the preamble:
You have focused on the first half of the clause. However, Israelis tend to focus on the second half - the part about a lasting peace. In short, the “deal” is that Israel would give up its gains in '67 in return for a peace deal - which expectation was met with the famous “three nos” - “no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it.”
What sense would it make to demand Israel hand back its gains from '67 forthwith because of this “international law”, when the organs of the UN so signally failed to prevent the '67 War from happening in the first place (perhaps you recall that the UN had “preacekeeping forces” in the Sinai and when Egypt ordered them to leave - they did) and were equally helpless to enforce the Arabs to the bargaining table thereafter?