Lol, quit weaseling. When you asserted that Israel is “the belligerent,” you obviously were not saying that Israel was engaged in war. Obviously Israel is engaged in war. Duh.
I guess you are abandoning your ridiculous claim that Israel is the aggressor and the Arabs are simply trying to defend themselves as best they can.
You should have been more cautious in making ridiculous claims.
??? I thought Israel was self-declared as a state, and confirmed in its existence by the U.N. The war followed, to try to destroy Israel, but the war wasn’t what created it. The war (and subsequent wars) certainly altered its boundaries, but didn’t create the state.
Neither the simple declaration of statehood, not the UN’s seal of approval, created the Israeli state. It was created by the fact that it won the war in 1948.
Had it lost, there would not now be an Israeli state.
Moreover, had it not been fought, the Israeli state would have looked much different. The “partition plan” approved by the UN looked nothing like the “pre-1967” borders of Israel.
In short, in every way that counts, Israel was in fact a creation of the War of 1948. In as much as any country is ever a product of war.
Now I suppose one could take the position that wars simply do not create countries. In which case, of course, Bangladesh was not created by war, either.
Israel did not fight the war in 1948 ?
???
Well you said Israel did not exist until the war was over/won.
I see it the same way that The Flying Dutchman does: if Israel didn’t exist until after the war (the war that created it) then how could it have been a participant in that war?
I certainly agree that, if the war had gone otherwise, Israel might have been very, very short-lived. Biafra and all that. But it was “created” by the declaration and U.N. recognition. It was simply preserved by the outcome of the war.
Anyway…minor semantical dissent.
(Since this is the Pit, I’ll add “fuckety fuck fuck” just for form’s sake.)
Nor, for all practical purposes, did it. The war was fought at first by the organization known as the Haganah, which had in point of fact existed since around 1920 or so. Only a couple of weeks after the declaration of independance was the Haganah re-named the “Israeli Defence Forces”.
Well, first of all, the war started in earnest in November 1947, six months before the state was declared. It was a civil war and not an invasion, but Israel still considers it part of its War of Independence.
Second of all, the U.N. never confirmed the existence of Israel. It approved the Partition Plan and ordered the end of the British Mandate, but past that its first official recognition of Israel was when it accepted as a member in 1949. You could say, then, that Israel was founded in 1949, if by the same logic you accept that the United States was founded in 1945.
Third of all, if Israel didn’t fight in its war of independence, then neither did the United States in 1776.
The war was initially fought by the Haganah on behalf of the Yishuv. Merely calling something a state does not make it a state in fact. What creates a state is an entity having the power to control its territory and to engage in relations with other states.
This is not a mere quibble, it is central to the definition of what a “state” is. Under Declarative Theory a significant aspect of statehood is the fact that a state has a defined territory which it in fact controls … mere self-declaration is not sufficient and neither is international recognition.
This is contrasted with the “constitutive theory of statehood” under which international recognition alone is sufficient … but IMO the Declarative Theory simply makes more sense. A state exists even if others refuse to recognize that fact.
Well, that helps a little, but still doesn’t do the trick.
But when did the U.S. come into existence? July 4th, 1776? Then it existed prior to the Revolutionary War. (One could say the war began upon the instant of the Declaration.) The war didn’t “create” the U.S., but simply ensured that it was not directly dismantled.
Tricky… How many others? If no one recognizes it? If no one sends ambassadors, no one receives their ambassadors, no one marks it on their maps, etc.? Does Biafra (or Sealand) exist, even if no one recognizes that fact? Does South Viet Nam exist? Did Latvia exist (as a state) in 1965? I would say there has to be some “tipping point” where consensus and functionality merge to define reality.
By this definition, Gaza is a (the only?) Palestinian ‘state’, governed de facto by Hamas. And it will continue to be a de facto ‘state’ until, and unless, Israel (or someone else) goes back in, definitively defeats Hamas, and governs the damned place. Something Israel has never done. Of course, Hamas has never bothered with the ‘govern’ bit, either, so there’s that.
Does the Conch Republic exist? Their passports have been accepted by several governments for international, and even Diplomatic travel. It’s not a very clear-cut distinction. Especially since that was intended as a joke, but it’s been taken seriously.
Effective control of your supposed ‘state’s’ territory. You’re a ‘state’ if you exercise effective control over it, and no pre-existing state can (or will bother, in the case of Sealand) effectively contest that control. By that definition, Hamas has a de facto ‘state’ in Gaza. And, due to their lack of interest in actually governing it, rather than merely using it as a base from which to attack Israel, is responsible for the fact that it’s a miserable, unlivable hell-hole.
[sub]I blame Bushrak Obamney. And Jimmy Netanarafat probably has something to do with it, too…[/sub]
I’d question the veracity of the claim that the Conch Republic’s passports have been accepted by even one government. A mistake made by a border guard does not constitute diplomatic recognition of a state. But I’m sure you already know that.
By the way, the US does not have diplomatic relations with North Korea; however, nobody seriously asserts that North Korea is not a state, a failed one but a state nevertheless.
p.s. AFAIK, the Conch Republic passports are merely souvenirs. In other words, they’re issued as a joke.
The blockade was initiated when Hamas acceded to power, that’s true, but according to the UN, Gaza remained an occupied territory. Occupation is an equally an act of war.
In point of fact, the borders of the states were not agreed, and have remained controversial (to say the least) to today.
[/quote]
There were representatives of all parties which had a historical claim on the territory though. If a state is created unilaterally by an imperial power with the dissent of large numbers of its citizens, surely that damages its legitimacy? That’s the source of contention for Kashmir, for instance.
There’s a difference between a revolutionary or civil war to achieve emancipation or autonomy for a group that has no political representation under their state and a war of conquest where a state wishes to acquire more territory.
Well, “aggression” is a legal term too pertaining to a war waged without a claim to self-defence. In which case, I don’t think Palestine can be claimed to be an aggressor given it is acting to protect its borders.
How about “consequence of war”?
The partition plan for Palestine was a UN initiative, wasn’t it?
How about “defensive war”?
You could. Most people, however, would say that it started at Lexington and Concord.
Perhaps, but so what? Please respond to the point I am actually making as opposed to the point you wish or imagine I had made.
In the Arab/Israeli conflict, it does not matter what the Jews do – there will be a conflict so long as there is a Jewish state in the area. Israel could withdraw from Golan and the West Bank tomorrow and there would still be a conflict (in fact the conflict would intensify) just like there was intense conflict before there was a single Israeli soldier in those areas.
I’m not sure what you mean by “Palestine,” but let me ask you this:
Before 1967, what exactly were the Arabs doing to “protect their borders”?
Exactly what borders are Hamas trying to protect with their rocket attacks on Israel?
Do you believe Hamas when it states its goal is to destroy Israel? Or do you think Hamas is lying and it actually just wants to protect borders?
If that’s your position, then surely in the case of Israel the “tipping point” was after the War of 1948, not before, as only after 1948 did it have “functionality” as well as “consensus”.
Then the UN is incorrect, in that it is using some technical meaning of “occupation” that does not accord with reality, given that blockade does not generally equal occupation - just as beseiging a city is not the same thing as capturing it (although both are acts of war).
The partition plan was not a “unilateral act by an imperial power”, but rather a UN plan. Britian washed its hands of the place.
The 1948 War was hardly a “war of conquest” by the Israelis, given that it was they who accepted the UN partition plan and were invaded by their neighbours.
How is Hamas “protecting its borders” in the current fracas? As noted, there is no threat by Israel to take over Gaza (other than in retaliation) - it unilaterally pulled out of Gaza in 2005, and there are no plans to return.