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?
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.
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?
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.
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’.
…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.
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.
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:
Note that the effect of the treaty was not to help the Maori at initially:
Is this the “solution” you want for the Palestinians? If I were a Palestinain, it wouldn’t be for me.
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.
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,.