Now, Israel has every right to defend its land and its people, and this includes a reasonable right to overtake land, as any nation would, they feel will provide a "buffer-zone" for defenses. I'm not against Israel, and that's not what I'm trying to get at in this blog post. The way things seem to work over there though seems to be that the Palestinian Authority cannot even announce plans to do anything without fear of bombs raining through the city skies. Imagine if that happened here. In this, it seems that the Palestinian Authority never gets around to wielding the same amount of power over their territory, and to act for the common good of all its people, as other nation-states do, as it must always be on high alert of Israeli response. The Palestinian Authority has to divert much of its resources into defensive (and yes, unfortunately some offensive) spending, that it slowly erodes the capacity to govern effectively for all its citizens throughout the territory
And how can the Palestinians ever get around to having any sort of economic power when much of the western world does not even fully recognize its statehood?
Palestine should become a sovereign nation-state, and I hope this is eventually what solution becomes of the peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority in the upcoming talks. It just doesn't make sense to have one side be denied its right to join the world on the level of nation-statehood, because it lacks resources to assert its authority over its territory due to fear, and it doesn't make sense for the fighting to continue, when it can be solved with a solution both sides can agree on (many Israelis will tell you they would love to have a Palestinian state, so it can finally be accountable).
I'll leave you with a quote from Franklin Roosevelt:
The fourth is freedom from fear - which, when translated into world terms, means a world wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical agression against any neighbor - anywhere in the world.
We know from the first few chapters of Opello and Rosow that sovereignty hasn't always been territorial. The location of borders between Israel and the Palestinian territories is one of the key sticking points in the Mideast peace talks (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2010/09/01/ST2010090106279.html?sid=ST2010090106279). Do you think it would be possible to grant the Palestinian Authority non-territorial sovereignty? That is, could the international community recognize a sovereign relationship between the leader of the Palestinian authority and his citizens, where this relationship was one between people rather than based on where people lived (perhaps via some sort of social contract)? Or given the global dominance of territorial sovereignty today, is territory a necessary condition of sovereignty?
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting that Israeli's would be for the Palestinian state because they could be held more accountable by the world community. I had not thought of this before and it makes sense that this would be the case. I would agree that a Palestinian state would provide much more stability for the people that currenlty live in such horrible conditions. However, I do believe that given the current world order that this will not and should not happen until they can prove to the world community that they can efficiently and ethically run a stable economy and political system. It is no longer enough for a group to simply have a common purpose to unite as a nation. Because we live in a globalized world you need the approval of others and violence will not get it. Without approval, a country can't really function because it will be excluded from world affairs which includes economic opportunities. Don't get me wrong though. Israel must learn to become more tolerant as well. Only once the hate mongering on both sides ends, can real progress be made.
ReplyDeleteErin: I think that a people-based sovereignty certainly is an interesting idea, but for now, in the age of nations who are still reluctant or have acquiesced to globalization, the notion of a sovereignty that doesn't include some form of territorial boundaries seems infeasible. Nationalism, for now, seems to be the dominating organizing principle among people. I think if the US or the UN recognizes the Palestinian Authority as a sovereign nation based on the people who have allegiance to their government, it sets a dangerous precedent for future situations, such as the Kurds in eastern Turkey and northern Iraq, Chechens in Russia, and even Taiwan. In a world where there are still contentious relations between the US and Turkey, Russia, and China, it doesn't make sense for the US to take such a chance any time soon. A two-state solution is what the US wants, the Israelis prefer, and the Palestinians will accept.
ReplyDeleteRowland: I do think that a Palestinian state would be best for all those involved. The Israelis will finally be able to call out the Palestinians should they cause any problems, as they will be a responsible party as a state, rather than blaming a certain group of people. Also, if the Palestinians were to trust the US with brokering a deal with the Israelis, it would be likely the Palestinians woud seek to form a democracy, perhaps, perhaps forming a stable government, and preventing future large conflicts between Israel and Palestine. As the world becomes more globalized, it seems less and less likely that Israel and Palestine will continue to fight one another on such a large scale if they were both sovereign states, even if that area will be nationalism's last stand in the world, one day.