Andrew Sullivan: US should institute a 2 state solution by force

[DGuller]

You do know that the Jewish women in Israel breed at a rate of 2.88 children per woman, you know, almost twice that of Quebec.  That is ridiculously high for a country with western style life expectancy.  How the Palestinians will manage to outbreed that 'before long' boggles the mind.

That's another thing.  The Israelis that breed are ultra-religious, and are not exactly caught up on the whole western lifestyle thing.  I wonder what will happen to Israel when those Israelis outbreed the secular Israelis (whose demographics are very much European).

[Malthus]

Unless I'm mistaken, that is not entirely the case. It is true that the Brits held them under Mandate, but they were arguably parts of Egypt and Jordan, respecively, after the Mandate ended.

Certainly the Jordanians and Egyptians argued this, but their assertions of sovereignty were just that, and their legal fictions that the peoples of these lands were forming governments to ask for Jordanian and Egyptian rule are not credible (and are no longer maintained).

Clearly there was no actual democratic ratification worthy of the name - but then, neither countries were democracies in the first place. Their ownership of and sovereignty over these two bits of land was about as legitimate as their sovereignty over the main bits of Egypt and Jordan. Though it pissed off other countries, those other countries were in no position to dispute their ownership, and so they had sovereignty de facto if not necessarily de jure (though in the latter case it is arguable particularly in regards to Jordan, whose ownership was in fact widely recognized).

[The Minsky Moment]

Unless I'm mistaken, that is not entirely the case. It is true that the Brits held them under Mandate, but they were arguably parts of Egypt and Jordan, respecively, after the Mandate ended.

Certainly the Jordanians and Egyptians argued this, but their assertions of sovereignty were just that, and their legal fictions that the peoples of these lands were forming governments to ask for Jordanian and Egyptian rule are not credible (and are no longer maintained).

Their assertions of sovereignty where pretty credible because they were backed by lots of guys in uniforms with guns, and no one else was going to scruple about the disappearance of another "state" that had never come into existence in the first place.  The assertions are no longer maintained only because the former asserters no longer have any interest in doing so, and in fact have the contrary interest,

[grumbler]

Clearly there was no actual democratic ratification worthy of the name - but then, neither countries were democracies in the first place. Their ownership of and sovereignty over these two bits of land was about as legitimate as their sovereignty over the main bits of Egypt and Jordan.

Are you actually abandoning the concept of legitimacy, or simply saying that no non-democratic regime can be legitimate?  I have never seen anyone take a position this strongly against the legitimacy of the Egyptian and Jordanian governments before.

Though it pissed off other countries, those other countries were in no position to dispute their ownership, and so they had sovereignty de facto if not necessarily de jure (though in the latter case it is arguable particularly in regards to Jordan, whose ownership was in fact widely recognized).

Yiou are shifting goal posts here.  I am saying "formal ownership" and y6ou are saying "de facto sovereignty."  There have been many examples of de facto sovereignty that didn't translate into formal ownership - the Falkland Islands from April to May 1982 spring to mind.

[grumbler]

Their assertions of sovereignty where pretty credible because they were backed by lots of guys in uniforms with guns, and no one else was going to scruple about the disappearance of another "state" that had never come into existence in the first place.  The assertions are no longer maintained only because the former asserters no longer have any interest in doing so, and in fact have the contrary interest,

I am not sure what this has to do with anything, though.  The ability to control an area by force does not make that area formally part of one's own country.  AFAICT, only the UK recognized Jordanian sovereignty over the West Bank.

Not that this matters greatly, as even Jordan has acknowledged my point.

[Malthus]

Clearly there was no actual democratic ratification worthy of the name - but then, neither countries were democracies in the first place. Their ownership of and sovereignty over these two bits of land was about as legitimate as their sovereignty over the main bits of Egypt and Jordan.

Are you actually abandoning the concept of legitimacy, or simply saying that no non-democratic regime can be legitimate?  I have never seen anyone take a position this strongly against the legitimacy of the Egyptian and Jordanian governments before.

Perhaps this could be made easier if you told *us* what you consider a proper assumption of sovereignty.

To my mind, if you are the head of a state and have ownership of a piece of land, are able to defend it against all comers, declare yourself the sovereign of it, and that sovereignty is not successfully contested by others - then you own it. Doesn't matter if you are a democracy, dictatorship, or what.

Whether that ownership is morally correct or not is of course another story.

Yiou are shifting goal posts here.  I am saying "formal ownership" and y6ou are saying "de facto sovereignty."  There have been many examples of de facto sovereignty that didn't translate into formal ownership - the Falkland Islands from April to May 1982 spring to mind.

What "formalities" are you insisting on? The Jordanians for example quite formally annexed the WB. There was no-one to dispute this and the former "owners" - the British - recognized this annexation as valid. 

The example of the Argentinians and the Falklands is a good one for the discussion - they unsuccessfully disputed the UK's sovereignty over those islands.

[Grallon]

Personally, I think there is nothing more hilarious than ethnic slurs. 

Now, about those folks in Quebec ...

As I said - the 'stiff necked' comment is from the horse's mouth as quoted in the bible (I think it was after the golden veal bit - my bible lore is rusty).  And it is exact that israelis and palestinians are ethnically similar.  Ha!  For all we know they're jews converted centuries ago. 




G.

[grumbler]

Perhaps this could be made easier if you told *us* what you consider a proper assumption of sovereignty.   

I was under the impression that the concept of legitimacy under international law was pretty well-known.  Sorry, but I have neither the time nor the interest in going into what it means, though, so I will withdraw my observations.

[Malthus]

Perhaps this could be made easier if you told *us* what you consider a proper assumption of sovereignty.   

I was under the impression that the concept of legitimacy under international law was pretty well-known.  Sorry, but I have neither the time nor the interest in going into what it means, though, so I will withdraw my observations.

It's just about one of the most unclear concepts around.

The problem with "international law" is of course that, when it comes to 'sovereignty', there exists no 'sovereign' power with the ability to enforce it; if there did, there would be no need to examine the issue of how 'sovereignty' is created in the first place: ownership of a territory would simply be mandated by some sort of world court (presumably following some sort of interest balancing and democratic procedures) backed up by the military might of the world-sovereign.

As it is, national 'sovereignty' both de facto and de jure more resembles the dark ages notion of sovereignty in Scandinavia: you collect a bunch of your friends, all armed, go to the local Thing, get up on a shield, and announce that you are king and you are going to tax everyone. If you survive, you *are* king. 

The UN currently hides this reality behind a fig leaf of formalism and gives the appearance of being a world-sovereign, but that's basically what it amounts to. When the King of Jordan announces he's also King of the West Bank, and his soldiers patrol the place, and no countries with sufficient power to force him out object - why, he's king of the West Bank. It helps if the power that formerly owned the place doesn't object: see "acquisition of sovereignty by prescription" and "acquisition of soverienty by cession".

[Cecil]

Perhaps this could be made easier if you told *us* what you consider a proper assumption of sovereignty.   

I was under the impression that the concept of legitimacy under international law was pretty well-known.  Sorry, but I have neither the time nor the interest in going into what it means, though, so I will withdraw my observations.

It's just about one of the most unclear concepts around.

The problem with "international law" is of course that, when it comes to 'sovereignty', there exists no 'sovereign' power with the ability to enforce it; if there did, there would be no need to examine the issue of how 'sovereignty' is created in the first place: ownership of a territory would simply be mandated by some sort of world court (presumably following some sort of interest balancing and democratic procedures) backed up by the military might of the world-sovereign.

As it is, national 'sovereignty' both de facto and de jure more resembles the dark ages notion of sovereignty in Scandinavia: you collect a bunch of your friends, all armed, go to the local Thing, get up on a shield, and announce that you are king and you are going to tax everyone. If you survive, you *are* king. 

The UN currently hides this reality behind a fig leaf of formalism and gives the appearance of being a world-sovereign, but that's basically what it amounts to. When the King of Jordan announces he's also King of the West Bank, and his soldiers patrol the place, and no countries with sufficient power to force him out object - why, he's king of the West Bank. It helps if the power that formerly owned the place doesn't object: see "acquisition of sovereignty by prescription" and "acquisition of soverienty by cession".

Not a shield. Big rocks.

[Malthus]

Personally, I think there is nothing more hilarious than ethnic slurs. 

Now, about those folks in Quebec ...

As I said - the 'stiff necked' comment is from the horse's mouth as quoted in the bible (I think it was after the golden veal bit - my bible lore is rusty).  And it is exact that israelis and palestinians are ethnically similar.  Ha!  For all we know they're jews converted centuries ago. 




G.

hey Grallon, check this out. You can buy a copy. 

http://www.georgetownbookshop.com/georgetown/display2.asp?id=34

[Sheilbh]

Summary: in both cases, it is the fall-out of the aborted UN partition plan. The notional existence of a Palestinian state was given the nod, but only in the most prefunctory of manners, and that soon abandoned; Jordan formally annexed the WB and the king of one declared himself the king of another (an annexation acceded to by the UK); Egypt maintained the legal fiction of a "Palestinan" government until it was abolished by Nasser.

Well the problem with the UN plan was that the only Palestinian leader, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, would have nothing to do with it.  He refused to accept it at all.  King Abdullah wanted all of Palestine (indeed he wanted the Jews to accept an autonomous Jewish canton within a Kingdom of Transjordania) but he also claimed Syria.  For him it was because Arab 'nations' didn't exist, only an Arab nation did and claiming Palestine and Syria was his first step to the reconquest of the Arabian peninsula and replacing the Saudis with the Hashemites.

I don't know about Egypt and Gaza so I can't comment.

Their ownership of and sovereignty over these two bits of land was about as legitimate as their sovereignty over the main bits of Egypt and Jordan. Though it pissed off other countries, those other countries were in no position to dispute their ownership, and so they had sovereignty de facto if not necessarily de jure (though in the latter case it is arguable particularly in regards to Jordan, whose ownership was in fact widely recognized).

Surely they are the sovereign governments of Jordan and Egypt because they were recognised by most nations (all nations I imagine) as being the sovereign government.  So if no-one recognised their conquest of the West Bank or Gaza while their ownership of that territory may not be disputed I don't think their sovereignty necessarily would be.

To use a modern example Morocco may have ownership of Western Sahara but I'm not sure that they're recognised as the legitimate state of Western Sahara.

[dps]

The Jordanians for example quite formally annexed the WB. There was no-one to dispute this and the former "owners" - the British - recognized this annexation as valid. 

Yeah, but the status of Gaza was a lot hazier.  AFAIK, Egypt never formally claimed Gaza as part of Egypt, nor was it administered as such, even after Nassar did away with the nominal Palestinian government.

[Malthus]

Well the problem with the UN plan was that the only Palestinian leader, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, would have nothing to do with it.  He refused to accept it at all.  King Abdullah wanted all of Palestine (indeed he wanted the Jews to accept an autonomous Jewish canton within a Kingdom of Transjordania) but he also claimed Syria.  For him it was because Arab 'nations' didn't exist, only an Arab nation did and claiming Palestine and Syria was his first step to the reconquest of the Arabian peninsula and replacing the Saudis with the Hashemites.

I don't know about Egypt and Gaza so I can't comment.

That's interesting, but merely supports to point: the WB was claimed by Jordan.

Surely they are the sovereign governments of Jordan and Egypt because they were recognised by most nations (all nations I imagine) as being the sovereign government.  So if no-one recognised their conquest of the West Bank or Gaza while their ownership of that territory may not be disputed I don't think their sovereignty necessarily would be.

To use a modern example Morocco may have ownership of Western Sahara but I'm not sure that they're recognised as the legitimate state of Western Sahara.

Recognition by other nations is an indicia of sovereignty, but not the only one. Fact is that de facto sovereignty very quickly becomes de jure where other nations are in no position to contest it, no matter how they happen to feel about it (see Tibet).

In the case of Jordan, the previous owners - the Brits - were one of the few nations that officially recognized Jordan's sovereignty. As they were the previous "owners" of the territory in issue, their recognition carried considerable weight; see "soverignty by cession", the example of Hong Kong, etc.

Moreover, those territories were not "won" in battle against their inhabitants, but against the nacient state of Israel. There was no "state of Palistine" at the time, as even their own leaders refused to countenance the creation of the same. 

[Sheilbh]

That's interesting, but merely supports to point: the WB was claimed by Jordan.

In all fairness Abdullah claimed the entire Arab world

Recognition by other nations is an indicia of sovereignty, but not the only one. Fact is that de facto sovereignty very quickly becomes de jure where other nations are in no position to contest it, no matter how they happen to feel about it (see Tibet).

I didn't realise there was ever much of a debate about recognising the Chinese conquest of Tibet, once the decision was made to recognise the PRC over the ROC.  But I'd still argue that international recognition is the single most important factor.  I think the lack of it was a huge part of what denied Indonesia legitimacy in Timor-Leste, for example, and, as I mentioned earlier, what causes problems for the Moroccans in Western Sahara.