Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: richardbt who wrote (54431)	10/24/2002 4:12:24 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

This idea, that homogeneity of ethnicity, language and culture are somehow not only badges of statehood but pre-requisites to it is a curiously American one. Interesting answer Richard.. Especially since, IMO, I look at American "nationality" as consisting of Ideals and values, rather than "blood and soil" (which has often caused me to question the propriety of granting automatic citizenship to anyone born in the US, even if the parents are non-citizens). The idea also ignores the self-evident fact that hardly any, in fact I would go so far as to say NO, nation in the world has an ethnically or culturally homogenous population. And people who argue that states should be like this are, rightly, branded racist. Indeed.. Which also brings to question why the UN would seek to create and establish a racist state, in which only "Palestinians" could reside there. Why couldn't Jewish settlers, if they so chose, renounce their Israeli citizenship and become Palestinian citizens?? There doesn't seem to be any intent by Arafat, or the PA, to create such a mechanism. To be a state 'all' you need is population, defined territory, government and capacity to enter into relations with other states (Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States 1933 Art. 1) Nice find!! Technically, with the creation of the Palestinian Authority, all of those conditions were met. So for the PA to claim additional land to expand their state, without providing guarantees of security for Israel, or anyone else for that matter. Does Israel have some kind of obligation to permit the creation of a new hostile state from territory that was rightfully occupied as a "spoil of war"?? Will Palestine become merely a proxy (as seems evident from captured PA documents) for other states to continue their conflict with Israel?? All difficult questions which could be readily allayed by a renunciation of violence on the part of the PA, as well as aggressive security measures against militant groups. If they pose no threat to Israel, how can any Israeli government withstand the international pressure to grant the PA their territorial demands?? But on a larger scale doesn't that definition of state beg the question of the process that a group of people must go through in order to achieve those conditions?? Can any group justifiably petition the UN in order to become a state, even if the territory they claim lies within the soveriegnty of another state?? Can the UN compel a state to act in a manner contrary to its security interests?? I think not. And were I an Israeli, I wouldn't permit it (just as I won't permit the UN to dictate what constitutes the security interests of the US). And it calls into question whether the creation of a Palestinian state will unleash political forces that perceive violence is the best approach to "getting their way"... including suicide bombings, attacks against civilian targets of no military value. Furthermore, such a definition essentially states that if a group of individuals are able to exert sufficient political and military power in order to define, defend, and govern a geographical territory, then they are automatically a state.. So what's to stop Jewish settlers from militarily occupying and governing the West Bank (not Israelis, but just Jews or anyone else for that matter)? What if a bunch of Ghurkas (being ferocious warriors) came and settled in the West Bank, and were able to govern that region.. Should they be called a state?? But we know that's this is not how such political status is granted. Most nations don't recognize statehood unless they grant diplomatic relations. So the Palestinians have ALREADY been able to carry on diplomatic relations. Thus, rhetorically speaking, they are ALREADY a state. Now the issue is how much additional land they can obtain through either negotiations, or violence. They obviously cannot win through violence, as has been recently shown, so the only path is through negotiations. But some are claiming that Israel is trying to "divide" the Palestinians and set them against one another.. Well, so be it... That's not the Israelis problem is it?? Palestine, being a state, is engaging in hostile activities against another state. They might be "claiming" that the entire West Bank and Gaza belong to them, but that's not how the official borders currently are drawn for the PA. And any attempt to violently usurp control over these territories open them up to violent state on state retaliation. I still say peaceful non-aggression is the only path to a viable Palestinian statehood. And it should not be permitted to be a state that is even more racist than what is alleged against Israel (despite 20% of Israel's citizens being non-Jews).. I'm just not too keen on granting further territory to Palestine until they show they can be a moderate and peaceful nation/state. Hawk

To: richardbt who wrote (54431)	10/24/2002 4:40:14 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 281500

Actually, it is not American at all, but European. That is why Turks who have lived in Germany for half a century cannot easily become citizens, while America is historically the foremost immigration destination. Wilson was enamored of the idea of self- determination, which is different, though it may result in homogeneity. Unfortunately, that vied with the idea of territorial integrity, and therefore exacerbated problems in Europe. For example, Ulster voted to stay in the UK, and was allowed to (self- determination), but it harmed the territorial integrity of Ireland, and provided a running sore spot. Czechoslovakia was allowed to keep the Sudetenland, because it was its primary industrial region, but then Hitler came along and demanded its annexation, given its primarily German population. Self- determination again, only it left Czechoslovakia practically defenseless, and made its eventual annexation (oops, not so interested in self- determination after all, Herr Hitler?) inevitable. Anyway, the idea of the Volk was not peculiarly German, but was a theme of romantic nationalism, partially derived from Rousseau, who envisioned a People so bound together in feeling that they largely decided by consensus, and, in fact, a leader would know instinctively what was good for his People.......Il Duce, Der Fuehrer, and so forth.....