Just finished this book last night - highly recommend it for all to read. Source: What We Say Goes: Conversations on U.S. Power in a Changing World, by Noam Chomsky (Questions by David Barsamian) Q: The phrase "right to exist" is used constantly. When did that become part of the conversation? A: I've never seen a detailed study of it, but my strong impression is that the concept of Israel's right to exist was either invented or at least reached prominence in the mid-1970s, probably as a reaction to the fact that the major Arab states, with the backing of the PLO, had accepted Israel's right to exist within recognized and secure borders. Q: That means the 1949 UN boundaries? A: Yes, the recognized international border. The Arabs recognized the right of every state in the region to exist, including Israel, within secure and recognized borders. That included, by 1976, a Palestinian state in the occupied territories. Actually, this came to the United Nations in January 1976 in a resolution advanced by the major Arab states, the so-called confrontation states of Syria, Jordan, and Egypt, with the backing of the PLO and others. The United States vetoed the resolution, so it's out of history. But the United States realized at the time, I presume, that they were going to have to set the barriers higher if they wanted to prevent a diplomatic settlement. It wouldn't do just to keep to the right to exist within secure and recognized borders. You have to prevent diplomacy. That's when the concept "right to exist" began to appear prominently. To demand that the Palestinians, or Arabs, or for that matter anyone, accept Israel's right to exist is to grant Israel something that no state in the international system has. No state is granted a right to exist. They're recognized, but not granted the right to exist. In the case of Israel, that would require Palestinians to recognize the legitimacy of their expulsion - not just the fact but its legitimacy. It's as if Mexico were required to accept the right of the United States to exist on half of Mexico, gained by conquest. Mexicans don't accept that, nor should they. Almost every border in the world is the result of conquest. The borders are recognized, but nobody goes on to demand that the legitimacy be recognized, especially by a population that was driven out.
It is a direct result of 60 years of calling for a Muslim/Palestinian state from the River to the Sea. It isn't Israelis just looking to F with the Palestinians for fun. They aren't going to sign a peace deal with someone who maintains a goal of eliminating them from the face of the Earth. If they hadn't been talking about destroying the state for the last half-century plus, they wouldn't have to disavow that goal. It would be most analogous to the declarations which were required of Hitler in exchange for the Munich Agreement, requiring that Hitler recognize the right for a Czech state and a Polish state to exist (a promise which, of course, he later ignored).
Uh, maybe I have this wrong, but Mexico and the States have diplomatic relations, have signed countless treaties, have even adjusted their borders, tinkered with water rights, etc.. Mr. Chomsky might want to chew on a few facts before regurgitating his thoughts on the subject.
That is what Chomsky is saying. Mexicans reserve the right to negotiate borders, and not blindly accept the U.S. right to exist on what they believe to be their territory. At least that's the way I read it.
Does the Mexican constitution talk about eliminating the United States? It seems to me the Mexicans have ever denied the right of the USA to exist, so affirming it doesn't seem necessary.
So, are you agreeing with me, agreeing with Mr. Chomsky, or have no opinion? What is "blind" about accepting international borders, which is what the two countries have been doing for quite some time? The only point I understand is that Chomsky is reaching for a point that's out of reach, due to reality.
But it's always Israel that breaks the peace "truce" with the Palestinians first. Of course the Palestinians are going to retaliate, but they're not the ones starting the aggression.
"Almost every border in the world is the result of conquest. The borders are recognized, but nobody goes on to demand that the legitimacy be recognized, especially by a population that was driven out."
That isn't what I see at all. I see that the Palestinains and all their Arab friends have done everything possible since the inception of the state of Israel to eliminate it from the face of the earth. Repeatedly. The only thing that stopped wars essentially every 5 years to destroy the country was the creation of a threat of nuclear retaliation. BTW, just checked out The Treaty of Velasco and it does specifically mention recognizing the existence of Texas.
And you seriously believe that's the situation existing between Mexico and the United States today? I apologize in advance if you were merely quoting Chomsky.
I think what Chomsky is trying to say is that you can't demand the legitimacy to be recognized (with emphasis on demand and legitimacy). I don't think he's saying that Mexico can just come out and say that the US Southwest is theirs again (i.e. the borders are now recognized). The same way Palestinians can't just reclaim "Israeli land" as their own today. This would of course take negotiation.
You're not reading what he said correctly. He said countries have a right to exist *within internationally recognized boundaries*, and that no country has ever simply been given a general right to exist. With the Mexico example, he's saying the US couldn't just claim to own half of Mexico and have Mexico forced to accept that - instead, they have internationally agreed to borders. He also claims that the entire Arab world agreed to state that Israel had a right to exist under internationally recognized borders, but that the US vetoed that in the UN in favor of a more general right to exist. I have no idea the validity of that or the US reasoning for the veto (there is probably more to it than what he's stated).
That's your BS view of it. The fact is that Zionists plotted to create a state on land that was already settled, lobbied countries to help them, and finally succeeded in pushing Arabs and Muslims out by having the UN declare partitions that the Palestinians never agreed to. The whole thing is a sham.
I think everyone who has posted in this thread thus far should read this book and report back when finished.
At this point, I find this stuff to be so much more semantics than anywhere related to the reality on the ground. Both Israelis and Arabs have tied this whole issue as a one of pride and political consequence rather than actually helping people who need it. The fact is, the land is so small and it's all more symbolic than anything else. I think the international community needs to come together and state what the end solution is. And I think it's all pretty obvious what it has to be. I think Abbas latest suggestion that Israel gets to keep the settlements in exchange for equal land back potentially creating a corridor between Gaza and the WB is about as rational as you can get. Jerusalem is going to have to have shared sections that's demilitarized or it's own police made up of Jews and Arabs as crazy as it sounds that's the only way to make it work. In exchange for giving up the right of return, I think Israel has to provide some other types of compensation as well. But overall, that's the only way out of this mess. Neither side is going to pack-up and leave.
I echo this sentiment right back atcha. The previous lawful rulers of the land, the Ottoman Turks, lawfully signed to Great Brittan the right do to with the land as they saw fit when they first declared war on the Triple Entente, and were later defeated and of their own volition signed the Treaty of Versailles. The people of that part of the Ottoman Sultinate weren't allowed to choose overrule their lawful rulers any more than the Mexicans living in what would become New Mexico were allowed to choose to say no to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Certainly, the people of Greece and Bosnia and the rest of the Baltic states that were absorbed by the Ottomans weren't allowed to reject the Turks when they first invaded them either. That is just the way it works. I'm sure they weren't too keen to become Americans.
I was responding to this quote: "In the case of Israel, that would require Palestinians to recognize the legitimacy of their expulsion - not just the fact but its legitimacy. It's as if Mexico were required to accept the right of the United States to exist on half of Mexico, gained by conquest. Mexicans don't accept that, nor should they. Almost every border in the world is the result of conquest. The borders are recognized, but nobody goes on to demand that the legitimacy be recognized, especially by a population that was driven out." As a Texan with ancestors who fought in the Texas Revolution, I'm keenly aware that the United States fought a war with Mexico after agreeing with a treaty with the Republic of Texas that allowed the two nations to become one. Mexico didn't agree and there was a resulting conflict that really had many reasons for occurring, with Texas being only one of them. A very large chunk of Mexico, a chunk that, oddly enough, fits Chomsky's "example" in the quote, was lost. The way I read the quote, Chomsky is saying, in a coy way, that Mexico doesn't accept the legitimacy of the borders and shouldn't be expected to. If that wasn't his intent, for an excellent writer, he's certainly being amazingly obtuse. I'm sure that's an excellent idea. Perhaps I can get Chomsky to send me a copy.
Out of curiosity, is there any state that has been granted a "right to exist" by a legal body external to itself? And what are the implications of accepting that Israel has a right to exist? A few questions arise. Since it is intrinsically a Jewish state, does that amount to granting legitimacy to the founding of a state for a particular race of people? Another question is "right to exist where?" And a further question: if Israel has a right to exist, does that not stand in conflict with the Palestinians' right to return?
If you were a state that had been in a war for survival since inception, you might not think a "corridor" that splits the country in two is such a good idea, especially when the corridor would be in control of the very parties you are in conflict with. Although I am sympathetic to the Palestinians, and think both sides get close to peace only to be dragged back down by extremists, please remember that Gaza and the West Bank were taken in '67 as the Egyptians (in agreement with Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Kuwait) prepared to advance on Israel from the Sinai. Jordan specifically was given the green light to stay out of the conflict by Israel and declined to do so. Losing the West Bank was more a product of Jordan being betrayed by Egypt than Israel striking out at Palestinians. And keep in mind that the Arab countries have treated Palestinians just as poorly. This is less a Jew-Arab conflict than people make it out to be. Kuwait and Jordan, for example, both expelled large Palestinian populations. Strange considering their "arab brotherhood." Also, if you read any history at all, it should be apparent that the US has less power over Israel than people think. Having said that, veto'ing UN resolutions is something all major powers have done at one time or another when they feel the resolution is either strictly against their own interests, or what they feel is the wrong solution for a localized problem (for example, the Soviet Union often protected Syria from UN resolutions). No country, IMO, has done as much as the US to try to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict. Not to say we've done all good things, but our record stands up to ANY other countries in this regard. People, for example, complain about US aid to Israel, but Israel took the West Bank, Golan Heights, and Gaza Strip (and the Sinai) almost exclusively with French and British weaponry.
I think you and Chomsky are actually saying the same thing. His use of the word if when talking about Mexico just allowing the US to claim it's borders across Mexican land is the key. The borders were at one time agreed to. What I believe Chomsky is saying is that once there are agreed to borders for Israel then and only then would it make sense for the other nations to legitimize Israel's right to those borders. As for my take I think it's mostly semantics, and not that big of an issue, though in his point on these particular semantics, I mostly agree.
