Israel's Right to Exist

[Túrin Turambar]

Ah, yes, because E. Timor is now independent, Indonesia is said to have 'occupied' it from 1975 until 1999. Indonesia agreed to the referrendum, the referrendum decided in favor of independence, and then violence erupted. So, not a war, but not a peaceful transfer of power (unlike Canada becoming an independent nation).

There was actually guerrilla warfare going on throughout the occupation. The violence that followed independence was the Indonesian government attempting to commit genocide against the people they had just freed ... for spite, I guess.

Exactly how far the Indonesian Government was in with the anti-seperatist militias is a big question.

As to Ax's original question, there's no real hard and fast answer I don't think. Even today, there's a number of contested 'states' and parts of states - it's a bit of a continuum.

Edited to say more on Indonesia:

Indonesia is an interesting case. In many ways, it’s hardly even a country. Technically independent since 1945, many of its provinces weren’t keen on the idea of joining up, and many of them are still not keen today. In recent years, there have been armed uprisings against Jakarta in Aceh (which was effectively ended by the tsunami) and Kalimantan (a.k.a Borneo), as well as the lingering push for independence in Irian Jaya (West Papua). Many of the people in these regions do not recognise Indonesian authority as being legitimate, and Indonesian rule is often weak to nonexistent in the more remote parts. East Timor was given a referendum and voted for independence. Given a similar choice, I think that many other provinces would do the same.

Which of these independence movements are considered legitimate is based on pure politics. I can use Australian-Indonesian relations as an example. Australia supported East Timorese independence, arguing that Indonesia had no real claim over the province. This is true – Indonesia invaded it and annexed it pretty much because it was part of Timor, which it considered to be part of the Indonesian archipelago. East Timor is Catholic, not Muslim, and speaks Portuguese and a number of local dialects, not Indonesian and Dutch. Then again, Indonesia’s claims to many other provinces is no stronger. Take West Papua for example – it is culturally and ethnically Papuan, not Indonesian. Its people speak Papuan languages and follow Papuan religions. Australia will not support West Papuan independence, though, as to not further antagonize Indonesia. Jakarta, for its part, suspects that Australia has territorial ambitions in the region. Australia did have a colonial experience at one stage – before 1975 Papua New Guinea was an Australian territory. It didn’t work out that well (the country is more or less a mess) and I can’t see us wanting to repeat that any time soon.

So basically, there is no real reason why East Timor is a nation-state and West Papua (or even a united Papua) isn’t. There’s no real reason why West Papua should be administered from Jakarta and not Port Moresby. There is no real reason why political maps of the world should colour central Borneo the same colour as the rest of Indonesia – Indonesia doesn’t rule that area in reality.

(Whether Australia should support West Papuan independence is an interesting question, and one exacerbated recently by the arrival of forty independence activists fleeing persecution in Australia. On one hand, it seems like the right thing to do. On the other, I have high hopes for Indonesia under President Susilo Bambang Yudyono, and it’s worth remembering that the Indonesians outnumber us ten to one…).

All being said, I think that Israel is now legitimate for the reasons that I’ve outlined above. It has effective control over its territory, its people have occupied it for long enough to give them a decent claim, and no identifiable group supports independence (even the Arab citizens of Israel are generally happy to be Israeli citizens). There are plenty of cases of legitimacy worth wondering about (eg: Western Sahara, the Basques, Kashmir, Chechnya, the Kurds, ect). Israel, in my mind, isn’t one of them.

[axordil]

It is indeed interesting looking at Indonesia, which is sort of on the opposite end of the post-colonial spectrum from the Middle-east. Instead of lines being drawn to divide tribes (and make getting oil easier), natural lines were ignored and disparate groups mashed together...to make getting oil easier.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

natural lines were ignored and disparate groups mashed together

You could equally be talking about Africa here, Ax, to similarly disastrous results.

[Túrin Turambar]

It is indeed interesting looking at Indonesia, which is sort of on the opposite end of the post-colonial spectrum from the Middle-east. Instead of lines being drawn to divide tribes (and make getting oil easier), natural lines were ignored and disparate groups mashed together...to make getting oil easier.

Hmmm...the mashing was done first by the Dutch, who took the islands as a colony as part of a general colonial land-grab (and because they were rich in spice - the 'oil' of the day?) and then by the Indonesians themselves. I know that Indonesia has some good reserves of oil (especially in Aceh and underwater) but I don't know how much western oil policy affected the creation of the country. Could you explain more in-depth?

[eborr]

Don't judge the creation of the current African states purely on the activities of the colonials and the notion that they forced independent tribes who exercised free will and self determination together.

This process way going on anyway with the powerful tribes presuring the less powerful, it's simply that the colonial powers were more powerful.

The most obvious example of this is the suppression of the San by the Bantu speakers which has gone on (spelling) who went around on a programme of expansion and colonisation - the folk memory of this remains in Botswana, whereby a violent, agressive person will be accused of being a Zulu.

Given that I am sitting in Gaborone, consider the postion of this country for a minute, the success story of Africa, you can get the numbers anywhere.

A very brief history, the Tswana speakers who had intially settled in territory from the Kgalagari across to what is now the Johannesburg region, were pushed westwards towards the more marginal lands, by Nguni speaking tribes, and the Dutch.

One of the paramount chiefs of the Bastwana requested help from Britain against incursions from the these groups which resulted in the protectorate of Bechuanaland. However Bechuanaland, included tribes other than the Setswana speakers, such as the Ba Kalanga, Ndbele speakers and so on. So when the state of Botswana was created, unless their hand been folk movements, it would have been impossible to create potential "countries". I guess the smallest you can go is something like Lesotho and Swaziland.

I cannot add much to the debate on Indonesia, however I have always been v suspicious of the high level of corruption there - and I think that plus the fact that they figure as anti-communist has been a factor in the domination of all the territories by Jakarta

[Túrin Turambar]

I cannot add much to the debate on Indonesia, however I have always been v suspicious of the high level of corruption there - and I think that plus the fact that they figure as anti-communist has been a factor in the domination of all the territories by Jakarta

Well, they weren’t anti-communist to begin with. The first President, Sukarno, who first collaborated with the Japanese and then turned on them in 1945, was left-wing. He drifted towards communism over the years of his rule (although it’s unlikely in retrospect that he posed a real threat) and was overthrown in 1967 by the western-backed anti-communist general Suharto (the U.S., Malaysia and Australia both agreed that it would not be good for Australia and Malaysia to share borders with a very populous communist country). Suharto himself was overthrown in 1998, by which time communism wasn’t really an issue.

Your information on Africa is very interesting though. I owe Jnyusa a thread on imperialism, warfare and genocide in pre-literate societies, in fact (which is coming along, just needs a bit more research).

[Holbytla]

I have been following the discussion and I really don't have anything to add, but I do have a question(s).

Jny wrote:

Israel's right to exist does not spring from the fact that they drained the swamps and built highways and hold elections but from the fact that they are now native to the region and successfully defend their nation; and they have obtained recognition from Egypt, Jordan and from the elected Palestinian authority (PLO and later Hamas) which unfortunately can only speak for the Palestinians living within the electorate and not for those living in other countries.

Bolding mine.
Well certainly the Jews have been there for thousands of years, so are you saying that because they are now able to successfully defend themselves (with much aid from the west), they are now qualified to exist as a state/nation?
Do we base nation status solely on military might?

[Jnyusa]

Well certainly the Jews have been there for thousands of years ...

Yes, that's right; there have always been Jews inhabiting Palestine. But prior to the 'returns' that began in the late 19th ce and culminated in the State of Israel, the Jews had not been the majority population in the region since Roman times. I think, I hope, that the State of Israel is only interested in incorporating areas where Jews are the majority population.

But if they were a majority population in one part of the region yet unable to defend themselves, then they would not be a State no matter how just their claim - like the Kurds in their region, the Miskito in their region, the San in their region and so on through the many thousands of indigenous peoples who want statehood and can't have it.

If a Jewish army invaded a non-Jewish region and annexed it (like the West Bank, for example) and other countries recognized that annexation (perhaps because they are too lazy to stop it), then the West Bank would be legally part of Israel but I would not be comfortable saying that Israel has a 'right' to it.

We're fishing, really, for the correct definitions here, because it is fairly obvious, looking around the world, that our notions of what ought to be do not always conform to what is. Yet there is no way to force the ought upon the is. Pragmatically, if we want to get anywhere with our governance institutions like the UN, we have to deal with what is.

What I would hope is that we not become too cynical but remember that there is an ought we'd like to achieve in the future and keep working towards it.

Jn

[Holbytla]

Well if you go back long enough, they are the same people but with different religions. In fact its really all about religion isn't it?
The same people with differing philosophies wanting to govern themselves.
At different points in history one side or the other will find themselves on top in an ever revolving power struggle because of beliefs.
I can't ever see that changing. Especially not when the land, Jerusalum in particular, has such meaning to multiple religions.
Do we then continually recognize the military heavyweight du jour?
Certainly there are nations that are not recognized by certain countries.
If Iraq had been successful in overthrowing Kuwait, would it have been righteous to recognize their takeover since at one time it was all part of one nation.
Isn't recognition more about alliances?

[Jnyusa]

In fact its really all about religion isn't it?

In my humble opinion, none of it is really about religion.

Religion itself reflects underlying cultural or societal predispositions, imo. Because mortality is such a powerful fear, the systems that mediate our relationship to mortality are influential systems. They get tacked on to ordinary problems to ensure a proper level of enthusiasm among the combatants.

Jn

[Holbytla]

You are right it isn't religion. Without mincing words or talking semantics, it boils down to fear, human ineptness, self righteousness, cowardice....etc. The focal point is religion, but that just mirrors human behavior.

[Túrin Turambar]

Here's an interesting entry on left-wing Australian Blog Lavartus Prodeo:

Has Ultra-Left Anti-Zionism Morphed into Anti-Semitism?

The willingness of certain people on the left to associate with Islamic Fundamentalists has always bothered me, and so I'm glad to read that saner heads are starting to prevail. I'm also glad that poublic opinion is shifting - I think an acceptance of Israel's right to exist as axiomatic is an essential step along the peace process.