Skip to main content
Fix
Source Link
Ted Wrigley
  • 76.4k
  • 23
  • 191
  • 266

One of the cagier political points here is that states have an accepted intrinsic right to defend their borders, but peoples have no intrinsic right to self-defense. When someone says that Israel has the right to self-defense, what they literally mean is that the state of Israel has an unlimited right to take action against attacks within its territory, just as any other state has. The Palestinians do not have an internationally recognized state, therefore they have no legitimized body that can claim the right to self-defense, therefore pretty much any state could bomb the hell out of the Palestinians with little more than a cranky complaint about human rights from the UN, so long as the bombing doesn't infringe on the borders of another state. That's more-or-less the same position the Jewish people were in before the creation of the state of Israel (and one of the major justification that Zionists have historically used to defend the creation of the state).

Of course, if there were international recognition of the rights of peoples to exists (backed up by UN interventions) then the situations we see now with the Palestinians (and Kurds, Uyghurs, etc) would not exist. But most states see rec ignitionrecignition of peoples as a threat to their own sovereignty, so that's unlikely to happen.

One of the cagier political points here is that states have an accepted intrinsic right to defend their borders, but peoples have no intrinsic right to self-defense. When someone says that Israel has the right to self-defense, what they literally mean is that the state of Israel has an unlimited right to take action against attacks within its territory, just as any other state has. The Palestinians do not have an internationally recognized state, therefore they have no legitimized body that can claim the right to self-defense, therefore pretty much any state could bomb the hell out of the Palestinians with little more than a cranky complaint about human rights from the UN, so long as the bombing doesn't infringe on the borders of another state. That's more-or-less the same position the Jewish people were in before the creation of the state of Israel (and one of the major justification that Zionists have historically used to defend the creation of the state).

Of course, if there were international recognition of the rights of peoples to exists (backed up by UN interventions) then the situations we see now with the Palestinians (and Kurds, Uyghurs, etc) would not exist. But most states see rec ignition of peoples as a threat to their own sovereignty, so that's unlikely to happen.

One of the cagier political points here is that states have an accepted intrinsic right to defend their borders, but peoples have no intrinsic right to self-defense. When someone says that Israel has the right to self-defense, what they literally mean is that the state of Israel has an unlimited right to take action against attacks within its territory, just as any other state has. The Palestinians do not have an internationally recognized state, therefore they have no legitimized body that can claim the right to self-defense, therefore pretty much any state could bomb the hell out of the Palestinians with little more than a cranky complaint about human rights from the UN, so long as the bombing doesn't infringe on the borders of another state. That's more-or-less the same position the Jewish people were in before the creation of the state of Israel (and one of the major justification that Zionists have historically used to defend the creation of the state).

Of course, if there were international recognition of the rights of peoples to exists (backed up by UN interventions) then the situations we see now with the Palestinians (and Kurds, Uyghurs, etc) would not exist. But most states see recignition of peoples as a threat to their own sovereignty, so that's unlikely to happen.

Source Link
Ted Wrigley
  • 76.4k
  • 23
  • 191
  • 266

One of the cagier political points here is that states have an accepted intrinsic right to defend their borders, but peoples have no intrinsic right to self-defense. When someone says that Israel has the right to self-defense, what they literally mean is that the state of Israel has an unlimited right to take action against attacks within its territory, just as any other state has. The Palestinians do not have an internationally recognized state, therefore they have no legitimized body that can claim the right to self-defense, therefore pretty much any state could bomb the hell out of the Palestinians with little more than a cranky complaint about human rights from the UN, so long as the bombing doesn't infringe on the borders of another state. That's more-or-less the same position the Jewish people were in before the creation of the state of Israel (and one of the major justification that Zionists have historically used to defend the creation of the state).

Of course, if there were international recognition of the rights of peoples to exists (backed up by UN interventions) then the situations we see now with the Palestinians (and Kurds, Uyghurs, etc) would not exist. But most states see rec ignition of peoples as a threat to their own sovereignty, so that's unlikely to happen.