Anti Semitism to increase after the government sides with Islamists

How can you seriously equate Taiwan with Palestine?

Taiwan doesn't employ systematic, generational indoctrination into terrorism to try to destroy China, while continuously rejecting itself as a sovereign State so it can declare itself 'oppressed'.

There also isn't a billion $ aid industry reliant on Taiwan remaining 'oppressed'.

Quote "I don’t equate Palestine with Taiwan. ".

Yeah. Maybe you don't, but one easily can.

Question. Is Taiwan an independent sovereign state ?

If it’s not performative then presumably we already have a 2 state solution and all the organisations calling for one can disband.

I don’t equate Palestine with Taiwan. It is its own place with its own unique set of issues & problems. It will never achieve statehood with Hamas ruling the Gaza Strip, that I know.

How does your first paragraph make sense? You seem to be suggesting it will take a 2 state solution to work out a 2 state solution.

No wonder it has been impossible to achieve all these years.

A 2 state solution gives both parties equal footing to work out a solution. That is what Israel doesn't want to accept.

Murder and genocide in the name of a country or religion will be what increases anti-semitism, not the working together to find a solution or countries calling for the bloodshed to stop. The profiteering from the land by the Israeli and American governments won't help how people view Israel either. Whether that is backed by Judaism is something Israel needs to own.

I am not so sure about that. I posted upthread about Taiwan only being recognized by 13 states. But it is a state. There is only one nation that insists it is not.

With that in mind, I don't think it is performative. Equate Palestine to Taiwan. Because all it would take for Taiwan to be universally accepted would be for the PRC to drop it's claim.

Would the same not happen if Israel dropped it's claim ?

'

As I said, Palestine was occupied by one empire after another. I don't think when talking about states you have to use the European model of a state. The Middle East was primarily a series of city states with regional boundaries defined by geographical features like mountains and rivers. It wasn't until Sykes Picot carved the region up that we get the modern Middle Eastern countries that we see now with random borders drawn on a map. As I said earlier, countries don't have rights, people do and the people are still living in the same land. Anyway, history aside, what matters is the legal ruling. The United Nations recognizes Palestine as a state with its official borders being the Green Line. 157 UN member states recognize Palestine as a state. The ICJ has ruled on where Palestines state borders are. It is not mine or your opinion, it is legally defined.

It's pretty meaningless without Israel recognising Palestine as a state isn't it?

Symbolic, performative, pick your adjective.

A new state can't just be willed into existence because Starmer said so, or Macron or whoever. What have their words helped achieve on the ground?

A 2 state solution needs mutual respect and recognition between Israel and Palestine. Which seems further away then ever.

@Squeezingwildoranges ,

‘Palestine is different from France in that it has been occupied by one power after another.’

But who was occupied? Which army was defeated the first time ‘it’ was occupied? Who signed the surrender document?

The answer is the above doesn’t apply because it has never been a state.

‘The people have existed on the land for centuries though no matter who was occupying them. France’

This is very true and those people need to have rights and not be forcibly expelled. Hence the cause for the formation of a Palestinian state. I don’t think anyone even called for the formation of a Palestinian state until the 1960s and the term Palestinian as exclusive to that ethnicity (as opposed to combined Jews and Palestinians) only came into being in the mid 20th century.

As I have said (repeatedly) I am in favour of a 2 state solution. But that would be bringing a new state into being, not recognising an existing one. And the need for that only really arises because of the way Israel has treated the Palestinian population.

To me it means Israel will recognize Palestine as a state, and vice versa

Quote " Over 140 countries officially recognize the State of Palestine, and the ICJ explicitly ruled that the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem constitute a single legal Palestinian sovereign state."

I won't factcheck that. I just want to say, they only have to get more than 13 to beat Taiwan, The ROC. Even the UN does not officially recognize Taiwan. UN Resolution 2758 of 1971.

UN Link here.

Restoration of the lawful rights of the People's Republic of China in the United Nations.

But there is really only one country that insists that Taiwan is not a state.

Sorry for the tangent. I am just adding an example of a state that is not a state but actually is.

France was liberated because a war was fought and won, not because of diplomacy.

Germany did not end the war as one country so who knows what would have happened if things had gone the other way?

You bought up the Montevideo Convention but are not accepting the definition of a state under that convention?

I would like to see someone who thinks Palestine is already a state attempt to answer the question asked by @Newbutoldfather re What does a ‘2 state solution’ mean if Israel and Palestine are already two states?

Palestine is different from France in that it has been occupied by one power after another. The people have existed on the land for centuries though no matter who was occupying them. France was occupied by Germany for a much shorter time but what would the difference between them have been under occupation. The two state solution is merely an attempt to resolve the situation through negotiation as the UN cannot do it as long as the US can cripple it with its veto. Under international law the UN general assembly formerly recognized Palestine as a state. In order to attain full UN membership, they needed a 2/3 supermajority vote in the general assembly and 9/15 in the Security Council with no vetoes from the permanent members. They only failed full membership because the US used their veto.

Iceland, Costa Rica, Monaco, Lichtenstein and Andorra don't have armies.

Oh snap

As there has never been a state of Palestine with land borders, a constitution, king president or whatever comparing it to states or countries even during war time occupation isn't a valid comparison. Not when it comes to some of the scenarios mentioned anyway.

You could compare it to other yet unfounded places I suppose

@Squeezingwildoranges ,

‘During WWII, would have classed France as a state under German occupation.’

Are you seriously comparing France with Palestine?!

Palestine has never ever been a state. France has arguably been a state from about the year 1400AD. I think the previous 550 odd years of statehood has meaning, as did all the structures of state that continued throughout its occupation.

What does a ‘2 state solution’ mean if Israel and Palestine are already two states?

Thank you - a voice of reason.

It's not as simple as - my country says so.

During WWII, would have classed France as a state under German occupation.

Palestine definitely isn’t a state yet in any meaningful way. it’s not contiguous, it’s not ruled by one body, it doesn’t have an army (one that fight in uniform) etc etc.

Recognising it as a state is merely performative and encouraging a two state solution. Were Palestine already a state, what would a ‘two state solution’ mean?

If you know the criteria, why are you still arguing that Palestine can be anything other than a symbolic state only at the moment?

Palestine doesn't meet the criteria of the Montevideo Convention. They cannot be defined as a state at the moment. So logic dictates that Israel cannot be carrying out state extinction. It can be guilty of lots of other things of course, but not that.

State extinction is however an appropriate term for those who aim to destroy Israel. Unlike Palestine, it has existed as a country for decades but still they want it's existence to be wiped out, like the Dodos.

Saying Palestine isn't a state because it isn't a full member of the UN is factually incorrect under international law. The Vatican City is universally recognized as an independent country, yet it is not a full member of the United Nations. Just like Palestine, the UN officially classes the Vatican as a Non Member Observer State. Full UN membership is a political process controlled by the US veto in the Security Council, not a definition of statehood. Over 140 countries officially recognize the State of Palestine, and the ICJ explicitly ruled that the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem constitute a single legal Palestinian sovereign state. If the Vatican counts as a state under this UN framework, then Palestine does too. The fact that Israel does not recognize the occupied territories is irrelevant. Palestine is a recognized state under occupation and its boundaries are the Green Line.