Anti Semitism to increase after the government sides with Islamists

[mids2019]

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-16115899/Miliband-accused-Jews-UK-danger-Chief-Rabbi-Tory-leader-react-Labour-sanctions-Israeli.OrlaNdo memorial

The government's decision to sanction Israel, a democratic ally in the ME, surely is a reward to all those that have spouted Jew hate on our city streets. If the government is willing to distance itself from Israel won't this be seen as further motivation for the radical Islmist left to continue their campaigns in the UK. It's a shameful moment and it will take a lot to rebuild relations with Israel.

No the UN recognizes it as a "non-member observer state" (mainly due to the US vetoing it at the UN Security Council)

It's agreed capital is Jerusalem but it's administrative capital is Ramallah.

And the reason its borders are not agreed is because it's pesky neighbour keeps moving them .

Thought experiment my arse.

The people have the right to defend their countries borders. The idea that a country has a right is ridiculous.

It's not a proper member of the UN, fact. It has no internationally agreed boundaries, no capital and no army... It's not a proper state yet, fact.

Countries who recognise it as a state are doing so in a symbolic sense because they want it to be a proper state one day. When it is we will all know about it.

So technically are you saying because it has no boundaries it could attack the entire world?

Eh? With what army?

The people have the right because they are citizens of the country. The name of the country and the citizens of a country are often spoken of interchangeably.

Israel doesn't have internationally defined borders with all its neighbors.

And the capital and army aren't part of the 4 criteria for being a state under the Montevideo Convention.

Quite.

Does it have recognised boundaries or an effective ruling authority that exercises administrative and political control over the population and territory?

The Gaza strip are ruled by Hamas. Would you say they are an effective ruling authority?

Also there obviously were people with a spiritual connection to Nebraska, but, their numbers were greatly reduced for various reasons...

Nobody checked with the inhabitants of Alaska whether they wanted to be American, but then the idea that the general population should be consulted on anything was decades away.

As you said in your previous post, expectations have changed.

It's a thought experiment. You can do whatever you want with thought experiments.

And in fact, you even touch on the experiment results in your post. Quote "What about if the Jewish state had been formed between Kenya and Tanzania (as was mooted at one point). I imagine the tribes from that area who would have been pushed out would be pretty unhappy about it, especially if that area had become very wealthy."

I have no idea why you include wealthy, but there is a hint in your post that I get in my thought experiment result. That it is not so much about Israel being Jewish, it is the location. That perhaps if the Jewish state was elsewhere, there would not be the same conflict.

And no, I am not saying Israel should be moved. It is a thought experiment. But it is an experiment that potentially removes accusations of antisemitism from those states being accused of it.

Ah you looked them up at last thank goodness.

No as I said it does not have recognized borders because of Israel .You ignored my point about there's does that negate their existence.

Hamas are not an effective ruling authority but then Gaza has been occupied by Israel for the past 20 years (and long before)

The Palestinian Authority in the West Bank are similarly hampered (occupied territory and border expansion by Israel) however they are so I think it's fair to say Israel are also carrying out state extinction.

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.

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.

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?

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

Thank you - a voice of reason.

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

@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?

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

Oh snap

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

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.

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?