July 19, 2005
From the desk of Jane Galt:Should we give aid to Palestine?
From an economic perspective, probably not; Palestine is plagued by corruption and weak political institutions, not to mention that there is a risk that any new infrastructure you build will be blown up or bulldozed by the Israelis.
But from a political perspective, why, yes, we should. Palestine has a new president, Mahmoud Abbas, who seems genuinely interested in moderating the militancy that has helped to make a permanent peace accord impossible. He also commands little of the loyalty that Arafat got from Hamas and its ilk, which means he needs all the help he can get consolidating his power if there is to be any realistic hope of moderating the conflict. A big influx of cash would help a lot--plus, to the extent that it makes any difference in the misery of the Palestinians, it erodes support for terror among the population.
Oh, no no no no no, says The New Republic, making many of the points I outlined above: the PA is corrupt and aid networks are ineffective. But he kinda neglects to mention the whole Israel side of things, making it sound as if the PA is just a bunch of venal bumblers. For example:
There is reason to fear that future aid would be spent just as poorly. A massive RAND study released this year (and titled Building a Successful Palestinian State) recommends constructing a high-speed railroad linking the major population areas of Gaza and the West Bank. There is the minor problem that, as the authors note in passing, roads rather than rail would be used for most freight shipments, for emergency services, and for those who can afford cars--including tourists, dignitaries, and the growing middle class the study envisages. As former World Bank President James Wolfensohn has pointed out (second disclosure: I was previously an economist at the World Bank), a good road would connect the Palestinian urban areas at a much more modest cost than the billions the authors propose to pour into a railroad--which could quickly turn into one of the money-draining, inefficient public enterprises that plague many developing countries. All of which is to say that excessive aid money could well fund white elephant investments, saddling the P.A. with operating costs it can ill afford.
This would have been an excellent place to mention why the PA wants to build a railroad, which is that Israel won't let it build a road between the territories, fearing (quite reasonably) that militants will slip off it to launch terror attacks in Israel. Yet, somehow, the author didn't think that was important enough to include.
Posted by Jane Galt at July 19, 2005 3:51 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links
Another reason to consider such aid: It might make us look more even-handed to other parties in the Mid-East. That is, aid may allow a leader we don't despise (Abbas) a better chance at being successful. It might also make it easier for us to deal with Egypt, Jordan, and the other countries in the area (if only by making it easier for the leaders of such countries to be seen dealing with us).
Money for Palestine is money down a rat hole.
It would be better to burn it.
It might also make it easier for us to deal with Egypt, Jordan, and the other countries in the area (if only by making it easier for the leaders of such countries to be seen dealing with us).
We give Egypt around two billion dollars per year and Jordan a little under half a billion (we only give Israel $2.7 billion). Saudi Arabia and Kuwait wouldn't even exist if we hadn't put the smack down on Hussein in 1991. Iraq, of course, would still be ruled by Hitler Junior if it wasn't for us.
So pardon me, but I think we've done quite enough for the Arab world. Here's different suggestion: either they shape up and start acting friendly or the aid gets cut to $0.00 per year.
This might seem silly, but . . . a railroad from Gaza to Palestine would run through Israel. Why would the Palestinians have to manage the money? Let 'em build roads internally in the Gaza Strip and PA West Bank to train terminals, one in Gaza City and one in the portion of the PA West Bank closest to Gaza City. Then the US can finance the construction and even maintenence on the track and other facilities in Israel without the PA touching the money.
Why not just end aid now to all those rat-hole countries : Egypt, Israel, Jordan. Wouldn't that also put us equal footing with all parties. And, as an added bonus, it would actually save us money.
right-on wallster.... sending money to the arab states is a total waste of money
but we shouldn't forget the huge amount we give to israel in the form of tanks, helicopter, and missles used to kill civilians in the territories they conquered and colonized by force. and they're one of the richest countries in the world.
stop wasting money in this region all together. it would make us appear more even-handed to the world AND save us money
and they're one of the richest countries in the world.
For some definitions of "one of the richest countries in the world", I guess. In 2000 they were ranked 32nd in per capita GDP, between Greece and Slovenia, which puts them behind South Korea, Japan, Singapore, the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, every western and northern European country besides Portugal, and several of the Arab states.
They're "one of the richest" when you throw the zillions of Nth-world nations of the world into the mix. But among first-world liberal democracies, Israel is one of the poorest, and certainly the most frequently attacked. So inasmuch as we're concerned with aiding other liberal democracies, aiding Israel is a good idea.
Jim: Way to ignore anything like nuance and accuracy, yes.
(If the IDF were really as gung-ho to kill civilians as you implied, they'd sure kill a lot more of them than they do. Remember Jenin, the massacre-that-never-happened? They took more casualties specifically to spare civilians; those F-16s we sold them are quite capable of bombing the entire village to rubble. And yet it didn't happen (though, oddly, they got blamed for doing it anyway!).
So perhaps you should reconsider that wording, at very least?)
The US should give aid to the P.A. and should cut off aid to Israel. Israel posses WMD, has attacked its neighbors, violated UN resolutions..hmmm...wonder what happens to countries that do this.
Economically, aid to the Palestinians is as useless as aid to most other developing countries in that it mostly ends up in the bank accounts of government officials.
Unlike Jane, I don't see how the political angle makes up for it. We have given Egypt tens of billions of dollars, armed their military, and we all know how popular we are with the Cairo masses.
I don't think the Egyptians hate us because we don't give them enough, or the Israelis like us because we give them more than we give Egypt.
In addition, unlike with aid to sub-Saharan Africa, the portion of the aid-money not stolen by Palestinian officials might very well, as some (European aid) did in the past, end up financing terror against Israel. Not a goal the US should support, I think.
The problem with giving aid to Abbas, I fear, is that it will actually undermine his authority, allowing the militants to paint him as a US lap dog.
Cutting of aid to Israel isn't a terrible idea but I suspect that without the US, Israel wouldn't hesitate to launch a full scale offensive against the PA.
Dan - thanks for looking up exactly how rich they are. they rank right up there with EU nations, huh? pretty impressive for such a young country. How many billions in aid did we give to Portugal? isreal is one of the most attacked because they are just about the only country occuppying land they conquered by force from people they hold stateless.
Sigivald - I said:
"tanks, helicopter, and missles used to kill civilians in the territories they conquered and colonized by force"
and you don't like this statement because I fail to point out that they could have killed millions instead of mere thousands? great argument.
as Juan Cole points out, all Americans should care about isreal's theft of land with our military equipment because this is a primary reason for al-quaeda to attack us.
http://www.juancole.com/2005/07/jerusalem-and-terrorism-ariel-sharon.html
palestinian leadership is pathetic. their strategy of suicide bombing against civilians is stupid and ineffective on top of being greatly immoral, but this doesn't excuse the fact that israel is dead wrong about colonizing land conquered by force to set up a racist state along the lines of french nigeria or apartheid s. africa.
hence, in response to Jane's post, i agree with wallster:
"Why not just end aid now to all those rat-hole countries : Egypt, Israel, Jordan."
Jin,
Israel didn't conquer the Palastinians by force, nor are the Palastinians stateless due to Israel's actions. As I recall my history, the Palastinians are stateless due to the actions of Syria and Jordan when Israel was formed. Sure, some tribes got displaced when Israel was formed, but the statelessness is their fellow Arab's fault.
Not to say that Israel is blameless in all that they did, but if you were in the same situation, you would have done much of what they did too.
But I still won't forgive them for the USS Liberty.
Dan - thanks for looking up exactly how rich they are. they rank right up there with EU nations, huh? pretty impressive for such a young country.
Um, the age of a country has anything to do with its per capita GNP. That's how the USA can be ranked 3rd while China is 85th.
How many billions in aid did we give to Portugal?
Not much these days, although we provided tens of billions of dollars of military protection through NATO during the Cold War years. But if Portugal neighbored on several fascist dictatorships who had sworn to destroy it, I am fully confident we would supply them with aid, just as we did for Europe in the past when fascist and communist dictators threatened that continent.
as Juan Cole points out
Juan Cole is on record blaming the attacks of September 11th, 2001, on the Jenin massacre, which happened six months later in 2002.
So pardon me while I smile in sardonic amusement at the idea of anyone accepting Cole's theories on what Al Qaeda's motives are.
Jim,
I don't like to get in the way of someone enjoying a good wallow in post-colonial guilt. But I should point out that if the surrounding Arab nations had not continually tried to attack Israel and drive the Jews into the sea, the so-called "lands of Palestine" would still be part of Jordan.
Well, I suppose they'd also still be part of Jordan if the Arab armies could fight worth a damn. But they can't, and after the Holocaust it appears those pesky Jews have decided they won't go quietly to their doom any more.
Jim isn't a Bleeding Idiot... ...Yet. Maybe he should go to the area and wait in a nice bus for a while.
great discussion guys... i guess dorf wants to see me murdered, wonderful.
Rex, I agree Israelis were in a very hostile situation, but they made a fundamental mistake when they started to settle the land they conquered in 1967 (not allowed by geneva convention for good reason). remember, in 1967 war israel invades neighbors and swiftly whoops their asses. land conquered from neighbors. people on this conquered land are not allowed to be citizens of the conquering country, nor are they allowed to have their own country to this day. that's israel's fundamental flaw.
Dan, regarding the money, you're avoiding the point - we shouldn't be giving aid to a rich, powerful country like israel. they are clearly capable of defending themselves against all their neighbors simultaneously.
and regarding bin laden's motivations to attack the U.S., I don't see Jenin mentioned once in that article, and J.Cole is a well respected history professor at a top-notch school. what part of this statement is false? (from referenced Juan Cole post)
Here is what Bin Laden wrote in 1998 when he declared war on the US:
' Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula. '
it sure sounds to me like my friend was killed on 9/11 at least partly because of israel's actions.
and DRB, shame on you for alluding to the deaths of millions in nazi germany to justify the brutalization of a completely different people on a different continent. my comments have nothing to do with guilt, they are my assessment of the best interest of the u.s. - stop giving aid to countries. but hey, it's not the first time some spineless idiot has to fall back on the holocaust to defend likud party war-mongers. forget that at least half of israel agrees that the land should be returned.
as much fun as it is to be attacked with tangential arguments... let's get back to the discussion at hand. why do any of you think giving israel billions in aid annually is a good idea?
I thought the fundamental discussion here was whether we should give aid to the Palestinian authority. Assuming you believe in giving foreign aid at all, it probably makes good sense to give aid to the Palestinians. It helps us improve our image around the world and makes a liar out of anyone who claims we are simply out to destroy muslims. Plus, if at all successful, we can help the Palestinians become more prosperous, thus helping to reduce at least some of the desperate conditions there. Yes, of course there will be waste and fraud, but we've got that in our own governmental programs. As long as we attach the proper strings to the aid, I think it makes sense to do it.
So, would the Gaza-West Bank railway be the Palestinian equivalent of the famous "sealed train" that shipped Lenin to Russia?
We have ruled the world before, and by Allah, the day will come when we will rule the entire world again. The day will come when we will rule America. The day will come when we will rule Britain and the entire world – except for the Jews. The Jews will not enjoy a life of tranquility under our rule, because they are treacherous by nature, as they have been throughout history. The day will come when everything will be relived of the Jews - even the stones and trees which were harmed by them. Listen to the Prophet Muhammad, who tells you about the evil end that awaits Jews. The stones and trees will want the Muslims to finish off every Jew.
Aren't we supposed to be against sending money to people who want to destroy us? That just seems like common sense to me.
Jim,
Read my comment again. I'm not justifying the Israelis' brutalization of the Palestinians and Arabs on the grounds of the Holocaust. I'm justifying the Israelis' brutalization of the Palestinians and Arabs on the grounds that the Palestinians and Arabs have been trying to drive the Jews into the sea and exterminate them for about half a century now. When a people have spent that much time and effort trying to kill you, some brutalization seems entirely in order. Frankly, I think the Israelis should be commended for their admirable level of restraint -- instead of engaging in a war of extermination, they have instead chosen to wall themselves away from the neighbors who just won't stop trying to kill them.
The reference to the Holocaust was simply pointing out that since the end of WWII the Jews have apparently decided not to play along with that whole "extermination of the Jewish people" concept. Pesky Jews.
Well perhaps we could send them some new history textbooks:
http://israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=80012
'Jim' said in 1967 that Israel attacked its neighbors. That is an obvious factual error, an outright lie. There is no reason to respond to any of his other arguments.
DRB - sure you didn't try to justify brutalization based on the holocaust.... just like you were only making a comment about interfering with people wallowing in post-colonialism, not implying that I was..... they're both just tangential topics you thought you'd bring up to hide your point.
you've got the right double-speak mentality to work for karl rove, only probably not bright enough.
and no, I don't think
"Israelis should be commended for their admirable level of restraint -- instead of engaging in a war of extermination, they have instead chosen to wall themselves away from the neighbors who just won't stop trying to kill them." if that is your point.
my position is that we should give aid to neither the palestinians, israelis, nor other authoritarian arab states in the region. you haven't even stated your position on the issue. you've only attacked my statements, and I don't take it very lightly when followed by a call for my death.
On the other hand, I appreciate comments like Eamon's and am willing to concede that there could be some benefits to aid for the sake of being a balanced peace broker.
there are a lot of committed liars out there on this issue, even some like anonymous who are afraid to even use a pen name on their lies....
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (and first hit in g**gle search for "history of 1967 war":
The Six-Day War (Hebrew: Milhemet Sheshet Hayamim - מלחמת ששת הימים), also known as the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, Six Days' War, or June War, was fought between Israel and its Arab neighbors Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. It began when Israel launched a preemptive war on its Arab neighbors; by its end Israel controlled the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights. The results of the war affect the geopolitics of the region to this day.
it feels like 1984 in here
Dan, regarding the money, you're avoiding the point - we shouldn't be giving aid to a rich, powerful country like israel.
If that was your "point" you should have said so. How was I supposed to guess it? We've given aid to lots of rich allies over the years, when those allies were under attack -- the United Kingdom and France in particular. We send aid to Israel because they are a democratic ally engaged in a defensive war against hostile neighboring dictatorships.
And, as noted earlier, it is a bit absurd to call Israel "rich" when it is poorer than almost every other first-world democracy.
I don't see Jenin mentioned once in that article
Google on "Juan Cole" "Jenin" "bin Laden".
In response to the passage you quoted, let me simply point out that Hitler claimed that his treatment of the Jews was in response to Jewish crimes. It does not follow that, therefore, the Holocaust must in some way be the Jews' fault. One has to factor in the fact that the man making the remarks was evil and insane, and none too honest. The same is true for bin Laden and his remarks about his motivations for 9/11. This is a man who fundamentally hates everyone who isn't a Muslim extremist and who can't even get over the fact that Spain drove out the Muslim invaders centuries ago. He didn't need a reason to attack the United States; he needed a reason NOT to. Since 9/11 we've given him one.
It is also worth noting that, since 9/11, Al Qaeda has killed more Muslims than Israel has. Heck, *prior* to 9/11 Syria had killed more Palestinians than Israel had. It is therefore a bit ridiculous to claim that Al Qaeda cares about dead Muslims. Al Qaeda doesn't care about the Palestinian Arabs; they just want the infidels off formerly-Muslim land.
Jim,
I don't believe I'm trying to hide my point at all, which is that I think you're entirely wrong and also that you seem to have a problem with Jews defending themselves.
I was not trying to imply that you were wallowing in post-colonial guilt. I was in fact saying flat out that you are wallowing in post-colonial guilt. You shouldn't try to find indirection, spin, and "implications" where none are necessary -- I think I'm being quite open about my disdain for you and your position. If you need me to be more blunt, I'm willing to accomodate you.
My position on the issue is that we should continue to give aid to Israel because -- until Iraq is up and running -- it's the only real democracy in a region that is otherwise a cesspool and as a fellow democracy it could use our help. I'm also okay with continuing to bribe (excuse me, "give aid") to some of the surrounding nations so they will leave Israel alone.
If aid was cut off as you are suggesting, one of two things would occur:
1. The surrounding Arab nations would band together once again to drive the Jews into the sea now that they are no longer supported by the United States. This would become more and more likely as time passes and -- without the benefit of US aid -- Israel's military becomes more on par with that of the surrounding Arab states.
2. Israel would preemptively launch a war of extermination against the surrounding Arab states while it still held a military advantage, in order to preempt scenario 1 above.
I don't find either of these scenarios particularly appealing. Maybe you do, but that's your business, not mine.
It began when Israel launched a preemptive war on its Arab neighbors
You apparently don't understand the world "preemptive". It means that Israel attacked its neighbors before its neighbors could attack it. Israel's neighbors were massing forces on the border and publically proclaiming their intent to annihilate the much smaller Israeli military.
If Fred puts a gun to Joe's head and cocks it, and Joe responds by gunning Fred down, can you honestly say that Joe was the one who started things? Well, you can't *honestly* say it, I suppose, but somehow people like you always find a way to say it anyway...
Jim,
More accurately, Israel launched a pre-emptive war against Egypt. (The level of vitriol coming from Nasser, the removal of the UN peacekeeping troops, the massing of Egyptian troops etc can be kept for another discussion I suppose, as well as exactly how long a country should be required to wait before they are attacked)
Israel repeatedly asked Jordan NOT to get involved. Jordan's Hussein felt compelled to attack to aid their 'Arab brothers', and was under the impression Egypt was winning anyway and saw nothing wrong with being on the winning side.
After Jordan attacked Israel and lost/was pushed out of the West Bank, what exactly should Israel have done?
As the land was Jordan's before the '67 War, why today is it accepted that all of the West Bank is somehow Palestinian and none of it should be Israel's?
Odd
wow, apparently everyone here disagrees with me... that's fine
we didn't give aid to france to help them conolize algeria. continuing aid to israel only emboldens them in their occupation. giving aid to palestinian leadership only emboldens them in their campaign of terrorism. if aid works as a bribe for peace or to prevent starvation, i'd be for it, but I don't believe that is the case.
preemptive war means israel attacked first. as i've already acknowleged they've hostile neighbors. i posted that reference in response to being called a liar for saying israel attacked its neighbors. it did attack first. this is black-and-white. Dan, your gun analogy is lousy - many countries have hostile border relations. and again, as i've pointed out, my problem with it was they got greedy and decided to keep the land for their own people. that's not going to work long-term.
bin-laden's stated goals are clear. i loathe him and all he stands for, but ignoring your enemy's motivations is foolish. you're right he doesn't care about life, just land. and land has been stolen, to no benefit of the U.S.
removing aid from israel might make the likud think twice about the foolishness of their occupation (or let peaceful leaders get elected). they need to leave or give these people citizenship or do something to end this extended state of limbo.
DRB, it seems like you want very bad to give israel an excuse to 'exterminate' its neighbors because i highly doubt that the pathetic dictators/kings/whatever of surrounding states want to get whooped again. and of course, if U.S. steps in to protect Kuwait against invasion they would obviously step-in to protect one of its allies. btw, are you for or against genocide... or does that depend on the race of the victims?
it is well documented by Robert Pape that terrorism is mainly due to military occupation. this fact is so simple.
Odd - they should have prosecuted war criminals and given the people on that land a vision for a proper country, like what U.S. did to Japan and Germany after their atrocities in wwII. what would you have done? it's not an easy question but today's status quo is lousy for everyone, and I believe that giving more aid promotes this unpleasant status quo.
I say we should give aid to both Israel and the Palestinians or to neither. Favoring one side over the other makes a mockery of our purported role as an honest broker.
Jim --
First, if the conditions Israel was facing in 1967 an be charicatured in your mind as merely one case among many "hostile border relations" between countries, then this discussion isn't going to go anywhere productive hereafter. Or, if that wasn't what you intended, then why even toss forth such an absurd dismissal?
Second, as for not giving aid to Israel -- what is your politically feasible option for enacting this? Israel, out of necessity, has developed one of the best intelligence services on earth. Having Israel for a close-knit US ally at least ensures that the two countries don't go about subverting each other, and I daresay that in the absence of US-supplied F16s, Israel could probably get a few deals out of the French or, as a final resort, copy the best military designs on the market and begin full-scale production locally. (And regarding that latter option: If you think Israel's Arab neighbors are pissy now...)
Israel posses WMD, has attacked its neighbors, violated UN resolutions..hmmm...wonder what happens to countries that do this.
Generally, they get unconditional support from core EU member states.
Herbert92X,
Who said our role was, or even should be, honest broker? The Israelis have established themselves as dependable allies (even tolerating missle attacks to support our political interests). The Palestinians have supported our opponents since World War II.
we didn't give aid to france to help them conolize algeria
We have never sent so much as one dollar to Israel with the request "please use this to colonize the West Bank". We've just sent them money while they were colonizing the West Bank. But we also sent France money while Algeria was still a colony, and England money while India was a colony, and Belgium money while the Congo was a colony. So I'm afraid you're mistaken; we did, indeed, "help france colonize algeria" to the same extent we helped Israel colonize the west bank.
it did attack first. this is black-and-white. Dan, your gun analogy is lousy
No, my gun analogy is exactly correct. If Israel had not attacked first, the massed Arab armies would have annihilated the state of Israel. Hundreds of thousands of Jews would have been murdered by the conquerors, and the rest would have been driven into exile. That was the stated intention of the fascist ruler of Egypt. Israel attacked first because the alternative was guaranteed death for their nation and a large portion of their people.
and land has been stolen, to no benefit of the U.S.
The land was not stolen. Jordan attacked Israel, not vice-versa; land captured from an invader cannot legitimately be said to be stolen.
Besides, stolen from who? The Palestinian Arabs have never ruled that land. The rulers of that land have been (working backwards through history) Israel, Jordan, the UK, the Ottomans (with a brief period of Egyptian rule), the Mamelukes of Cairo, the Abbasids of Bagdhad, the Umayyads of Damacus, Rome, Greece, Babylon, Persia, the Jews themselves, and something else before that. That's three thousand years of history and during NONE of that was it "Palestinian land", whatever the hell that means.
So I guess you could make a case that Israel should give the land back to Jordan (although Jordan probably wouldn't take it, since they have no pressing need for a bunch of psychotic dirt-poor Arabs). But it is under no obligation to give the land to the so-called "Palestinians", because it was never their land to begin with.
Dan,
Given history, I suspect Jordan would take the land back. Where exactly any Palestinian residents would go remains an open question.
Jordan and Egypt never had sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza Strip. They merely occupied them. The legal status of the territories has remained undecided since the end of the British mandate of Palestine.
Jordan and Egypt never had sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza Strip
That's not really true. Jordan claimed sovereignity, and the claim was recognized by Britain (the previous owner). In addition, it had defacto sovereignity (in that it ruled the land, rightly or not) which went essentially unchallenged by the international community.
Yes, it is true. ONLY Britain and Pakistan recognized Jordanian sovereignty. The UN approved the partition plan, so one would assume the UN would have to recognize any sovereign claims in the former mandate. Britain no longer had any legal claims in the area, so I don't know why you think British recognition matters. If the UN, the US, and the Soviet Union all never recognized Jordanian claims over the West Bank, then there was no sovereignty. The "international community" doesn't challenge the Republic of China's "de facto" sovereignty over Taiwan, but you'll agree that's a ways away from de jure sovereignty.
If the UN, the US, and the Soviet Union all never recognized Jordanian claims over the West Bank, then there was no sovereignty.
There is no dictionary I'm aware of that defines "sovereignty" as "recognized by the USA, USSR, and UN". The term means "supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state". Jordan had that over the West Bank; the major world powers didn't recognize that fact, but it remained a fact nevertheless.
As for why I think it is relevant that the UK recognized them -- because, as I said, they were the previous sovereigns. Sure, they had no legal claim in the area, but neither did anyone else, the UN included. Granted, the British did go through the motions of handing the territory over the the UN to divvy up, but since the Brits got the land in the first place by strongarming it away from people who stole it from people who stole it (and so on, yadda yadda) it is unclear why the UN could be said to have legal authority either. After all, if I steal something and give it to you to distribute, that doesn't make the transaction legal.
What the British DID have was possession of the territory, and as soon as they left, the Jordanian forces moved in. When Ruler A packs up and leaves, Ruler B moves in, Ruler B recognizes that it is now A's land, and nobody else does jack squat about it, I call that a transfer of sovereignty.
You can call your backyard the Duchy of Grand Fenwick and claim you are lord of a sovereign realm, but if nobody agrees with you, so what? (Yes, I know it's a bad analogy because there's already a sovereign.)
The United Kingdom claims over 500,000 square miles of the choicest Antarctic territory, and has settlements there, but it happens to overlap other claims, and the superpowers never recognized it. Sovereignty? No.
Sovereignty's an easy concept unless legal claims and factual control diverge, which they did quite demonstrably in the former mandate of Palestine. Just because a power possessing de jure and de facto sovereignty renounces both and withdraws doesn't automatically mean the successor in occupation of the territory becomes its legal owner. Fine points, yes, and not especially relevant to the thread here, but in touchy international disputes, these things can be important. It's certainly not worth arguing about here, so I'll just have to disagree with you.
Trick question: who hold sovereignty over Taiwan?
You can call your backyard the Duchy of Grand Fenwick and claim you are lord of a sovereign realm, but if nobody agrees with you, so what?
It doesn't matter if anyone says words to the effect of "yep, Dan sure does have sovereignty". What matters is if they allow me to treat the land as a separate nation run by me.
Comments are Closed.