Israel’s Rights as a Nation-State in International Diplomacy

4 Comments / 4 Comments

1. M Mabberley,

   I challenge your assertion that “Israel must find a way to continue to be a liberal democracy…”

   Neither liberalism nor democracy have much of anything to do with protecting the Jewish nation against a world that largely either hates us or is indifferent to our survival, and which, not really wanting us to live in liberty within their various societies, increasingly challenges the right of our nation the right to return to the original Jewish homeland and to build and maintain there a state like the multiple hundreds of other states that make up the world map. Or infest it, depending on your longer term point of view.

   If anything, the reign of liberalism has been destroying the United States of America for some 50 years, and has sucked out the essence of national self-respect from most of what we once had good reason to consider the civilized world — meaning the English-speaking and European civilizations.

   As for democracy, that principle never has long or successfully maintained any commonwealth, which is why the wisest minds always have opted for a republic that respected individual and property rights, and governed with the lightest of feasible administrative call upon either the freedoms or the private wealth of their citizens.

   Above all, you must recognize that the Islamic world in general and the Arab culture in particular could not care less whether Israel is liberal, democratic, socialist, fascistic, or whatever. Their concern is not the political make-up of Israel but its very existence.

   Back to realism with you.

   Arnold Harris
   Mount Horeb WI

2. According to archaeological evidence, Jews have lived in Israel for some four thousand years or so… those who say the land of Israel is ‘occupied’ by Israelis are simply ignorant of the facts. They need to do more reading.

3. “Unfortunately, legalese aside, Israel is in fact an occupying power, and occupying powers are not generally looked upon kindly..”

   Sorry, no sale.

   What you should have said is,

   “Unfortunately, facts aside, Israel is in the fantasies of not a few, an occupying power…”

   Yet how does one behold the restoration of erstwhile legitimate & consistently peaceable communities: which had, decades prior, been brutally & unlawfully destroyed (quite intentionally, ethnically cleansed) -— and then proceed with a straight face to declare the restorations “illegitimate” (or even, “illegal”), and the renewed, entirely voluntarist, clearly non-usurping, non-displacing presence there of the compatriots & revenant descendants of the slaughtered, raped, besavaged and expelled former residents an “occupation” -— without implicitly & perversely rewarding the original aggressors & war criminals (the local ethnic Arabs who went on to call themselves “Palestinians,” as well as the invading armies who facilitated the evil) with the fruits of their criminality & aggression?

   Moreover, how can the existence of Jews anywhere in the historic Land of Israel -— with a Jewish government OR without one -— constitute, in any sense of the term, an ‘occupation’ of that which the very, selfsame, internationally binding, San Remo Resolution and Mandate Charter that, between them, CREATED the lawful, juristic basis for the Jewish State, to begin with, say is the rightful possession of the Jews?

   Are those two international treaties what you mean to be characterizing as “legalese,” to be set aside in assessing the reality?

   …especially [‘occupyiung powers’] with armies whose soldiers have a poor record when dealing with civilian populations.

   You would care to offer examples, perhaps, of ‘occupying powers’ whose armies have a better record of “dealing with civilian populations”?

   — just so we’ll have a baseline to work with in discussing the matter. . . .?

4. It’s a difficult problem. Israel must find a way to continue to be a liberal democracy, yet still provide security for its citizens. Unfortunately, legalese aside, Israel is in fact an occupying power, and occupying powers are not generally looked upon kindly, especially ones with armies whose soldiers have a poor record when dealing with civilian populations.