Right to Nationality vs. The two-state solution

[9-10ths_Penguin]

From the UN Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 15

1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Those of you who oppose the recognition of Palestinian statehood: how do you think this right should be afforded to the Palestinian people?

Should they be recognized as Israeli citizens?

Should Gaza and the West Bank be recognized as territory of some other nation(s)?

... or do you just not recognize the right to nationality as a human right worth respecting?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

@9-10ths_Penguin, would you please offer a workable definition of nationality and suggest what was intended by "arbitrarily" in number two above.

Also, what, in your opinion, distinguishes recognition of statehood (in the absence of a state) from recognition of the right of self-determination?

 

[libre]

I think part of the problem regarding recognition is not that opponents of recognition do so out of principle, but that they do not want to recognize Palestine as it exists today.

Which in my view gives lots of ammo to the Israeli establishment which has done almost everything it can to disrupt such from coming about.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think part of the problem regarding recognition is not that opponents of recognition do so out of principle, but that they do not want to recognize Palestine as it exists today.

Which in my view gives lots of ammo to the Israeli establishment which has done almost everything it can to disrupt such from coming about.

If you - or they - think that Palestine ought to exist in some other form, feel free to describe that form.

 

[Nakosis]

From the UN Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 15

1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Those of you who oppose the recognition of Palestinian statehood: how do you think this right should be afforded to the Palestinian people?

Should they be recognized as Israeli citizens?

Should Gaza and the West Bank be recognized as territory of some other nation(s)?

... or do you just not recognize the right to nationality as a human right worth respecting?

A complex question.

No one actually has a "right" to nationality except where that nationality can and affords protection to that nationality.

I'm not a be fan of nationality, American, except in accepting it, it affords me a degree of protection provided by that nation. That nation could of course strip me of that nationality through a legal, non-arbitrary, process. So basically everyone deserves the protection of a nationality except where one is legally deprive of a nationality.

Should they be recognized as Israeli citizens?
Up to Israel.

Should Gaza and the West Bank be recognized as territory of some other nation(s)?
Up to these other nations.

... or do you just not recognize the right to nationality as a human right worth respecting?
Respect is irrelevant. What is necessary is enforcement of protection. Either Palestine or enough supporters who could enforce the protection of Palestinian nationality.

No one needs to respect my "American" nationality as long as there is sufficient military might to enforce it.

I'm not opposed to it but that doesn't help them to gain the necessary military might to enforce it. Especially with one of the largest arms manufacturing country in the world supporting the opposition.

 

[Stevicus]

From the UN Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 15

1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Those of you who oppose the recognition of Palestinian statehood: how do you think this right should be afforded to the Palestinian people?

Should they be recognized as Israeli citizens?

Should Gaza and the West Bank be recognized as territory of some other nation(s)?

... or do you just not recognize the right to nationality as a human right worth respecting?

Originally, the territories of Gaza and the West Bank were recognized as part of Egypt and Jordan, respectively. Those territories were lost in the 1967 war, and the common argument I've heard is that, since they started the war, losing their territory was a just consequence.

Just like Germany started a war they couldn't win and ended up losing land as a consequence. For example, East Prussia was divided between the USSR and Poland. If I recall correctly, most of the Germans living there were sent to what was left of Germany.

It seems to me that, if the people living in Gaza and West Bank were part of Egypt and Jordan, then their nationalities would have been Egyptian and Jordanian, prior to the 1967 war. Did Israel officially annex these territories and are they now considered part of Israel? Should the inhabitants in these territories be considered citizens of Israel, analogous to the Mexican nationals who resided in the territories ceded to the U.S. by Mexico in 1848? Or are they the responsibility of Egypt and Jordan? Do the people living in those territories have a right to Egyptian or Jordanian nationality and citizenship, and if not, why not?

I'm not necessarily against a two-state solution, although I would wonder what it would look like and whether it would be practical, viable, and functional.

If, for example, the Navajo Nation decided they wanted to become a fully independent, sovereign nation-state, I don't see how I could oppose that on any moral or legal basis. I believe they would have the right to do so. But on a more practical and functional level, I can see why the U.S. government would oppose that and prevent it from happening.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally, the territories of Gaza and the West Bank were recognized as part of Egypt and Jordan, respectively. Those territories were lost in the 1967 war, and the common argument I've heard is that, since they started the war, losing their territory was a just consequence.

Them losing territory implies that Israel gained territory... no?

Just like Germany started a war they couldn't win and ended up losing land as a consequence. For example, East Prussia was divided between the USSR and Poland. If I recall correctly, most of the Germans living there were sent to what was left of Germany.

... based on the terms of the Potsdam agreement. Is there an agreement that provides for something like this for the Palestinians?

 

[libre]

No one needs to respect my "American" nationality as long as there is sufficient military might to enforce it.

A notably American attitude for sure

 

[Stevicus]

Them losing territory implies that Israel gained territory... no?

It would seem so, although the actual ownership is the matter currently under dispute.

... based on the terms of the Potsdam agreement. Is there an agreement that provides for something like this for the Palestinians?

If there isn't one, there should have been one.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It would seem so, although the actual ownership is the matter currently under dispute.



If there isn't one, there should have been one.

If there isn't one, the inhabitants of the land generally acquire the citizenship of the country acquiring the land. Occasionally the occupying power sets up a new client state instead. It's an aberration for a successful invasion to create a bunch of stateless people.

 

[Nakosis]

A notably American attitude for sure

Well, I can't escape my culture but one doesn't have to be an American for it to be true.

 

[libre]

If you - or they - think that Palestine ought to exist in some other form, feel free to describe that form.

I lean towards recognition at the present time.

Those who argue otherwise will have a multitude of reasons and I don't wish to speak for them - but certain trends are apparent in the arguments I've seen: (Israel needing 'total security', Palestinians being too wretched and unmanageable, leadership not being cooperative, a multiplicity of Palestinian proto-states, use of terror, Palestinian antisemitism.)

 

[Stevicus]

If there isn't one, the inhabitants of the land generally acquire the citizenship of the country acquiring the land. Occasionally the occupying power sets up a new client state instead. It's an aberration for a successful invasion to create a bunch of stateless people.

I agree. It gets complicated considering the territorial changes which have taken place. At one point, the inhabitants of that region would have been citizens of the Ottoman Empire, and then the British had it for a while, though I don't know if that would have made them British citizens. I'll admit I'm a bit fuzzy on the legalities involving all of this, except that everyone has human rights and can't really be rolled over based on legal technicalities.

Should they be considered stateless, though? If they are not Israeli citizens, then wouldn't that make them Egyptian or Jordanian citizens?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree. It gets complicated considering the territorial changes which have taken place.

What about the territorial changes makes human rights complicated?

At one point, the inhabitants of that region would have been citizens of the Ottoman Empire, and then the British had it for a while, though I don't know if that would have made them British citizens. I'll admit I'm a bit fuzzy on the legalities involving all of this, except that everyone has human rights and can't really be rolled over based on legal technicalities.

I was born and raised in Toronto, which at various times was in Mississauga, French, British, and (for a bit less than a week in 1813) American hands. I still get a nationality.

Every place is complicated. Every place has technicalities.

Should they be considered stateless, though? If they are not Israeli citizens, then wouldn't that make them Egyptian or Jordanian citizens?

But the West Bank and Gaza aren't occupied by Egypt or Jordan; they're occupied by Israel.

 

[Stevicus]

What about the territorial changes makes human rights complicated?

I meant the territorial changes are complicated, not human rights.

I was born and raised in Toronto, which at various times was in Mississauga, French, British, and (for a bit less than a week in 1813) American hands. I still get a nationality.

Every place is complicated. Every place has technicalities.

Yes, but at some point, an agreement was reached, a treaty was signed, a law was made to define what's what in Toronto. If that wasn't done in this instance and there are millions of people in some kind of stateless limbo, whose fault is that?

But the West Bank and Gaza aren't occupied by Egypt or Jordan; they're occupied by Israel.

That wouldn't necessarily make them "stateless." The people of France didn't become stateless when the Germans occupied their country. They still were still citizens of a state, even if they were occupied, and they remained French citizens after the war was over. Or in situations like East Prussia, the Germans living there were repatriated back to Germany. Germany had to take them (well, they didn't have a choice anyway). They could not simply refuse to take in their own people and call them "stateless."