Do you believe that Israel has the right to exist?

[VCheng]

Sir, if you read my post again you'll see that I have already distinguished between colonial divisions and colonial implants. Usrael is of the latter type.

First of all, it is Israel, but your insistence on calling it something else only reflects badly on your immaturity.

Secondly, the creation of Israel and subsequent migration of its people is exactly the same as scores of other colonial divisions and upheavals.

Whether you accept it or not, that is just the way it is.

And thus the answer is revealed. To Muslim supremacists, Muslim conquest is natural, and must necessarily lead to acceptance of Muslim dominion by local populations; but all other conquest is unnatural, and monstrous, and must be reversed.

To everyone else, the spread of Islam in North Africa is called colonialism and imperialism. Nothing kills the sincerity of an argument more quickly than hypocrisy, and since there is now neither truth nor sincerity in your argument, I will not waste more time on it.

But Sir, continued engagement is required. You and I know may know better, but such deviants intentionally preach to the gullible and the ignorant, and if our wiser counsel remains quiet due to intentional insults hurled by them, evil flourishes, as we can see. We must speak out too to counter these false arguments.

 

[The SC]

First of all, it is Israel, but your insistence on calling it something else only reflects badly on your immaturity.

Secondly, the creation of Israel and subsequent migration of its people is exactly the same as scores of other colonial divisions and upheavals.

Whether you accept it or not, that is just the way it is.



But Sir, continued engagement is required. You and I know may know better, but such deviants intentionally preach to the gullible and the ignorant, and if our wiser counsel remains quiet due to intentional insults hurled by them, evil flourishes, as we can see. We must speak out too to counter these false arguments.

Your "subsequent migration" says a lot about what you think and your immaturity if not ignorance.
I choosed to call it Usrael, because of the US unconditional support it has, and its political corruption of the US government. there is nothing immature in that, it is a fact. if you knew a bit of history, you'll understand that without that support it can not exist.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Secondly, the creation of Israel and subsequent migration of its people is exactly the same as scores of other colonial divisions and upheavals.

Whether you accept it or not, that is just the way it is.

So why were those "scores of other colonial divisions" generally accepted across the world, yet Israel's is not?

In fact, British colonial projects haven't done so well in recent times. Sudan split in half just a short while ago for instance.

India went through partition, to create Pakistan, and there was another further partition to create Bangladesh later on.

Iraq and Syria are probably the worst right now, they seem very likely to split.

Here is my problem, the British colonialists can't just take a ruler and draw straight lines across continents, pushing together people who hate each other, that's not a sustainable method of creating nation-states. Just look at the border of Sudan and Egypt for example, it looks like someone just took a ruler and drew a line:

These are just right-angles, like someone was drawing a box, not organic borders of natural countries.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

So why were those "scores of other colonial divisions" generally accepted across the world, yet Israel's is not?

In fact, British colonial projects haven't done so well in recent times. Sudan split in half just a short while ago for instance.

India went through partition, to create Pakistan, and there was another further partition to create Bangladesh later on.

Iraq and Syria are probably the worst right now, they seem very likely to split.

Here is my problem, the British colonialists can't just take a ruler and draw straight lines across continents, pushing together people who hate each other, that's not a sustainable method of creating nation-states. Just look at the border of Sudan and Egypt for example, it looks like someone just took a ruler and drew a line:

These are just right-angles, like someone was drawing a box, not organic borders of natural countries.

The concept of "natural countries" as applied to most of the colonies is an anachronism. The nation state was a European construct, formed as a result of the Treaty of Westphalia. Africa and much of the Middle East (and parts of Asia) never had a system of organizing around national identity, only around tribal or religious identity. Therefore, the colonial method, judging by the standards of the time, was just as valid as any other--that is, unless each tribe was to be awarded its own country, which of course was impracticable then, and is impracticable now. Iraq may not make much sense, but combining Iran and southern Iraq just because of a shared religion doesn't make much sense, either.

In short, even today, the concept of the "nation state" is still alien to much of the world, which is why instability still exists there. The instability will continue to exist until war forces groups into a common identity, or eliminates them.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

The concept of "natural countries" as applied to most of the colonies is an anachronism. The nation state was a European construct, formed as a result of the Treaty of Westphalia. Africa and much of the Middle East (and parts of Asia) never had a system of organizing around national identity, only around tribal or religious identity. Therefore, the colonial method, judging by the standards of the time, was just as valid as any other--that is, unless each tribe was to be awarded its own country, which of course was impracticable then, and is impracticable now. Iraq may not make much sense, but combining Iran and southern Iraq just because of a shared religion doesn't make much sense, either.

In short, even today, the concept of the "nation state" is still alien to much of the world, which is why instability still exists there. The instability will continue to exist until war forces groups into a common identity, or eliminates them.

I agree. However don't you think Sudan could have been done better? The Arab Muslim north vs the Black Christian south, that was never going to work in the long term. And they ended up splitting anyway.

As for the Indian partition, maybe they could have been forgiven for not realizing how powerful the religious identity was to a large segment of the population.

Iraq is a tricky one, with the three groups (Sunni/Shia/Kurdish) all seemingly unwilling to share a common national identity.

When I talk about "natural nation states", what I mean is that they are a successor to something. The Chinese nation-state for example, is merely a modern incarnation of the Chinese civilization, which has had a central authority (very much like a modern nation state - even including a national bureaucracy) for over 2000 years. There have been many civil wars over history, in which the state has been split into various parts, but over the thousands of years, the majority of that time has been spent under a central authority (Tianzi - The Emperor of China).

The vast majority of the Chinese population shares a very similar cultural/ethnic/linguistic/religious identity, that of being Han Chinese. Whereas minorities like Uyghurs and Tibetans combined only make up 1% of the overall population, there is no significant demographic challenge like there was in pre-Partition India, or modern day Iraq, where there is no clear majority... and the various conflicting demographic segments almost equal each other in numbers.

When America was a developing country, they had a clear and dominant ethnic majority, so did Britain (in fact Britain still has that today).

After becoming developed countries, ethnic identities gave way to "national identities", for example if you had a poll in America right now, probably 99% would identify themselves as "American" - which is the glue that binds them together.

When it comes to Iraq and Syria though (developing countries), they do not have much confidence in a common national identity, preferring to align by religious sect. ISIS fighters come from all over the world, it is not the nation-state that binds them, but rather a common religious motivation.

For China it was easy to transition to Chinese nationalism, it seems like a continuation of past history and culture, just changing the vessel from a civilization to a nation-state. But for countries like Sudan, these people were forced together into a country by colonialists, seemingly using a ruler to draw right-angles through them. It seems very unstable.

Just my personal opinion.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

I agree. However don't you think Sudan could have been done better? The Arab Muslim north vs the Black Christian south, that was never going to work in the long term. And they ended up splitting anyway.

As for the Indian partition, maybe they could have been forgiven for not realizing how powerful the religious identity was to a large segment of the population.

Iraq is a tricky one, with the three groups (Sunni/Shia/Kurdish) all seemingly unwilling to share a common national identity.

When I talk about "natural nation states", what I mean is that they are a successor to something. The Chinese nation-state for example, is merely a modern incarnation of the Chinese civilization, which has had a central authority (very much like modern nation state - even including a national bureaucracy) for over 2000 years. There have been many civil wars over history, in which the state has been split into various parts, but over the thousands of years, the majority of that time has been spent under a central authority (Tianzi - The Emperor of China).

The vast majority of the Chinese population shares a very similar cultural/ethnic/linguistic/religious identity, that of being Han Chinese. Whereas minorities like Uyghurs and Tibetans combined only make up 1% of the overall population, there is no significant demographic challenge like there was in pre-Partition India, or modern day Iraq, where there is no clear majority... and the various conflicting demographic segments almost equal each other in numbers.

When America was a developing country, they had a clear and dominant ethnic majority, so did Britain (in fact Britain still has that today).

After becoming developed countries, ethnic identities gave way to "national identities", for example if you had a poll in America right now, probably 99% would identify themselves as "American" - which is the glue that binds them together.

When it comes to Iraq and Syria though (developing countries), they do not have much confidence in a common national identity, preferring to align by religious sect. ISIS fighters come from all over the world, it is not the nation-state that binds them, but rather a common religious motivation.

For China it was easy to transition to Chinese nationalism, it seems like a continuation of past history and culture, just changing the vessel from a civilization to a nation-state. But for countries like Sudan, these people were forced together into a country by colonialists, seemingly using a ruler to draw right-angles through them. It seems very unstable.

Just my personal opinion.

I agree completely. China is a good example of the idea of the nation state existing outside of (and in fact, pre-dating) the European concept, but made an easy transition once the European world order came to prominence. Japan as well. But the Ottoman Empire is an example of a grouping of societies that never had a history of large-scale group identification other than religion, and which never succeeded in sustaining the concept of national identity except when forced to by dictatorship. Turkey was able to quickly transition to the nation-state model because its ethnic minorities were cleansed, so the ethnic identity could form the basis of the national identity. But across the Arab world, shared religion hasn't meant much, and neither has shared ethnicity, absent the iron fist of a totalitarian ruler. The same is true of Yugoslavia, and I don't believe that Bosnia has reached its natural conclusion, since the iron fist of NATO intervened.

That said, perhaps there was a more logical way to arrange the colonial borders, but of course, logical grouping of the locals was not the priority of the colonial powers, and indeed, contradicted their "divide and rule" strategy to maintain power.

Still, that was 70+ years ago, for the most part. Time for countries to take responsibility for themselves, and either forge a stable national identity, or split where that is not possible, like your Sudan example. Iraq's partition is inevitable.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Iraq's partition is inevitable.

You're right, it seems inevitable.

It's a pity, if Iraq had managed to stick together long enough become a developed country, their citizens might have been able to band together under a shared common national identity. Like other developed countries have done, and put tribalism aside.

But when countries are still in the developing stage, tribalism seems to predominate. If not by ethnicity, then by religion, if not by religion, then by religious sect.

And in Iraq, every move they make seems to further the sectarian divide (from Sunni ISIS to Shia militias that are created to oppose them).

Israel on the other hand, has managed to win the allegiance of most of the people within its own borders, even including Israeli Arabs and Muslims, to a common Israeli national identity. I think this is because Israel managed to become a developed country, that's when tribalism can be put aside.

However, the division between Israel and the non-Israelis on their borders (Gaza and the West Bank) seems to be widening, which they may see as an acceptable loss in their overall game plan. But who knows what that is.

 

[The SC]

So why were those "scores of other colonial divisions" generally accepted across the world, yet Israel's is not?

In fact, British colonial projects haven't done so well in recent times. Sudan split in half just a short while ago for instance.

India went through partition, to create Pakistan, and there was another further partition to create Bangladesh later on.

Iraq and Syria are probably the worst right now, they seem very likely to split.

Here is my problem, the British colonialists can't just take a ruler and draw straight lines across continents, pushing together people who hate each other, that's not a sustainable method of creating nation-states. Just look at the border of Sudan and Egypt for example, it looks like someone just took a ruler and drew a line:

These are just right-angles, like someone was drawing a box, not organic borders of natural countries.

I doubt it very much that Iraq or Syria will split; the conditions are far from the ones in Sudan where The north had a Musllim majority and the south had a christian majority.
There are the kurds in Northern Iraq who might want to split, but I doubt it very much if they will be allowed by th central government to do that .
There is nothing in Syria to indicate a reason for spliting, or th possibility of it.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

I doubt it very much that Iraq or Syria will split; the conditions are far from the ones in Sudan where The north had a Musllim majority and the south had a christian majority.
There are the kurds in Northern Iraq who might want to split, but I doubt it very much if they will be allowed by th central government to do that .
There is nothing in Syria to indicate a reason for spliting, or th possibility of it.

The territory of ISIS already covers parts of both Iraq and Syria.

In de facto terms, it has already split, those territories are under ISIS rule and administration as we speak.

 

[The SC]

The territory of ISIS already covers parts of both Iraq and Syria.

In de facto terms, it has already split, those territories are under ISIS rule and administration as we speak.

They still lack a government, until than, it can not be considered as a split.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

They still lack a government, until than, it can not be considered as a split.

They also lack international recognition as a state.

That is why I said "de facto". They de facto control vast territories from both Iraq and Syria, and they administrate them. The territory is under control of the Islamic State, not the Governments of Iraq or Syria.

But who knows when that may become a formal split? The risk is there, that is my point. More of a risk than most other places in the world, since the control of the territory has already been lost, and the chances of the Iraqi government being able to regain and hold those areas in the long-term seems low.

 

[UKBengali]

Edit - Post deleted as misunderstood!

 

[Aepsilons]

Israel on the other hand, has managed to win the allegiance of most of the people within its own borders, even including Israeli Arabs and Muslims, to a common Israeli national identity. I think this is because Israel managed to become a developed country, that's when tribalism can be put aside.

I agree with you. One thing that I do admire about Israel is that the State of Israel is composed of a mixture of varying ethnicities. The Jewish concept of "The Law of Return" (Hok Ha Shvut) allows people of the Jewish faith to return to Israel. These include European Jews -- Ashkenazim, the Iberian Jews or also known as Sephardim , the North African or Middle Eastern Jews known as the Mizrahim.

Israel, truly, is an example of how the notion of a Nation State has trumped any ethnic, or tribal origin. Israeli citizens may be of Russian, Hungarian, German , Moroccan, Saudi, Iranian, Iraqi, Lebanese, Jordanian, Chinese (Kaifeng Jews), Indian (Goan Jews), Ethiopian, Somali origin. It is actually very impressive how the loyalty of Israelis , who come from a very diverse ethnic background, is proven time and time again.

In fact, I would even say that Israel is a perfect example of how a nation that is composed of multiple ethnicities, races can work together -- nationally.

 

[VCheng]

So why were those "scores of other colonial divisions" generally accepted across the world, yet Israel's is not?

Actually, Israel is generally accepted by more countries than not, and it will gradually win over all remaining detractors once the two state solution is in place, which is inevitable as well. Most countries that do not recognize Israel do it more out of pandering to internal politics rather than any direct issue with the State of Israel.

Your points about colonial era divisions not being entirely suitable is well made, and I can accept that, but it was just the way things were done back then. Whatever adjustments are needed, they can happen by peace too, for example the division of Czechoslovakia, or by war, like in the Sudan.

 

[UKBengali]

It's a pity, if Iraq had managed to stick together long enough become a developed country, their citizens might have been able to band together under a shared common national identity. Like other developed countries have done, and put tribalism aside.

I am not so sure whether this would have worked in reality.

Iraq does not even speak it's own language and therefore there would have been nothing unique about being an Iraqi. A sunni-Arab Iraqi will always feel more kinship with a Sunni Arab Syrian than with either a Sunni Kurdish Iraqi or a Shia Arab Iraqi.

If you look at the states that have held together throughout history, you see the one common glue is a common religious,language and cultural identity. Think England, France and China.

Most Arab countries are destined to eventually disintegrate and the only question is when it will happen.