That’s a rhetorical question, but I was thinking something today, about Palestine.
Why engage in such an endless rigamarole about the “two state solution” when Palestine could have declared its statehood, like Israel did? From all appearances it seems like a thing you can do, if you have some land, a population, and a way of getting word out. Then, you ask for international recognition, etc. Israel did it. Why haven’t the Palestinians declared Gaza and the occupied lands to be a state?
Of course we know the answer: the US wouldn’t recognize them, nor would any of the US’ power bloc that could be strong-armed into not recognizing them (for example: “hey, Ukraine, don’t even think of recognizing Palestine or your ammo supply gets cut off.”) But there are a lot of other nations that probably would do the right thing. Of course, it would result in a genocidal bombardment and flattening of Palestine, but that was in the cards all along.
Related: I no longer believe that the US had any thought, ever, that a two state solution was in the cards. The founding fathers of Israel have always been clear up front that their agenda is to seize the land they consider “greater Israel.” This pretense allowed the US to wring its hands in a bad faith effort to peacefully smooth over settler colonialism.
I for one, recognize Palestine as a state. It has an elected government. Why not?
Seriously, though, the whole situation just emphasizes, to me, why I think nationalism is a crime against humanity. Because someone was born into an area on a map, we’re going to call them something, and they are assumed to be part of the politics of that area, and we’re going to make significant efforts to restrict their ability to get the fuck out and go be somewhere else. “Oh, you can’t leave and go live in New York City, the USA has immigration laws that control your ability to enter, and the nation that owns you (by virtue of the fortune of your birth) can control your ability to leave. Really? What the actual fuck kind of absolutely immoral situation is that?
There is a Palestinian state, it just doesn’t have any power or a coherent government. Wikipedia says Ukraine actually recognizes the government. The US probably isn’t that happy about it but it also isn’t that big of an issue as long as it has no real power.
I suspect a two state solution managed locally was possible until the Oslo/Oslo2 accords failed. The PLO proved incapable of effective governance under the Palestinian Council format. Once Hamas took control of the Gaza strip violence was inevitable. Since this period Israel has drifted conservative politically making them less interested in peace.
Now it would require an outside power to impose coherent borders for an extended period of time to achieve long term peace.
National borders are a practical matter, not a moral one. In an ideal world they would not be needed but this world falls far short of that. The US and it’s population has a practical interest in keeping people from coming here just to launder money or bring in illegal drugs or work to subvert the country. We have a practical interest in keeping people charged with crimes from leaving before their court cases or people found guilt from leaving before they serve their jail time or pay fines. Movement needs to be tracked to keep people from traveling just to avoid taxes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Palestine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestine
Why does this apply to national entities but not, say, cities within such nations? And vice versa – why is it acceptable that anyone can go to any city within a nation but not across a national border?
I guess it’s because nations have armies and the legal means to print money to fund them, and cities do not.