On the difference between recognizing a state, and recognizing a state's "right to exist"

Lawrence of Cyberia draws a distinction typically lost in corporate media (COMA) coverage of Israel and Palestine.
The demands, as preconditions for negotiations, that the Hamas government (or the Palestinian Authority or the Palestinians -- they are phrased variously) "recognize Israel" or "recognize Israel's right to exist" are two distinct things.
It's a tight, little 10-paragraph essay that sticks to logic and written history, and will make the AIPAC-types shriek invective.

Comments

[eric]

Exactly. People have rights; states (may) have legitimacy, authority, or some other claim to existence. But no state has a "right to exist".

[Stein]

I agree with this idea, Eric. It's broader than the essay at Lawrence of Cyberia, which I hope folks will click over to. That post is specifically about Zionism and the issues that are particular Israel & Palestine.
One of the values of broadening the scope of the discussion to nation states generally -- the vaule of asserting a moral scheme in which rights belong to persons, not to states -- is that it demystifies the Palestinian refusal to recognize the state of Israel's "right to exist." This refusal is particular neither to the state of Israel nor to the Palestinian people. It's a sensible refusal to accord rights to political entities or jurisdictions; it's an insistence on locating rights in human beings.
Another value of taking the discussion in this direction may be that it helps identify the very few authentic anti-Semites among anti-Zionists. Some people really do believe that there is only one UN member state that lacks a "right to exist." They don't call for the abolition of all nation states (they aren't anarchists), they only want to abolish Israel. For these people (uncritical of the nation state itself), we should have a question: Why is Israel on the top of your list? Why is it the ONLY state on your list?
But, to return to the point of the post I linked to, L. of C. makes a cogent argument that IS specific to Israel & Palestine. It's a short read, so go back up to the top of the page and click the link.

[TallSkinny]

Well, leave it to me to say something which upsets the cozy consensus.

Cogent, my ass. It's a tendentious diatribe, not at all unlike the sort of crap put out by nutso Zionists.

And that's exactly the problem. An oppressed people gets absolutely nowhere by mimicking the sort of narcissism of small differences characteristic of their oppressor's propaganda. If you play their game their way, you have already lost.

For the weaker partner in the conflict, this sort of nit-picking is useful only when accompanied by some direct action, the ostensible purpose of which is to accomplish the nit-picky goal, but the real purpose of which is to emphasize just how ridiculous debates like this are when human lives are at stake.

This essay contributes nothing to the cause of peace and justice in Palestine/Israel. Nothing, except making its authors and fans feel better about themselves.

Now, before I'm condemned as some wacky Zionist apologist, remember who I am, where I come from and, specifically, that I am a citizen of a state which was partitioned by a colonial power, which has used religion as a wedge to continue its occupation ever since.

The right to self-determination of peoples belongs to all peoples, including both Palestinians and Jews. That is the bottom line on this conflict. Moving away from that bottom line only serves the purposes of those, whether Palestinian or Jewish, who would deny the right to self-determination to another people, whether Palestinian or Jewish.

If Hamas really wants to piss off Israel, it would promptly recognize Israel's right to exist.

[Stein]

Well, leave it to me to say something which upsets the cozy consensus --
Actually, TallSkinny, I do just that. For real, I have a to-do list, which includes, "Leave it to ___ to upset cozy consensus." This month I penciled you into the blank.
Seriously, while I stronly disagree, I always value your contributions here.
I can only re-state my reply to Eric. I believe that rights are located in humans, not in political entities. Recognition of a state by another, or by a governing party, is a formal activity in which the states, or the state and the party, participate under law. Recognition of a state's "right to exist" is an ideological activity not governed by any rules at all, except who has hegemonic power. Maybe this is what you're talking about in terms of direct action to challenge the nit-picky terms of debate?

[eric]

"The right to self-determination of peoples belongs to all peoples, including both Palestinians and Jews."

That point, with which I wholeheartedly agree, was (sort of) implicit in my point about rights belonging to people rather than states. But it definitely bears stating explicitly.

I'd add only that a large part of the intractability of the Israel/Palestine conflict stems from two fundamental errors (on both sides):
(1) a willful refusal to acknowledge those on the other side as "a people" with a right of self-determination, and
(2) a conflation of "self-determination" with "statehood" (and, worse still, with a nation-state in a particular geographic location).

We Jews, as a people, unquestionably should enjoy the same right of self-determination (no more, no less) as any other people. But asserting and exercising that right requires neither (a) denying the peoplehood and self-determination of Palestinians, nor (b) the maintenance of Israel as a "Jewish state".

[Stein]

Again, h/t to Eric who has put it succinctly. One more thing. I never directly replied to TallSkinny's description of the Lawrence of Cyberia post a "tendentious diatribe." I'd just like to go on record at this point repeating my original belief that the post makes a cogent argument.