2 replies to this topic

[redlion]

So it occurred to me that in many ways China and Israel have a similar problem. Both states have territories "in rebellion" that disrupt the territorial integrity of their countries. I am referring to the Palestinian territories and both Taiwan and the western territories of Tibet and Xinjiang.

Yet they have startlingly different approaches when it comes to what to do with them.

Israel has given the territories limited self government, but cuts them off from development money, a military, or any sort of nation building tools.

China has pretty much sworn off Taiwan, but for political reasons continues to insist there is "one China" and Taiwan is just in rebellion. Taiwan says the same thing about the much larger mainland of course. And Tibet has a government in exile, in the form of the Dalai Llama, although he says he may be the last in his line. Xinjiang has the ethnic Uighur population that is agitating for autonomy.

What I'm getting at is this: if at any point Taiwan said, look we'll be part of China provided we have limited self government, China would be like, sure. If Tibet or Xinjiang were to take up arms I think that they could get a similar deal. But I don't think that Israel has considered giving the Palestinians equal voting rights in the Knesset and a limited regional government.

There are many good reasons to do so. At the very least, it would provide for a common market for the palestinians and the israelis, and a common labor pool. I think it follows that anytime you put a largely unemployed population to work, their incentive to take up arms and suicide bombs decreases.

The alternative is of course the two state solution. They've got such a system quasi set up right now, but it's a shit alternative to be honest. The Palestinians aren't recognized internationally, which means they aren't eligible for many kinds of aid monies. They have limited self government, but it's a heavily guarded border with trade discouraged, and their cities are shanty towns full of the unemployed youth.

So having posed both sides of the argument, which side do you fall on? Is it time to give the two state solution another go? Or have seven successive presidents failed in a Sisyphean task which has another answer?

[Casilla]

I think Taiwan is in its own category since a) it is on an island and b) is independently wealthy. Also, I wouldn't call them rebels: Taiwan's gov't was part of the original pre-Communist government of mainland China, which evacuated to Taiwan (well before the Communists came along, to boot). So, it considers that the mainland China government are the rebels, and Taiwan is the overthrown government, it's a completely different dynamic than anything else presented here. Taiwan is doing fine on its own, and mainland China is doing fine without Taiwan. The only issue is that they both call themselves China.

Most likely, Taiwan's government would be killed or imprisoned should they "rejoin" the mainland.

Both Tibet and Xinjiang were invaded by Communist China. Theoretically, yes, they did rebel against pre-Communist China...but so did the Communists who invaded them! I look at it kind of like a reverse USSR situation. But perhaps more applicable to Palestine/Israel, as there are human rights issues involved with the territories.

Israel is in such a different boat. Palestine was a British quasi-territory after WWI, because, well, the Ottomans lost the war. But Palestine had basically been an Ottoman territory before that. And it's not like the British were new to the area. The only reason Egypt didn't own Palestine at that point was because Britain had been around when they tried to invade in the 1800s. Palestine wasn't a true state, but it was a strong Arab identity. And by Arab, I mean culturally/ethically - with Arab Muslims, Arab Christians, Arab Jews - maybe not living peacefully all the time, but definitely all considering themselves and their country to be Arabic.

Meanwhile, there had always been some Zionist movements in Palestine pre-Holocaust, but obviously when the dust settled after WW2, their popularity (and Judeo-centric mantra) sprung to the limelight - in and out of Palestine. And Palestine was legally Britain's property to give to the Zionist movement.

But the real fuckup in that transition was polarizing the populace away from the Arabic identity, into Zionist and "others". And I don't know if Britain is completely at fault there, but...my point is that, the state of Israel doesn't have the cultural history OR the institutional capacity (that is, the ability to deal fairly with the Palestinians) to have Palestine act as a true territory. Palestine *needs* to be a separate state, or Israel needs to deport everyone. But having it last the way it has been...has no amicable solution. Palestine does not have a legal claim to the land it is on (the Ottomans lost the war!). It only has a cultural claim. And I honestly do not think Israel has the "maturity" to treat Palestine fairly. So...it needs to cut it loose.

Meanwhile, China DOES have the cultural history of Tibet and Xinjiang being apart of its country/cultural identity. It likewise, with this hundreds of different ethnic groups, has the institutional capacity to deal with Tibet and Xinjiang fairly as true territories. But the current Chinese government has no true legal claim on Tibet/Xinjiang (except as "conquerers", which even then you could doubt they have truly "conquered" those two). If anyone has a legal claim on them, it would be Taiwan, actually.

I think China has been "maturing" in the past decade; enough that I think it eventually could entice Tibet and Xinjiang back into the fold. But for right now, it would catch more flies with honey than vinegar. It needs to cut them some slack. After all, look at Hong Kong. Hong Kong is legally China's as of recently...but China lets it continue do its own thing. And that's working out pretty well for the both of them.


EDIT:
Ugh, what I wrote above is more of a stream of consciousness than anything. I apologize. Instead of editing it, let me clarify:

Tibet/Xinjiang have been part of "China" for hundreds of years, but they were independent for a good 30 years before Communist China invaded them. They are, in a true sense, rebels...but there is a chance for future cohesion if China can get their heads out of their asses for five minutes.

Palestine hasn't had true independence for hundreds of years, but did exist as a whole people. Then they were split into essentially 3 people (socially, ethically and culturally) due to outside intervention. Of course, at the time, Israel's xenophobia (and alienation of non-Jewish people) could be easily understood. But as a result of the actions of its xenophobia, it has actually made real the outside threats it originally feared. Even if Israel pulled their heads out of their asses for five minutes today, it still wouldn't solve the huge social and cultural strife that exists now that didn't exist before, and it doesn't give it any real motivation to heal.

Tibet/Xinjiang also have a benefit of a huge geographical separation, which Palestine does not. It's easy to forgive someone you are mad at if don't have to see them every day, after all.

The situations are all completely different, in essence. You cannot hope to think that a political solution for Tibet would also work for Palestine, because we are talking about such hugely different social, cultural and historical motives for separation in the first place.

[Syntax]

The thing about Israel and Palestine is that they both have cultural and historical (mostly religious) claims to the land. They will never have a one state solution because it would mean compromising their religious views and that's basically a no-no for both countries. The situation was unfortunately exacberated by the western powers (British), expecially after WWII. I personally believe that Israel should give up some land back to Palestine so that they can set up a proper government and stop being displaced. Then both sides should really adopt some form of secular government and work out their problems from there. I'm sick of not being able to travel in that area because of all the unrest.