Friday 6 December 2019

Territorial disputes: the Israel-Palestine difference (Part 5) [Post 45]



The Israel-Palestine difference and the egalitarian shared sovereignty
Time to untangle the Israel-Palestine difference. The last four posts introduced very briefly the background situation of this TERRITORIAL DISPUTE.

With the previous case studies part of the TERRITORIAL DISPUTES series (so far Kashmir, the Falkland/Malvinas islands, and Gibraltar), we covered population, territory, government and law and how to address these conflicts by means of the EGALITARIAN SHARED SOVEREIGNTY.

On this occasion, the Israel-Palestine difference calls for a prior clarification: who counts? For some in Israel, sovereignty over certain areas does not need any discussion with Palestinians. For some in Palestine, sovereignty over the same areas does not need discussion with Israel. Each of these parties consider the land to be theirs and the opponent does not have any legitimate claim.

In domestic law (and this is applicable to international relations too) before going into the negotiations to solve any conflict it is imperative to decide who will be able to be part of them. In other words, who is a legitimate claiming party? This has to do with the “admissibility” steps prior to any negotiation or discussion. In simple terms, if I do not recognize you to have right to claim over “X” I will not discuss who owns “X.”
So far, this long standing difference has been in a legal and political limbo. Yet, if we were finally reasonable and wanted a peaceful end to the dispute, who counts? Who can be part of the discussions about the sovereignty over the disputed territories?

The usual grounds in international law to acknowledge legitimacy when disputes of the kind we see here are effective occupation, consent by the other agent in the dispute, consent by other States, and/or consent by the international community.
Without entering into too much detail about them (simply to avoid making this post too academic and littered with technical jargon), it is easy to see that Israel and Palestine dispute these grounds for different reasons in relation to their opponent. 
For example, Palestinians do not have effective occupation and therefore, have no right to claim. Israel does not count with the consent of the other agent in the dispute (Palestine) and most of the regional neighbors; hence, Israel does not have any right to claim sovereignty. And so on…

The issue, I believe, is that the usual grounds for legitimacy do not capture the whole complexity of Israel-Palestine difference. In my latest monograph (Núñez 2017) I develop the idea any claiming party in a sovereignty conflict should have what I call a “colorable claim.” The expression comes from the domestic Courts in the US and, to an extent, in Scotland.

In basic terms, any party claiming sovereignty (whether Israel or Palestine) must have a valid reason to claim. That reason should be “colorable” enough to prove that their intended rights are at least sufficiently plausible to be acknowledged, and they can be based on any reasonable circumstances—e.g. political, historical, legal, geographical arguments to name a few.
For example, in the case of the Falklands/Malvinas islands dispute it would be unreasonable for Russia to participate in the negotiations in relation to their sovereignty since they do not have any colorable claim over that territory.

I will introduce next time more details about the colorable claim and its different grounds. I aim to show how and why both Israel and Palestine have the right to claim sovereignty.
To be more precise, I refer to the RIGHT TO CLAIM SOVEREIGNTY and not SOVEREIGNTY itself. Remember a right to claim anything is prior to having the right acknowledged. First, we have to prove we can claim (admissibility). It is only after this step we can argue who has the right (the substance of the case).

NOTE: This post is based on Jorge Emilio Núñez, “Territorial Disputes and State Sovereignty: International Law and Politics,” London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 2020 (forthcoming)
Previous published research monograph about territorial disputes and sovereignty by the author, Jorge Emilio Núñez, “Sovereignty Conflicts and International Law and Politics: A Distributive Justice Issue,” London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 2017.

NEXT POST: The Israel-Palestine difference: Who counts? (available on Monday 06th January 2020).

Friday 06th December 2019
Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez
Twitter: @London1701

Thursday 5 December 2019

Territorial disputes: the Israel-Palestine difference (Part 4) [Post 44]



The Israel-Palestine difference and the (re)interpretation by the media

TERRITORIAL DISPUTES like the Israel-Palestine difference in which several international agents claim sovereign rights for different reasons over the same piece of land are not uncommon.
They all have a particular feature: their solution assumes a mutually exclusive relationship amongst competing parties (in this case, Israel and Palestine). That is because the common understanding (I would say, misunderstanding) is that the sovereignty over the third territory can be acknowledged to only one of them. Indeed, sovereignty is often regarded as an absolute concept (that is to say, exclusive, and not shareable).

  • Post 7: Territorial disputes: sovereignty
  • Post 8: Territorial disputes: sovereignty (cont.)


The Israel-Palestine difference, as it stands, is another clear example of a zero sum game, with many negative outcomes of different sorts (e.g. social struggle, tension in international relations, refugee crisis, and threat to local, regional and international peace).
Thus, while these conflicts are in principle confined to specific areas and start with negative consequences primarily for the local population, they tend quickly to expand to the regional and—even—the international level (e.g. effects on international price of oil, arms trafficking, terrorism, war). There are many issues at stake domestically and internationally.

  • Post 9: Territorial disputes: issues at stake


We have already reviewed some academic articles and research about the Israel-Palestine difference in this series. Today, the post includes below articles from the media covering this territorial dispute.
Before we start with the articles, I would like to reiterate two things I have already posted before when we introduce other TERRITORIAL DISPUTES and are constant variables that work against viable solutions.

In all cases, although this sovereignty conflict has been and is object of study of many sciences—law, political sciences, international relations, only to name a few—these sciences do not share their developments and both different approaches and different languages were applied. Indeed, although multi and inter-disciplinary studies are promoted in speeches everywhere, it is more a nominal aim rather than an actual reality.”

I realized that the answer was very simple. Some problems are never solved because most look for more problems, problems within a problem, or just simply give up or are so self-centred they think that problem will not affect them and hence, why would they even think about it. Ergo, the answer came to me: some problems like [the Israel-Palestine difference] are never solved because people (or their representatives) do not look for a solution.”

International media


Israel-Palestine From Both Sides of the Mirror
The New York Times

“Living under military occupation meant coping with the shooting of my best friend in high school, turning a fearful blind eye when seeing soldiers beating a Palestinian boy with a baton, rescuing my husband from the grip of soldiers on a cold winter night, contending with my 10-year-old son’s night terrors after weeks of relentless bombardment, not being allowed to enter the city of my birth, Jerusalem, and living in daily anguish knowing that my people remain refugees after more than 70 years and have lived under siege for decades.”
“The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is still unresolved. Occupation is damaging to Israel, but even a dovish Israeli government proved unable to find agreement with the Palestinians. The “creeping status quo” is hurting both sides. It moves in a dangerous direction. It urgently calls for courageous leadership on both sides to resolve it.”


May Is Likely to Be an Ugly Month in Gaza
Bloomberg

“One of the most densely populated places on earth, Gaza is now barely habitable. Hunger is rampant. Water is undrinkable. Unemployment is close to 50 percent. Health-care is scanty at best. Electricity is available just two to four hours per day. The once-beautiful seacoast is now a giant sewer. And there’s virtually no way in or out of the territory which, since a violent takeover in 2007 by the Islamist faction Hamas, has been under a lockdown by Israel and Egypt.”


Outrage Grows As Israel Rules Out Inquiry Into Shooting of Palestinian ‘Land Day’ Protesters
The Independent

“Hamas, Gaza’s dominant Islamist movement which is designated a terrorist organisation by Israel, said five of those killed were its members, though Israel says eight of the men were part of Hamas.”


The media in the region (same facts, different perceptions)

Israel Drops Leaflets Warning Gazans Not To Approach Border
Israel Hayom (Israeli newspaper, largest daily circulation in the country)

“Israel dropped leaflets in Gaza strip on Friday warning Palestinians not to approach its border as the military braced for fresh clashes along the frontier.”
“Last week’s border protest was dubbed the “firebomb campaign” and saw Palestinian demonstrators hurl thousands of Molotov cocktails at Israeli troops near the border.”


Hamas Regrets Security Council Not Condemning Israel
The Palestine Chronicle

“Hamas regrets the failure of the UN Security Council to condemn Israeli violence against unarmed Palestinians, the group said Saturday.”


Health: 40 martyrs and 5511 injured since the start of the march of return (in Arabic)
Amlalommah (online newspaper from Gaza)

“According to the Palestinian Ministry of Health, 40 Palestinians have been shot dead by the Israeli occupation since the beginning of the Great Al-Aqsa marches on the borders of the Gaza Strip until now, and 5511 others were injured and gas suffocation.”
“The Palestinians will continue the march of peaceful return, which began on 30 March on the eastern border of the Gaza Strip, and will culminate on May 15, "Palestinian Nakba Day", in order to demand the return of Palestinian refugees to the homes they were abandoned.”
Health: 40 martyrs and 5511 injured since the start of the march of return (in Arabic)


Two last articles exploring solutions





NOTE: This post is based on Jorge Emilio Núñez, “Territorial Disputes and State Sovereignty: International Law and Politics,” London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 2020 (forthcoming)
Previous published research monograph about territorial disputes and sovereignty by the author, Jorge Emilio Núñez, “Sovereignty Conflicts and International Law and Politics: A Distributive Justice Issue,” London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 2017.

NEXT POST: The Israel-Palestine difference and the egalitarian shared sovereignty

Thursday 05th December 2019
Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez
Twitter: @London1701

Wednesday 4 December 2019

Territorial disputes: the Israel-Palestine difference (Part 3) [Post 43]


What do Israelis and Palestinians want?

The Israel-Palestine difference has many issues at stake. “TERRITORIAL DISPUTE” is the usual nomenclature used by legal and political sciences to refer to these kinds of conflicts.
Yet, the label does not show the complexity this and many other differences have. This is not only a question about territory but includes people, government and law, domestically, regionally and globally.

There are many remedies that could be applied. The previous post presented a series of articles which summarise the situation and the official position of Israel and Palestine.

Today, the post centers the attention of one of these parties: people. What do Israelis and Palestinians want?

A Joint Poll (published on 25th January 2018) conducted by the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research (TSC), Tel Aviv University and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) in Ramallah, with funding from the European Union (EU), the Netherland Representative Office in Ramallah, and the UNDP office on behalf of the Representative Office of Japan to Palestine.

Key Results (my capitalization):
  • Support for the TWO-STATE solution stands at 46% among Palestinians and Israeli Jews. In June 2017, 53% of Palestinians and 47% of Israeli Jews supported that solution. Among Israeli Arabs, support for the two-state solution stands today at 83%.


  • Other solutions considered (fewer people agreed): one state with equal rights, one state without rights, and expulsion or “transfer.”


  • 40% of Palestinians and 35% of Israeli Jews (a three-point increase from the June survey) support a PERMANENT PEACE AGREEMENT package, along with 85% of Israeli Arabs.


The skepticism about the package appears closely related to serious doubts about feasibility.

Mode details available at:


It is interesting to know what Israelis and Palestinians think about this territorial dispute. In particular, because they are the ones that live in that region and therefore, any decision affects them directly (and their future generations). 
This study (like any other) has a main flaw: although it gives us a glimpse on what Israelis and Palestinians may think about the territorial dispute, it remains questionable to argue that this is what most of them want. 
After all, like any study, it is based on a sample. Yet, as an interpretative tool it is indeed thought provoking.

It would be advisable to have a more detailed questionnaire including clear conceptual references for the respondents, a broader sample, and a more in detail analysis.
For instance, a suggestion: to define clearly how the two-state formula would materialize? I propose to follow the EGALITARIAN SHARED SOVEREIGNTY model in which both parties (Israel and Palestine) would be equal sovereigns with implications related to territory, people, government and law.
The formula secures in theory and in practice equal standing for both Israel and Palestine in many senses (some of them previously presented when we introduce Kashmir, the Falkland/Malvinas islands, and Gibraltar as case studies in this series about TERRITORIAL DISPUTES).


NOTE: This post is based on Jorge Emilio Núñez, “Territorial Disputes and State Sovereignty: International Law and Politics,” London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 2020 (forthcoming)
Previous published research monograph about territorial disputes and sovereignty by the author, Jorge Emilio Núñez, “Sovereignty Conflicts and International Law and Politics: A Distributive Justice Issue,” London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 2017.

NEXT POST: The Israel-Palestine difference and the (re)interpretation by the media

Wednesday 04th December 2019
Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez
Twitter: @London1701