Thanks Deborah. It started out as an "explainer" about international law principles surrounding recognition but as I delved into the issue it became clear from an objective perspective that the current calls for recognition are more expressions of outrage over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza than a clear understanding of the benefits and obligations of a recognised State. I think too that there is some incipient anti-Semitism that underlies the current calls.
It became clear that to leave the piece as descriptive only would leave a question unanswered - rather like considering the evidence in a case but failing to decide the issue.
You always do that so well. When Chloe (bless!) does her 'free Palestine' mantra I'm always tempted to respond with 'from whom?' 'or what?' 'or which?' She is such a dog whistler, and really, the whole problem goes way, way back, beyond the Sykes-Picot agreement. I despair that even if Palestine could be a state, and there could be a two-state solution (a cliche in itself) there would be peace. Ever.
They had another chance in 2005 when Israel pulled out of Gaza, relocating their own farmers and leaving expensive agricultural infrastructure behind. Billions in aid flowed in to Gaza. They could have built a great country. Instead they dug tunnels and planned their attack. They are fools beyond measure. I also despair.
Chloe Swarbrick appears to have no understanding of what that mantra actually implies. (Or at least, never offers any solutions as what to do with Israel and the Israelis.) From being a breath of fresh air when she entered parliament, she's become a raging zealot, in danger of losing any commonality with her electorate. She reminds me very much of how I was at her age - passionately involved with the cause du jour, without necessarily having an understanding of long-term implications. The next election will be very interesting. I share your despair about Palestine and a lasting peace. The jihadists will never allow it.
Damn, this is a timely reminder of why I subscribe to your Substack Mr Hobbit. Nothing you said was in the least bit nasssty, indeed it was right on the money. An excellent summation and a very interesting/informative read from my perspective. Your conclusion was also sound, for 'recognition' must surely require a standard. And Palestine, essentially Hamas, as a recognised and active terrorist organisation fails at every test.
My only critique is your comment 'Wrongs have been done on both sides'. Whilst technically & morally true (for it is hard to engage in war with perfect moral credentials), I would argue this statement per se could be construed as accepting a state of moral equivalency twixt the two 'nations'. One might also state accurately that the Allies committed 'wrongs' against the Nazis, but then they were at war. A war for the survival of freedom and democracy. Israel is not perfect, sure, but they are by orders of magnitude the 'wronged' party here. 'Palestinians' (disaffected Jordanians in reality) have had so many chances to establish peace. But every time they renege. Led by a corrupt Egyptian conman, the PLO rebuffed all offers, some of them very generous. Hamas has gone the next step as we all know. Since 1948 Israel has clearly been the 'wronged' party here. Luxon & Peters' folly is to think they have the first fucking clue about being surrounded by enemies who teach their children that killing you is the highest goal. They need to sstop the political posturing and instead show clear support for our ally, our friend, Israel. I am deeply ashamed that our Government has fallen prey to Hamas spin and thank you very much for providing some well informed balance to the argument.
Thanks for your comment and for your encouragement.
Believe me, maintaining the quality of content is a tough job.
I grew up with the "Exodus" story told in print and on the screen. The horrors that the Israeli's faced even within hours of the UN vote in 1948 have been awful.
I can recall when I was at University and the 6 Day War broke out Jewish students in my circle did not hesitate but but booked flights to Tel Aviv. Israel has been in an existential crisis since its foundation. But MSM is raising a sympathy vote in the minds of people who fail to understand the real issues and who would see a diplomatic victory for the terrorists.
I shall endeavour to keep good quality stuff coming through. I am in the middle of a project at the moment but I have a list of 12 topics so that should keep me going and my audience (I hope) interested and engaged
I'm glad you raised this. I had a moment or two's pause over the matter of wrongs on both sides but let that go because I didn't have a developed line of thinking on that topic, and liked the article overall. But the points you make - absolutely!
Thanks David. I don't think it can be put much better than it was by the Israeli Minister, who decried our PM's comments recently, all we really have to worry about is possums. The 16,500km that we are away from the region gives us the luxury of ignorance. Whether our government chooses to recognise or not may end up being irrelevant to the current situation. I'd suggest that most of the countries that have so far have done so for domestic political reasons more than anything else. Bill Clinton's talks on what the Palestinians under Yasser Arafat declined are particularly sobering viewing / listening.
In the meantime I'll excuse most of the Saturday flag wavers with a charitable, 'they mean well, but have no idea.'
If you examine images, and articles from Papers Past about pre-1948 Palestine - the Palestinians and those who referred to themselves as Palestinian and carried passports identifying them as such - were almost exclusively Jews.
Those we refer to in the modern day, post-1948 as Palestinians are Arabs. They are ethnically Arab and speak and write in Arabic.
Prior to the rise of the PLO and other such groups they were part of the Arab nationalist movement. and only adopted the 'Palestinian' identity when it became politically expedient to do so.
It's 20 years since Gaza was handed over to the control of these people. Israel demolished all Kibbutz and removed all Jewish people, both the living and the dead.
When the PLO/PA entered Gaza, the brought weapons with them.
The greenhouses left behind by the Israelis that would have helped them maintain reliable food supplies were scavenged by the population and destroyed.
Instead of accepting the Oslo accords, the best deal ever negotiated between Israel and the PA, Arafat instigated a second intifada instead.
Billions of dollars of foreign aid was funneled away from its intended purpose and used to build all the underground tunnels and military infrastructure that we know of today.
In this 20 year period tens of thousands of rockets have been fired into Israel indiscriminately.
The dead hand of Iran has been funding Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis et al. over this period to prepare them to invade Israel and wipe out the Jewish state.
7 October 2023 was the first wave of that process and while Hamas remains in power that remains their goal.
The two state solution died on that day. Both Hamas, who seized power in Gaza in an armed conflict against the PA and the PA itself, has no mandate from the 'Palestinian people'. Abbas has been in power for decades long beyond his initial 4 year mandate and Hamas also.
Since 1948 and Israel's declaration of independence as a sovereign state when 5 Arab armies promised to wipe out the Jewish state and encouraged Arabs to leave their homes, we have seen a total failure of Arab leadership for these people.
They have proven with their actions again and again since 1948 that they only believe in a one state solution that involves the complete annihilation of The Jewish people.
Recognition would be a vile betrayal of the victims of the 7 October pogrom and a recognition and legitimization of a terrorist organization.
Time for the NZ Govt to actually make a principled, independent foreign policy decision on this matter and stand for something, instead of following the rest of the disgraceful Western herd.
Thanks David. Like others I found your clear analysis of laws and your conclusions first class (as usual) and thank goodness Winston Peters cause New Zealand to pause. (I am no legal expert, so merely write this as an individual.)
That ANY nation (any individual for that matter) chooses to ignore who began this current, awful war is (to say the very least) misguided.
Hamas rule in Gaza, and invaded Israel without provocation; murdered, raped, tortured and kidnapped innocent people.
Merely to "stop the war" demands the immediate surrender of all hostages without conditions of any kind... only then might consideration of "recognition" be given.
Thanks David; another great "explainer". A rhetorical question: do all those that want to "free Gaza" and recognise a Palestinian state actually understand the nature of Hamas and its backers? Have they even thought about it?
Thanks for laying this out so clearly. I shouldn't be surprised any more about political/cultural goings-on in the world such is the age we live in, but the calls by Starmer and other leaders and Albanese's decision re. Palestinian statehood, have left me spluttering. And Luxon! How did we ever get him for PM?! Yes, there's that management-speak, but also the blurting out of crude and unstatesmanlike insults about Netanyahu.
Your final Halfling's View statement is the view that I've been holding throughout, and to me it beggars belief that the above-mentioned figures must seem to consider these factors mere irrelevancies.
It would be an outrage of recognition is extended to Palestine at this stage. The first thing is for them to disavow Hamas. Netanyahu would have to go as well. One comment (from a good friend with whom we had dinner in New York a few weeks ago) suggests that "an overwhelming majority of Israelis would support a Palestinian State with secure borders were it governed by responsible leaders. And I believe it would be supported by Saudi Arabia, a necessary element to its success. Time will tell but the Palestinian people must want it, fight for it and have the gumption to detach from Hamas. "
My point is that all the biggest nations have been and remain terrorist states, and that their judgments of smaller states are through and through hypocritical.
As to the hypocrisy of individuals, I see that as their business, but suggest that one of the most pervasive human traits is self-whitewashing.
" and would amount to acceptance of a terrorist organisation into the International community."
The same can be said for most nation-states.
Which nation-states have not indulged in invasion, extreme bullying and violence?
A very small group!
I'm no fan of Hamas, nor of Netenyahu, but least of all, of the countries which are supplying Israel with bombs, in incredible quantities, and also posturing with breathtaking hypocrisy.
True there are nation states that are recognized that have behaved badly. But they have already had recognition, many of them for centuries. My concern is allowing a terrorist state into the international community. and by recognising them giving theirr awful ideology some legitimacy.
I am not going to embark upon a laundry list of states other than to observe that the subtext of your argument is that many states should not have been recognized. The fact is that they have been. But if they behave badly should recognition be withdrawn. Russia, which has been recognized as a state, has invaded Ukraine. She recognition be withdrawn?
My argument - at the risk of being repetitive - is that we don't want a bad apple like a terrorist state in the mix.
Thank you for your clear explanation and unequivocal opinion. I wish many more would read this, particularly those who merrily join the protests.
Thanks Deborah. It started out as an "explainer" about international law principles surrounding recognition but as I delved into the issue it became clear from an objective perspective that the current calls for recognition are more expressions of outrage over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza than a clear understanding of the benefits and obligations of a recognised State. I think too that there is some incipient anti-Semitism that underlies the current calls.
It became clear that to leave the piece as descriptive only would leave a question unanswered - rather like considering the evidence in a case but failing to decide the issue.
So it was time to nail the colours to the mast.
You always do that so well. When Chloe (bless!) does her 'free Palestine' mantra I'm always tempted to respond with 'from whom?' 'or what?' 'or which?' She is such a dog whistler, and really, the whole problem goes way, way back, beyond the Sykes-Picot agreement. I despair that even if Palestine could be a state, and there could be a two-state solution (a cliche in itself) there would be peace. Ever.
They had another chance in 2005 when Israel pulled out of Gaza, relocating their own farmers and leaving expensive agricultural infrastructure behind. Billions in aid flowed in to Gaza. They could have built a great country. Instead they dug tunnels and planned their attack. They are fools beyond measure. I also despair.
Quite
Chloe Swarbrick appears to have no understanding of what that mantra actually implies. (Or at least, never offers any solutions as what to do with Israel and the Israelis.) From being a breath of fresh air when she entered parliament, she's become a raging zealot, in danger of losing any commonality with her electorate. She reminds me very much of how I was at her age - passionately involved with the cause du jour, without necessarily having an understanding of long-term implications. The next election will be very interesting. I share your despair about Palestine and a lasting peace. The jihadists will never allow it.
Thanks Aroha
As always I appreciate your comment.
There were a few causes du jour that I was involved in as well but those days are long gone.
Some of the causes, however, remain as this Substack attests.
Tbh - my answer would be 'Hamas' - who have visited death, destruction and misery upon many of these people.
Damn, this is a timely reminder of why I subscribe to your Substack Mr Hobbit. Nothing you said was in the least bit nasssty, indeed it was right on the money. An excellent summation and a very interesting/informative read from my perspective. Your conclusion was also sound, for 'recognition' must surely require a standard. And Palestine, essentially Hamas, as a recognised and active terrorist organisation fails at every test.
My only critique is your comment 'Wrongs have been done on both sides'. Whilst technically & morally true (for it is hard to engage in war with perfect moral credentials), I would argue this statement per se could be construed as accepting a state of moral equivalency twixt the two 'nations'. One might also state accurately that the Allies committed 'wrongs' against the Nazis, but then they were at war. A war for the survival of freedom and democracy. Israel is not perfect, sure, but they are by orders of magnitude the 'wronged' party here. 'Palestinians' (disaffected Jordanians in reality) have had so many chances to establish peace. But every time they renege. Led by a corrupt Egyptian conman, the PLO rebuffed all offers, some of them very generous. Hamas has gone the next step as we all know. Since 1948 Israel has clearly been the 'wronged' party here. Luxon & Peters' folly is to think they have the first fucking clue about being surrounded by enemies who teach their children that killing you is the highest goal. They need to sstop the political posturing and instead show clear support for our ally, our friend, Israel. I am deeply ashamed that our Government has fallen prey to Hamas spin and thank you very much for providing some well informed balance to the argument.
Thanks for your comment and for your encouragement.
Believe me, maintaining the quality of content is a tough job.
I grew up with the "Exodus" story told in print and on the screen. The horrors that the Israeli's faced even within hours of the UN vote in 1948 have been awful.
I can recall when I was at University and the 6 Day War broke out Jewish students in my circle did not hesitate but but booked flights to Tel Aviv. Israel has been in an existential crisis since its foundation. But MSM is raising a sympathy vote in the minds of people who fail to understand the real issues and who would see a diplomatic victory for the terrorists.
I shall endeavour to keep good quality stuff coming through. I am in the middle of a project at the moment but I have a list of 12 topics so that should keep me going and my audience (I hope) interested and engaged
I'm glad you raised this. I had a moment or two's pause over the matter of wrongs on both sides but let that go because I didn't have a developed line of thinking on that topic, and liked the article overall. But the points you make - absolutely!
Thanks David. I don't think it can be put much better than it was by the Israeli Minister, who decried our PM's comments recently, all we really have to worry about is possums. The 16,500km that we are away from the region gives us the luxury of ignorance. Whether our government chooses to recognise or not may end up being irrelevant to the current situation. I'd suggest that most of the countries that have so far have done so for domestic political reasons more than anything else. Bill Clinton's talks on what the Palestinians under Yasser Arafat declined are particularly sobering viewing / listening.
In the meantime I'll excuse most of the Saturday flag wavers with a charitable, 'they mean well, but have no idea.'
Far too charitable imho. I dismiss them (rather than excuse them) for the ignorant bunch of dumbarses they really are.
The 'Palestinian people' is a fiction.
If you examine images, and articles from Papers Past about pre-1948 Palestine - the Palestinians and those who referred to themselves as Palestinian and carried passports identifying them as such - were almost exclusively Jews.
Those we refer to in the modern day, post-1948 as Palestinians are Arabs. They are ethnically Arab and speak and write in Arabic.
Prior to the rise of the PLO and other such groups they were part of the Arab nationalist movement. and only adopted the 'Palestinian' identity when it became politically expedient to do so.
It's 20 years since Gaza was handed over to the control of these people. Israel demolished all Kibbutz and removed all Jewish people, both the living and the dead.
When the PLO/PA entered Gaza, the brought weapons with them.
The greenhouses left behind by the Israelis that would have helped them maintain reliable food supplies were scavenged by the population and destroyed.
Instead of accepting the Oslo accords, the best deal ever negotiated between Israel and the PA, Arafat instigated a second intifada instead.
Billions of dollars of foreign aid was funneled away from its intended purpose and used to build all the underground tunnels and military infrastructure that we know of today.
In this 20 year period tens of thousands of rockets have been fired into Israel indiscriminately.
The dead hand of Iran has been funding Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis et al. over this period to prepare them to invade Israel and wipe out the Jewish state.
7 October 2023 was the first wave of that process and while Hamas remains in power that remains their goal.
The two state solution died on that day. Both Hamas, who seized power in Gaza in an armed conflict against the PA and the PA itself, has no mandate from the 'Palestinian people'. Abbas has been in power for decades long beyond his initial 4 year mandate and Hamas also.
Since 1948 and Israel's declaration of independence as a sovereign state when 5 Arab armies promised to wipe out the Jewish state and encouraged Arabs to leave their homes, we have seen a total failure of Arab leadership for these people.
They have proven with their actions again and again since 1948 that they only believe in a one state solution that involves the complete annihilation of The Jewish people.
Recognition would be a vile betrayal of the victims of the 7 October pogrom and a recognition and legitimization of a terrorist organization.
Time for the NZ Govt to actually make a principled, independent foreign policy decision on this matter and stand for something, instead of following the rest of the disgraceful Western herd.
Thanks David. Like others I found your clear analysis of laws and your conclusions first class (as usual) and thank goodness Winston Peters cause New Zealand to pause. (I am no legal expert, so merely write this as an individual.)
That ANY nation (any individual for that matter) chooses to ignore who began this current, awful war is (to say the very least) misguided.
Hamas rule in Gaza, and invaded Israel without provocation; murdered, raped, tortured and kidnapped innocent people.
Merely to "stop the war" demands the immediate surrender of all hostages without conditions of any kind... only then might consideration of "recognition" be given.
Thanks David; another great "explainer". A rhetorical question: do all those that want to "free Gaza" and recognise a Palestinian state actually understand the nature of Hamas and its backers? Have they even thought about it?
Thanks for laying this out so clearly. I shouldn't be surprised any more about political/cultural goings-on in the world such is the age we live in, but the calls by Starmer and other leaders and Albanese's decision re. Palestinian statehood, have left me spluttering. And Luxon! How did we ever get him for PM?! Yes, there's that management-speak, but also the blurting out of crude and unstatesmanlike insults about Netanyahu.
Your final Halfling's View statement is the view that I've been holding throughout, and to me it beggars belief that the above-mentioned figures must seem to consider these factors mere irrelevancies.
Thanks Sheryl
It would be an outrage of recognition is extended to Palestine at this stage. The first thing is for them to disavow Hamas. Netanyahu would have to go as well. One comment (from a good friend with whom we had dinner in New York a few weeks ago) suggests that "an overwhelming majority of Israelis would support a Palestinian State with secure borders were it governed by responsible leaders. And I believe it would be supported by Saudi Arabia, a necessary element to its success. Time will tell but the Palestinian people must want it, fight for it and have the gumption to detach from Hamas. "
I agree entirely
My point is that all the biggest nations have been and remain terrorist states, and that their judgments of smaller states are through and through hypocritical.
As to the hypocrisy of individuals, I see that as their business, but suggest that one of the most pervasive human traits is self-whitewashing.
I don't exempt myself.
" and would amount to acceptance of a terrorist organisation into the International community."
The same can be said for most nation-states.
Which nation-states have not indulged in invasion, extreme bullying and violence?
A very small group!
I'm no fan of Hamas, nor of Netenyahu, but least of all, of the countries which are supplying Israel with bombs, in incredible quantities, and also posturing with breathtaking hypocrisy.
True there are nation states that are recognized that have behaved badly. But they have already had recognition, many of them for centuries. My concern is allowing a terrorist state into the international community. and by recognising them giving theirr awful ideology some legitimacy.
" they have already had recognition, many of them for centuries"
Who did the recognising?
Tibet? Latvia? Lithuania? Hungary? Czechoslovakia? India? Samoa? Viet Nam? Libya? Iraq? Korea? Did I mention Bosnia? Timor? Papua? Bougainville? That's getting dangerously close to home.
They recognised themselves! usually regarded as a suspect basis for true respectability.
They got adorned with Nobel Peace Prizes, while publicly espousing torture, extra-judicial executions and the usual, regular, routine plunder.
What about that indefinite article now nominally in charge of Syria? And the "moderate terrorists" who helped to put him there?
Did he have centuries of recognition to support his claims?
What did he have in lieu?
Corn Flakes box-tops?
Hypocrisy upon hypocrisy, my friend.
I am not going to embark upon a laundry list of states other than to observe that the subtext of your argument is that many states should not have been recognized. The fact is that they have been. But if they behave badly should recognition be withdrawn. Russia, which has been recognized as a state, has invaded Ukraine. She recognition be withdrawn?
My argument - at the risk of being repetitive - is that we don't want a bad apple like a terrorist state in the mix.
I hope you are not accusing me of hypocrisy.
I'd also like to say thanks for your work; it's a gem
Given your earlier comment I can only say thanks - glad to oblige.