but to blame it on zionism is absurd victim blaming and immigration levels were at a relatively low level during that time (1929). — BitconnectCarlos

In the mid-nineteenth century, the inhabitants of Palestine were about 300,000, and just over 500,000 in 1914. Of these, the Jewish community was a small minority of about 10,000 before the first waves of Zionist colonialism. In the beginning of the next century the community had only increased to 50,000 or 60,000 members.

Jewish population increased tenfold between 1919 and 1947 mainly due to immigration. Jews grow from 10 to 30 percent of the inhabitants of Palestine in a short time.

In the 1920s and 1930s, the pressure of Zionist immigration became the most visible element of this dynamic.

Zionist funds had to be diverted from investments in productive capital works in order to provide for the welfare and social services demanded by a Jewish population which increased from 70,000 in 1920 to 140,000 in 1927.
(League of Nations (31 December 1927) “Report by His Britannic Majesty's Government to the Council of the League of Nations on the Administration of Palestine and Trans-Jordan for the Year 1927”.) — League of Nations

It is clear that for a small place like Palestine the figures for Jewish immigration were not small. And above all, what they meant for the Palestinian economy and Arab nationalists.

NOTE: if you want us to become academic I have no problem quoting my sources, as long as you do the same. In an appropriate manner, as I have done in the above quotation. As you like.

My point is that war is terrible, but war is basically the status quo in human history. People are and always have been awful. — Noah Te Stroete

I think humans do horrible things and good things. You seem to recognize that the occupation of Palestine is one of the first. I agree. You mention Nazism among them. That's an exaggeration. Even if some Jews had made this comparison:

Aharon Zisling, responsible for agriculture ( Council of Ministers on 17 November 1948): "What is happening hurts my soul, my family's and all of us... Now Jews are behaving like Nazis too, and my whole being is shocked".

I think this is a sincere expression about the massacres perpetrated by the Jewish armed forces more than a strict comparison. It cannot be take verbatim.

When the Viet Nam War raged, I was a kid. But later on I tried to deal with those atrocities that you think are natural. I see them as the consequence of a stage of humanity and systems of domination and exploitation in the face of which one cannot remain passive. This is what my morality demands.

This is what my morality demands. — David Mo

Carry on then.

Incidents occur anywhere, between all kinds of societies. Again, it is the game that you play where you consider this sort of thing unique to Jews to justify Zionism.

Were your ancestors/family involved in this conflict? That's the key question here. I have a hard time understand why any neutral third party would be so opposed to jewish self-determination. that's really all zionism is... it's not about being mean to the palestinians it's just about jewish self determination and in turn preventing these types of massacres.

Am I (are we) even allowed to talk about Israel, because we aren't Israelis!?

Why are you so up in arms about the Jews? I’m not a Zionist, but I think it’s disingenuous to say the Palestinians are so innocent.

Only a bad faith actor would argue that the Palestinians are completely innocent. Of course both sides have committed wrongdoings and if someone is going to take the position that the blame rests entirely on side it's not worth engaging them.

I have a hard time understand why any neutral third party would be so opposed to jewish self-determination. that's really all zionism is... it's not about being mean to the palestinians it's just about jewish self determination and in turn preventing these types of massacres. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm not against Israel. I am against decades of human rights violations and breaches of international law. it is Israel who has impeded the right of self-determination of the Palestinians for decades through their military occupation, discriminatory laws and the construction of walls and settlements in territory that wasn't theirs.

And it isn't just me who is saying this. Virtually the whole world has condemned Israel's actions in this regard. UNSCR 1544, for example. Here are some passages:

"... Reiterating the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of12 August 1949,

Calling on Israel to address its security needs within the boundaries of international law,

Expressing its grave concern at the continued deterioration of the situation on the ground in the territory occupied by Israel since 1967,

Condemning the killing of Palestinian civilians that took place in the Rafah area,

Gravely concerned by the recent demolition of homes committed by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Rafah refugee camp, ..."

http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/doc/1544

Or the rapport of the UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. I recommend you read the conclusion. Page 21-25.

https://www.refworld.org/docid/4aeeba692.html

Or the rulings by the International Court of Justice on the topic of the construction of the West Bank Barrier. here's an excerpt;

"Turning to the question of the legality under international law of the construction of the wall by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Court first determined the rules and principles of international law relevant to the question posed by the General Assembly. After recalling the customary principles laid down in Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter and in General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), which prohibit the threat or use of force and emphasize the illegality of any territorial acquisition by such means, the Court further cited the principle of self-determination of peoples, as enshrined in the Charter and reaffirmed by resolution 2625 (XXV). In relation to international humanitarian law, the Court then referred to the provisions of the Hague Regulations of 1907, which it found to have become part of customary law, as well as to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, holding that these were applicable in those Palestinian territories which, before the armed conflict of 1967, lay to the east of the 1949 Armistice demarcation line (or “Green Line”) and were occupied by Israel during that conflict. The Court further established that certain human rights instruments (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child) were applicable in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

The Court then sought to ascertain whether the construction of the wall had violated the above-mentioned rules and principles. Noting that the route of the wall encompassed some 80 per cent of the settlers living in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Court, citing statements by the Security Council in that regard in relation to the Fourth Geneva Convention, recalled that those settlements had been established in breach of international law. After considering certain fears expressed to it that the route of the wall would prejudge the future frontier between Israel and Palestine, the Court observed that the construction of the wall and its associated régime created a “fait accompli” on the ground that could well become permanent, and hence tantamount to a de facto annexation. Noting further that the route chosen for the wall gave expression in loco to the illegal measures taken by Israel with regard to Jerusalem and the settlements and entailed further alterations to the demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Court concluded that the construction of the wall, along with measures taken previously, severely impeded the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination and was thus a breach of Israel’s obligation to respect that right."

https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/131

I could go on like this forever.

Throughout all of this, the United States has ensured Israel was able to continue its malpractices, for example through using its veto to block resolutions. However even the United States have forced Israel to stop its violations of human rights and international law on certain occasions.

I'll take that as a "no."

Take it from someone who has studied and visited both Israel and Palestine as part of an academic education that Israel is nothing like the European countries you compared it to, and that standings on the Human Development Index are highly politicized.

Israel's laws have definitively made it an apartheid-state, to refresh:

"Apartheid refers to the implementation and maintenance of a system of legalized racial segregation in which one racial group is deprived of political and civil rights. Apartheid is a crime against humanity punishable under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court."

This also means Israel is no longer a democracy by definition.

The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights made the following statements about it:

"The Committee urges the State party to review the Basic Law with a view to bringing it in line with the Covenant or repealing it and to step up its efforts to eliminate discrimination faced by non-Jews in enjoying the Covenant rights, particularly rights of self-determination,non-discrimination and cultural rights."

Israel is far from okay.

I could go on citing examples, legal documents and statements by NGOs, but I'm not going to. If this doesn't get through to you, nothing will and I am wasting my time.

I posted this earlier in the thread, I'll try again. Rather than argue over the specifics of the situation, I respectfully suggest that you try to deal with this in generic terms. As I see it there are two somewhat related questions that need to be answered:

How do you define a nation?
Put differently, are there any philosophical, ethical, or legal rules/tenets that allow a particular group of people the right to control a particular plot of land - "This land is our land and not your land"

Likely there are likely better ways of phrasing this question.

Issue #2: What laws can a nation pass?
Are there any philosophical, ethical, or legal laws/rules/tenets/principals that limit the power of the people who control a particular plot of land to regulate the behavior of the people who live in that particular plot of land?

Again, there are likely better ways of phrasing this question.

If people can agree on the answers to these questions, then it becomes a matter of applying the rules/laws to the situation.

I do not have answers to either of those questions.

I could go on citing examples, legal documents and statements by NGOs, but I'm not going to. If this doesn't get through to you, nothing will and I am wasting my time. — Tzeentch

You could actually do that, because otherwise your reasoning is quite lazy.

If you've made academic research or studies about it, then please use those arguments that you know! Enlighten us then. You've visited the country so others should shut up or what? If I have studied and visited the Soviet Union and later Russia, have stayed with an ordinary Russian family, I do have my personal insights, but I won't declare that my understanding of the country is better because of that than others ipso facto. That's just inherently silly.

In the typical manner, perhaps you assume I'm defending Israel for some reason or another (perhaps related to US politcs or so).

Wrong.

What I've said is that the present situation isn't unbearable for Israelis. The low intensity conflict can go on. And it can go on especially as the country has such a devoted ally as the US behind it. Nobody is really pushing the state to change it's ways, as they did in the case of South Africa. It's not only the Likud and the fundamentalist Jews as the culprits. Secular Israelis have to also accept the present, or at least tolerate it. That is an important issue.

It is really important to give the concrete examples, give an objective and well reasoned views than just to declare Israel is racist.

I'm not against Israel. I am against decades of human rights violations and breaches of international law. it is Israel who has impeded the right of self-determination of the Palestinians for decades through their military occupation, discriminatory laws and the construction of walls and settlements in territory that wasn't theirs.

And it isn't just me who is saying this. Virtually the whole world has condemned Israel's actions in this regard. UNSCR 1544, for example. Here are some passages:

"... Reiterating the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of12 August 1949,

Calling on Israel to address its security needs within the boundaries of international law,

Expressing its grave concern at the continued deterioration of the situation on the ground in the territory occupied by Israel since 1967,

Condemning the killing of Palestinian civilians that took place in the Rafah area,

Gravely concerned by the recent demolition of homes committed by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Rafah refugee camp, ..."

http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/doc/1544

Or the rapport of the UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. I recommend you read the conclusion. Page 21-25.

https://www.refworld.org/docid/4aeeba692.html

Or the rulings by the International Court of Justice on the topic of the construction of the West Bank Barrier. here's an excerpt;

"Turning to the question of the legality under international law of the construction of the wall by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Court first determined the rules and principles of international law relevant to the question posed by the General Assembly. After recalling the customary principles laid down in Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter and in General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), which prohibit the threat or use of force and emphasize the illegality of any territorial acquisition by such means, the Court further cited the principle of self-determination of peoples, as enshrined in the Charter and reaffirmed by resolution 2625 (XXV). In relation to international humanitarian law, the Court then referred to the provisions of the Hague Regulations of 1907, which it found to have become part of customary law, as well as to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, holding that these were applicable in those Palestinian territories which, before the armed conflict of 1967, lay to the east of the 1949 Armistice demarcation line (or “Green Line”) and were occupied by Israel during that conflict. The Court further established that certain human rights instruments (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child) were applicable in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

The Court then sought to ascertain whether the construction of the wall had violated the above-mentioned rules and principles. Noting that the route of the wall encompassed some 80 per cent of the settlers living in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Court, citing statements by the Security Council in that regard in relation to the Fourth Geneva Convention, recalled that those settlements had been established in breach of international law. After considering certain fears expressed to it that the route of the wall would prejudge the future frontier between Israel and Palestine, the Court observed that the construction of the wall and its associated régime created a “fait accompli” on the ground that could well become permanent, and hence tantamount to a de facto annexation. Noting further that the route chosen for the wall gave expression in loco to the illegal measures taken by Israel with regard to Jerusalem and the settlements and entailed further alterations to the demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Court concluded that the construction of the wall, along with measures taken previously, severely impeded the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination and was thus a breach of Israel’s obligation to respect that right."

https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/131

I could go on like this forever.

Throughout all of this, the United States has ensured Israel was able to continue its malpractices, for example through using its veto to block resolutions. However even the United States have forced Israel to stop its violations of human rights and international law on certain occasions. — Tzeentch

However even the United States have forced Israel to stop its violations of human rights and international law on certain occasions. — Tzeentch

When did that last time happen? Under Obama or earlier?

Unfortunately there's no incentive for the US to change it's unwavering support of Israel at every stance. On the contrary, the support is even more fervent.

Under Obama.

One example is UNSCR 2334 which was adopted 14 votes to 0 in 2016. The US abstained from voting instead of vetoing it.

An excerpt:

"... Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions, ..."

https://www.un.org/webcast/pdfs/SRES2334-2016.pdf

Read the whole thing. It is not very long, but it speaks volumes.

One example is UNSCR 2334 which was adopted 14 votes to 0 in 2016. The US abstained from voting instead of vetoing it. — Tzeentch

Which shows far better thinking than just the total appeasement of today.

But hey, if a billionaire gave Trump 82 million dollars (less than he spent against Obama the previous election), naturally Trump will give the billionaire what he wants. That's the actual reality of US foreign policy, when it comes to Israel. US policy is literally decided by billionaires, who give money to the winning candidate.

https://www.un.org/webcast/pdfs/SRES2334-2016.pdf — Tzeentch

Thanks. Btw, I've found UN documents quite reliable on many occasions. They don't have such bias as media can have.. as anything accepted by all participants typically isn't biased influencing. Another great insight is reading the local "Blue Berets" magazine, where they observe quite objectively the situation in Lebanon as blue berets are intended to do. Again quite different story from the Western media.

And it isn't just me who is saying this. Virtually the whole world has condemned Israel's actions in this regard. UNSCR 1544, for example. Here are some passages:

I'm fully aware that the UN has condemned Israel on quite a few occasions.

In 2016, there were more resolutions against Israel than the rest of the entire world. It was 3x more than any other country, so if you go by the UN then Israel must be the worst country.

Between 2012 and 2015, the UN General Assembly charged 86% of their resolutions against Israel.

No Israel isn't perfect, but Arabs are allowed to vote and have political representation in the government. They have freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Jews are arrested in Israel for committing crimes against Arabs. If you're mad about the wall then I'm sorry but that's what happens when you repeatedly blow yourself up at bars and repeatedly go on stabbing sprees against civilians.

If aliens were to listen in and go by the UN, they would believe Israel is by far the worst country on the face of the planet.

EDIT: Oh, and the Israelis as well the US (the Palestinians won't directly deal with the Israelis) have offered self-determination the Palestinians many times among...I believe the past 3 administrations: Clinton, Bush, and Obama. The Palestinians have zero interest.

it's just about jewish self determination and in turn preventing these types of massacres. — BitconnectCarlos

Typical colonialist excuse: I steal, expel and massacre the natives to avoid the massacres against the settlers.
No. Colonization is the problem.

How do you define a nation? — EricH

The problem does not lie in abstract concepts. It is mainly specific: the rights of specific people living in a place who are stolen, expelled and massacred when they resist. In the name of a mythical narrative that comes from two millennia ago.

EDIT: Oh, and the Israelis as well the US (the Palestinians won't directly deal with the Israelis) have offered self-determination the Palestinians many times among...I believe the past 3 administrations: Clinton, Bush, and Obama. The Palestinians have zero interest. — BitconnectCarlos

Rigorously false. In every negotiation, the Israeli spokesman (i.e., the United States government) offered conditions that were obviously unacceptable to the Palestinians. The alleged autonomy was of the Bantustan type. They make a truly autonomous state with precise boundaries, control of own resources, etc., unfeasible. The latest fallacy is the demand for recognition of Israel's "Jewish nature". A farce and an insult to the human rights of the Arab Israelis.

If you're mad about the wall then I'm sorry but that's what happens when you repeatedly blow yourself up at bars and repeatedly go on stabbing sprees against civilians. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, that's of course the excuse that is put forward. However, it is blatantly obvious that the West Bank Barrier is being used to 1) annex Palestinian territories, 2) bully Palestinians into leaving by making every day life impossible or simply by demolishing their houses.

You cannot explain the location of the wall, which is illegal in every respect where it is built on territory that doesn't belong to Israel, by pointing at security.

Furthermore, you cannot punish innocent people for the actions of a radical minority. That constitutes collective punishment, which is illegal under international law. And for good reason.

Oh, and the Israelis as well the US (the Palestinians won't directly deal with the Israelis) have offered self-determination the Palestinians many times among...I believe the past 3 administrations: Clinton, Bush, and Obama. The Palestinians have zero interest. — BitconnectCarlos

The Palestinian leadership is terribly inept. That much is self-evident. However, Israel has actively worked to make a two-state solution an impossibility and has been condemned for doing so by the UN.

"Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions,

Stressing that the status quo is not sustainable and that significant steps, consistent with the transition contemplated by prior agreements, are urgently needed in order to (i) stabilize the situation and to reverse negative trends on the ground, which are steadily eroding the two-State solution and entrenching a one-State reality, and (ii) to create the conditions for successful final status negotiations and for advancing the two-State solution through those negotiations and on the ground, ..."

https://www.un.org/webcast/pdfs/SRES2334-2016.pdf

You're a fool to portray Israel as a honest broker in this scenario.

No Israel isn't perfect, but Arabs are allowed to vote and have political representation in the government. They have freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Jews are arrested in Israel for committing crimes against Arabs. — BitconnectCarlos

.And they are actively discriminated against. Have you followed the recent law changes adopted by the Knesset? These further stipulate that Israel is a nation for Jews, not Arabs.

https://knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/BasicLawNationState.pdf

You realize how discriminatory this is? Imagine if the following was part of the United States constitution:

"North America is the historical homeland of white people, in which the United States was established."

"The United States is the nation state of white people, in which it realizes its natural, cultural, religious and historical right to self-determination."

"The exercise of the right to national self-determination in the United States is unique to white people."

"The State shall be open for white immigration."

Under "Connection to white people", article 6:

"The State shall strive to ensure the safety of white people and of its citizens, who are in trouble and in captivity, due to their whiteness or otherwise."

Under "White people settlement", article 7:

"The State views the development of white people's settlement as a national value, and shall act to encourage and promote its establishment and strengthening."

Lets imagine you're a black man reading this. Does that sound racist to you? It should, because it is.

If aliens were to listen in and go by the UN, they would believe Israel is by far the worst country on the face of the planet. — BitconnectCarlos

An unanimous vote by the UN equals the whole world, including many countries that support Israel, condemning something. I don't know what that means to you, and how you still manage to dodge the blatantly obvious: it is unacceptable.

If you believe otherwise, then please start explaining how violating human rights and international law can be justified and I will happily tear that argument apart.

:clap:

Suppose the narrative is historically accurate?

Let's say there's nation ABC. Now nation DEF conquers nation ABC and rules over the original inhabitants of ABC - i.e., the rights of a specific people (the ABCers) living in a place were stolen, expelled and massacred when they resisted.

Can the descendants of ABC fight and kill the descendants of DEF?

If yes, then for how long? Is there some amount of time after which you say to the descendants of ABC - "Yes, you're historically right, your land was taken away from you, but X number of years have passed. Get over it?"

Can the descendants of ABC fight and kill the descendants of DEF?

If yes, then for how long? — EricH

First of all, nations do not have rights over individuals. Putting the nation above the people is the typical ideology of fascism.

Even if the Jews lived in Palestine 2000 years ago, their right to occupy Palestine does not exist. No more than the rights of the Great Sioux Nation to occupy Dakota or the Italians to occupy Marseille.
And even less to appropriate land through war. Force is the opposite of justice.

If Jews wanted to be safe from antisemitism in Europe they had to find other means than going to Palestine to kill Palestinians. In doing so, they lost any reason they might have had.

No. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not rooted in ancestral rights, but in ultra-nationalism, imperialism and force.

Under these conditions, the right to resistance is recognized in the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the moral sense of people. It will last as long as the occupation lasts and a clear link can be established between those who suffered and those who are suffering.

As far as controlling the use of force and its consequences is concerned, I believe that moral sense and international law must provide the answer.

First of all, nations do not have rights over individuals. — David Mo

And just what institution would have the authority to say so? Nations have sovereignty, that is how they are defined. They can make agreements between each other (co-operate through UN etc), but that is more like a mutual agreement among peers, not an abdication of their sovereingty.

Putting the nation above the people is the typical ideology of fascism. — David Mo

I gather then that then every nation that has any kind of defence clause is fascist in your view. Because defence of the state does put the nation before the individual in many ways, especially the rights of those who 'attack' it.

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not rooted in ancestral rights, but in ultra-nationalism, imperialism and force. — David Mo

Every conflict is rooted in force.

Can the descendants of ABC fight and kill the descendants of DEF?
If yes, then for how long? — EricH

Even if the Jews lived in Palestine 2000 years ago, their right to occupy Palestine does not exist. No more than the rights of the Great Sioux Nation to occupy Dakota — David Mo

The US waged war against the Sioux, brutally slaughtered them, took away their land which they had occupied for thousands of years, and forced them into what we would now call concentration camps.

Roughly 125 years have passed since those events. By any objective standard the Sioux have suffered at least as much as the Palestinians - if not worse.

So superficially you seem to be answering my question - 125 years is the time limit.

Just to be clear, I am not criticizing your positions on Israel/Palestine. I don't know if it's possible, but I'm trying to take a broader view.

Every conflict is rooted in force. — ssu

The nation is a concept that summarizes a certain cultural unity of a group of individuals. It is relatively useful for defending the common rights of its components. However, if the Nation becomes a substantial subject, an abstract entity with autonomous existence, it is being given rights over real subjects' rights. This is the source of fascism, not the defense of individuals. Every abuse is justified on behalf of Nation, as it is the case with Israel.

All conflict implies relations of force (direct or indirect). But any use of force has limits that colonialism violates, as it is the case with Israel.

In short: one cannot defend oneself by attacking innocent people. Nor can nations.

And just what institution would have the authority to say so? — ssu

Unfortunately, universal authority is practically non-existent in international politics. The State of Israel was created with the permission of an aberrant pact between Stalin and the colonial powers. Only the votes of some "independent" countries like Ukraine allowed it.

However, this is a forum of philosophy and we can judge things under the premises of justice and morality. As for cynicism, we already have the masters of the world and their footmen.

So superficially you seem to be answering my question - 125 years is the time limit. — EricH

Superficially.
You cannot make casuistry with this problem. You have to analyze different contexts. I was just pointing out a blatant similarity.

First of all, nations do not have rights over individuals. — David Mo

And just what institution would have the authority to say so? Nations have sovereignty, that is how they are defined. They can make agreements between each other (co-operate through UN etc), but that is more like a mutual agreement among peers, not an abdication of their sovereingty. — ssu

Unfortunately, universal authority is practically non-existent in international politics. — David Mo

I'd like to point out that the UN has a large amount of authority over nations. There's such a thing as state sovereignty, but there's also things like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the latter takes priority over the former in legal terms.

If a country is doing something that's illegal under international law, the UN has the legal authority to prosecute them and even invade them if the situation demands it.

Of course, the UN does not have an army and relies on other nations to provide troops. That makes the exercise of authority difficult in certain cases, but it does have that authority.

Its authority even extends to non-member states.

Unfortunately, universal authority is practically non-existent in international politics. — David Mo

If there would be a true universal authority, nothing else in the World would bring people together as it would ...in opposing it from the heart.

Authorities are controlled in the end by tiny cabals and hence I wouldn't want to give the billionaires now running the show even more power than they have.

How things work is really through co-operation of sovereign states, not through universal authorities. The really bad idea is to think that "let's have a universal Global nation state". Just as nation states themselves truly need to have also communal independence too. It works for a reason. Too much centralization is bad. It's not a coincidence that the UN is made of nation states working together.

The State of Israel was created with the permission of an aberrant pact between Stalin and the colonial powers. Only the votes of some "independent" countries like Ukraine allowed it. — David Mo

Stalin? Stalin might have seen that Israel is one way to force the UK out of the Middle East, but that honeymoon was over quite quickly. Ukraine?

There's such a thing as state sovereignty, but there's also things like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the latter takes priority over the former in legal terms. — Tzeentch

It's obvious that sovereign states can and should agree on many issues. That doesn't take away their sovereignty at all. If one state goes totally off the norms, that has consequences. Peer pressure is a good thing. But notice the word 'peer'.