The UN has the authority to intervene even if the intervened state doesn't agree. This would be considered a sanctioned breach of that state's sovereignty.

One of the documents in which this is written down and explained (including a paragraph about state sovereignty in the modern era) is the Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty on the Responsibility to Protect.

The UN has the authority to intervene even if the intervened state doesn't agree. This would be considered a sanctioned breach of that state's sovereignty. — Tzeentch

Yes. Just like the UN truly did go to war in Korea. Yet the UN is made of sovereign states that decide what to do with the organization.

Hence the rules are decided by peers called sovereign states. There is nothing illogical in that. There is a difference between: a) sovereign states agreeing on the rules and b) there being an universal authority that would say it represents all the people in the World and thus has power over the old nation states.

In the end it all comes down that peer pressure.

Just think WHY did Israel start the Peace process in the first place? The answer in my view is that the Cold War was over and Israel presumed that things would change and the US wouldn't be so interested in backing itself up. Perhaps they couldn't fathom how much power the Evangelicals and AIPAC have in the US-Israeli relations.

So now, heck with it! The US backs whatever they want to do.

... the UN is made of sovereign states that decide what to do with the organization. — ssu

I wouldn't put it that way. When the UN was created sovereign states forfeited a part of their sovereignty by becoming members. The UN has grown as time has passed and its authority now extends also to non-member states, meaning that leaving the UN does not necessarily return all of that sovereignty to the state.

Hence the rules are decided by peers called sovereign states. There is nothing illogical in that. There is a difference between: a) sovereign states agreeing on the rules and b) there being an universal authority that would say it represents all the people in the World and thus has power over the old nation states. — ssu

I would compare the UN to a democratic government, but a government nonetheless. The way you are describing the UN makes it sound like a form of multilateral agreement (a), when in fact the UN has become a supranational organization; an organization with authority over states (more like b).

I didn't say there was anything illogical about it, by the way.

Superficially.
You cannot make casuistry with this problem. You have to analyze different contexts. — David Mo

Absolutely - that's why I used the word superficially

I was just pointing out a blatant similarity. — David Mo

The problem I have with your comparison is that it seems to have things backwards. In your comparison you are equating the Sioux with the Israelis, i.e. the Sioux are not allowed to reclaim their historic homeland. My point was that we should be equating the Sioux with the Palestinians - they are the aggrieved party. Apologies if I was not clear on that.

You cannot make casuistry with this problem. You have to analyze different contexts. — David Mo

Absolutely. But if there are no guidelines/rules/laws at all, then there will be no way to resolve these issues. There has to be some agreed upon structure that all parties can agree upon for discussions to take place. Otherwise it's simply might makes right - the winner makes up the rules to justify their actions.

Ukraine? — ssu

Australia, Bélgica, Bielorrusia, Bolivia, Brasil, Canadá, Checoslovaquia, Costa Rica, Dinamarca, República Dominicana, Ecuador, Estados Unidos, Filipinas, Francia, Guatemala, Haití, Holanda, Islandia, Liberia, Luxemburgo, Nueva Zelandia, Nicaragua, Noruega, Panamá, Paraguay, Perú, Polonia, Suecia, Sudáfrica, la Unión Soviética, Ucrania, Uruguay y Venezuela. — Embajada de Israel en la República Dominicana.

The list was published by the Israeli Embassy in the Dominican Republic. It didn't take me more than five minutes to find it. I didn't have time to translate it. I assume you have no problem identifying Ukraine and the other states.
You'll notice the obvious absence of African and Asian countries. This was before colonial emancipation. A significant fact.

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. — Tzeentch

An authority that depends on the authorization of a council of the great powers does not seem to me to be independent. Although the legislation it promotes is beautiful.

Hence the rules are decided by peers called sovereign states. — ssu

The activity of the UN is decided in the Security Council. The rest, words.

Just think WHY did Israel start the Peace process in the first place? — ssu

Israel proposed peace on one or two occasions when it thought the other party would not accept it and when it was in its interest to consolidate its power in the 75 per cent of Palestinian territory it had appropriated. When the Palestinians realized that the armed road was leading nowhere and began to propose peace, Israel retreated again and again to make it impossible.

n your comparison you are equating the Sioux with the Israelis, i.e. the Sioux are not allowed to reclaim their historic homeland. My point was that we should be equating the Sioux with the Palestinians - they are the aggrieved party. Apologies if I was not clear on that. — EricH

I agree with your comparison. Maybe I expressed myself badly.

But if there are no guidelines/rules/laws at all, then there will be no way to resolve these issues. — EricH

What seems obvious is that claiming rights from two thousand years ago based on legends would turn the international map into a chaos of claims and struggles. That is the main idea.

An authority that depends on the authorization of a council of the great powers does not seem to me to be independent. — David Mo

The activity of the UN is decided in the Security Council. The rest, words. — David Mo

I don't see how this is relevant.

A similar thing could be said about every healthy democracy.

The activity of the UN is decided in the Security Council. The rest, words. — David Mo

And that is made of....

What seems obvious is that claiming rights from two thousand years ago based on legends would turn the international map into a chaos of claims and struggles. That is the main idea. — David Mo

What gives any nation authority or legitimacy?

What seems obvious is that claiming rights from two thousand years ago based on legends would turn the international map into a chaos of claims and struggles. That is the main idea. — David Mo

Firstly - and this is a minor point - these are not legends. There is a clear historical record that there was an autonomous Jewish nation prior to being taken over by Rome.

I agree with your main idea - after 2K years it's too late to go back.

But this does not answer my question - how do we resolve situations where multiple groups of people lay claim to the same physical land? Is there any legal/moral/philosophical/political framework that can be used to untangle these situations?

And can we apply such a framework to help untangle the Israeli/Palestinian situation?

When the UN was created sovereign states forfeited a part of their sovereignty by becoming members. — Tzeentch

Show me where in the US Constitution the Congress forfeits it's power to the UN? I don't think you find it there. Not there in even in the case of Finland, which is a member of the EU, it's still quite clear too. From the Finnish Constitution:

Chapter 1 - Fundamental provisions

Section 1 -The Constitution

Finland is a sovereign republic.

The constitution of Finland is established in this constitutional act. The constitution shall guarantee the inviolability of human dignity and the freedom and rights of the individual and promote justice in society.
Finland participates in international co-operation for the protection of peace and human rights and for the development of society. Finland is a Member State of the European Union (1112/2011, entry into force 1.3.2012).

Participation in co-operation is NOT forfeiting. Furthermore, if this wouldn't be clear, then let's look at what the UN Charter actually says:

Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace; To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace; To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

This should illustrate totally clearly that the UN is a tool FOR sovereign members, and these members are nations. Because it genuinely refers to them, there ought to be no confusion about this and the agenda of the UN. It's a classic Republican conspiracy theory in the US to argue that the agenda of the UN is to forfeit power from the nation states (or just basically from the US, which only matters).

My use of the word "forfeited" was inaccurate, but its not integral to the point I'm trying to make, namely that there are rules that states have to follow. State sovereignty is no longer seen as merely a nation's right to handle its internal affairs.

This has been addressed in the document I linked earlier, which I had hoped you would read.

Under article 1.35:

"The defence of state sovereignty, by even its strongest supporters, does not include any claim of the unlimited power of a state to do what it wants to its own people. [...] It is acknowledged that sovereignty implies a dual responsibility. Externally - to respect the sovereignty of other states, and internally, to respect the dignity and basic rights of all people within the state. In international human rights covenants, in UN practice, and in state practice itself, sovereignty is now understood as embracing this dual responsibility."

And article 2.14:

"The Charter of the UN is itself an example of an international obligation voluntarily accepted by member states. On one hand, in granting membership of the UN, the international community welcomes the signatory state as a responsible member of the community of nations. On the other hand, the state itself, in signing the Charter, accepts the responsibilities of membership flowing from that signature. There is no transfer or dilution of state sovereignty. But there is a necessary re-characterization involved: from sovereignty as control to sovereignty as responsibility in both internal functions and external duties."

Further, under article 2.29:

"Secondly, the responsibility to protect acknowledges that the primary responsibility in this regard rests with the state concerned, and it is only if the state is unable or unwilling to fulfill this responsibility, or is itself the perpetrator, that it becomes the responsibility of the international community to act in its place."

http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/ICISS%20Report.pdf


In other words, nations have responsibilities and have to follow rules. If they don't, it becomes the responsibility of the international community to put an end to their malpractices. What states write in their constitutions is irrelevant in this matter.

If you were to point out that certain states are too powerful to stop, you would of course be right. However, this doesn't change the fact that the UN holds authority over these states. Some states are too weak to battle organized crime, but that doesn't make the criminals the new authority in a legal sense.

In other words, nations have responsibilities and have to follow rules. — Tzeentch

Which (in the case of UN) have been a) at start been voluntarily accepted by them and b) not usually not de facto enforced if the state don't follow when the states have powerful backers and/or militaries, like in the case of Israel.

If you were to point out that certain states are too powerful to stop, you would of course be right. — Tzeentch

I would argue that basically nation states are far more powerful than they appear. They could opt for the route of North Korea and seclude themselves from the global community, but that would be catastrophic for their economies. But if they can control their territory, one basic requisite for being a functioning state, they would be left alone. One really has to be truly a dysfunctional country for others to intervene with force. The fact is that co-operation among peers is absolutely essential, starting from as obvious examples of trade and commerce across borders.

Let's think about basics for a moment. National sovereignty comes from other states recognizing the independence of a state. If any other state doesn't recognize an independence declaration, there is no sovereign state. It really is a system of peers and 'peer-review'.

Which (in the case of UN) have been a) at start been voluntarily accepted by them and b) not usually not de facto enforced if the state don't follow when the states have powerful backers and/or militaries, like in the case of Israel. — ssu

"At the start" is key here. The responsibilities may have been voluntarily taken up initially, today following international law is no longer voluntary, and breaking international law risks consequences, military or other. Enforcement is indeed a more complicated issue, though.

I would argue that basically nation states are far more powerful than they appear. They could opt for the route of North Korea and seclude themselves from the global community, but that would be catastrophic for their economies. But if they can control their territory, one basic requisite for being a functioning state, they would be left alone. One really has to be truly a dysfunctional country for others to intervene with force. The fact is that co-operation among peers is absolutely essential, starting from as obvious examples of trade and commerce. — ssu

Agreed.

Let's think about basics for a moment. National sovereignty comes from other states recognizing the independence of a state. If any other state doesn't recognize an independence declaration, there is no sovereign state. It really is a system of peers and 'peer-review'. — ssu

Well, there's a fair amount of debate about what constitutes a state. Within international law and international relations the definition of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States is commonly used. It states that a state must have the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Therefore, a state really only needs to be recognized by one other state in order to fulfill this criterion. Furthermore it states that the political existence of a state (including its sovereignty?) is independent of recognition by the other states, which complicates the matter further.

Though, I'm not sure where you're going with this. Cooperation generally leads to prosperity, sure.

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.

There is no collective white identity. It's funny you choose white here.... what about black? Asian? How about Kurdish or Armenian? If kurdistan or armenia became a nation and it was focused on securing kurdish/armenian existence and the rights of kurds/armenians would that be racist to you?

There is no collective white identity. It's funny you choose white here.... what about black? Asian? How about Kurdish or Armenian? — BitconnectCarlos

This is irrelevant.

If kurdistan or armenia became a nation and it was focused on securing kurdish/armenian existence and the rights of kurds/armenians would that be racist to you? — BitconnectCarlos

If Kurdistan or Armenia included ethnic groups which are distinctly different from the other Kurds or Armenians then yes, certainly. Especially when they combine it with violating their fundamental human rights on a large scale.

If Kurdistan or Armenia included ethnic groups which are distinctly different from the other Kurds or Armenians then yes, certainly.

Well, I'm happy to hear that you're applying the same standards across ethnic groups.

From how I see it, whether it's the armenians, the kurds, or the jews all three of these groups have suffered serious mass killings and repeated historical injustice if not actual genocide (with the jews and armenians) with the primary purpose of an ethno-state (whether it be kurd, armenian, or jewish) being much needed security for those groups. It's not like the international community is going to come in and rescue them, after all. Ultimately, everyone must fend for themselves.

How exactly would the oppression and discrimination of minorities contribute to that security?

You're missing the point. You cited the basic laws of Israel earlier, which undeniably establish Israel's identity as a Jewish state. It's not vague about that. Even under a "best case scenario" you'd still be complaining because it's Jewish as opposed to Arab or Muslim. Jews are going to be favored when it comes to immigration or who gets citizenship.

I'm trying to distinguish here between what is inherently so and what is not inherently so.

In a "best" case scenario, the law I cited constitutes a institutional violation of fundamental human rights.

Article 1c)

"The exercise of the right to national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish People."

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

This clearly excludes Arabs and Muslims. 20% of Israel's population. Self-determination is a fundamental human right.

Also, you haven't answered my question.

How exactly would the oppression and discrimination of minorities contribute to that security?

Just to be clear here, you're saying that the mere existence of a Jewish state constitutes oppression and discrimination.

In any case, if Jews were to lose power then the Arabs would take control and Jews would once again be second class citizens as they are in other Arab countries and open themselves up to the possibility of massacres as they have faced in the past.

A similar thing could be said about every healthy democracy. — Tzeentch

In a democracy, the people decide. When the richest people decide it is called plutocracy. When the strongest, it is called tyranny. You have to call a spade a spade.

What gives any nation authority or legitimacy? — schopenhauer1

Respect to the human rights or justice. Call it as you like.

Firstly - and this is a minor point - these are not legends. There is a clear historical record that there was an autonomous Jewish nation prior to being taken over by Rome. — EricH

You are wrong. The unified Jewish kingdom only existed in the mythical period of Saul, David and Solomon. After that, the Jewish people were divided among several countries mostly under foreign occupation. When Rome occupied Palestine, the two main kingdoms were Judah and Israel.

But this does not answer my question - how do we resolve situations where multiple groups of people lay claim to the same physical land? — EricH

Many times it is not an easy question. Other times it is clear, at least in a negative way. Not by means of war. Not appealing to mythical claims. Not because of some alleged 2,000-year-old right. If these perverse foundations of law became widespread, there would be oppression, chaos and universal violence. As in fact already happens in Palestine.

This clearly excludes Arabs and Muslims. 20% of Israel's population. Self-determination is a fundamental human right. — Tzeentch

All ethnic states are established to the detriment of minorities. In the case of Israel there are specific laws and practices against native Palestinians: citizenship, land ownership, right of return, mixed marriages, etc. Amnesty International regularly reports on massive violations of basic rights. That is why Nobel Prize winner Desmond Tutu called Israel a new form of apartheid. He knew well what he was talking about.