Thank you, CON.
I can't help but notice how CON'S argument rellies upon the Israeli/Palestinian controversy in claiming that "the state of Palestine" (its name having recognition from the UN) isn't a state. He asserts that since Israel occupies some of its territory and therefore enforces its influence over it, that Palestine is not a state. However, that argument assumes states need to literally be totally independent and sovereign, devopid of foreign military and political influence. I would like to challenge that assumption.
- A country or its government
- A part of a country with its own government
- A country with its own government
- The government of a country
From these definitions, one can see that STATE refers to a government and/or its country. A government is defined by Cambridge as the system to controll society. While complete international recognition and absolute sovereignty are certainly traits associated with most States, it cannot be called a nessecity (look at Taiwan or various Russian vassals in Europe, especially in Ukraine).
That said, the very debate regarding what statehood means means no other definition of state that CON could bring up is more official or scholastic. State as a country with government stands as debate definition.
CON claims that Palestinian control is ambiguous. Claiming they lack "a real standing force". He forgot to mention the extensive security and defence duties of Palestine, ignoring all of their armed forces such as police. While it is true that the much more powerfull Israeli army has a prescence in the region, the Oslo accords which Israel signed ensures Palestinian monopoly on violence in their assigned territories. More importantly, CON does not mention how the Israeli army is obligated to support and co-operate with Palestinian forces (1
). In fact, the Israeli army training the Palestinian forces clearly shows us that Israel respects "the state of Palestine"'s sovereignty and right to national security.
Gaza is not under the sovereign control of Israel, or any other non-palestinian state for that matter. Gaza is under the control of Palestine. The west bank, though being partly occupied by Israeli forces, is also controlled by Palestine. Palestinian law and monetary systems are In place. The Palestinian government is in charge, using its different branches to excert national control and uphold law and order.
Some big states are waiting to recognise Palestine. This however has mostly political reasons, seeing as USA is close allies with Israel, and even moved the embassy to Jerusalem despite intense international opposition. It is easy to explain away this refusal to recognise Palestine. The US and its "followers" simply want Israel to get the most value of its occupation before a final solution is made. This also explains why Palestine only has observer status in the UN, because huge powerhouses has interest in it not being considered a state despite deserving to be.
Recall that "THE STATE OF PALESTINE" has got both its name, sovereignty and declaration of independence recognized by the UN and other organizations. CON attempts to pull this fact under the mug by saying that the UN only recommended recognising Palestine. Well then let me turn this argument by CON in my favour.
The UN recommend considering Palestine a state. My position therefore has support from the UN, whilst CON'S position is undermined. Basically, the UN agrees that Palestine SHOULD be considdered a state, even if it haven't done so yet.
4. Foreign relations
Having embasies in most countries as well as participating in organizations for states only is clearly a sign of being a state capable of foreign relations. Since CON never denied this, I am confused as to how he can claim Palestine has no foreign relations. His source's statement, and CON'S single quote, is too vague to disprove my clear R2 evidence. Extend arguments, especially the fact that Palestine has embasies in foreign countries.
Israel of course keeps Palestine in check, using its military might to ensure they keep some kind of veto right. However, states like Afganistan, Syria and Iraq were still states while being occupied and controlled by foreign powers. Merely foreign restrictions don't mean a government is not a government...so Palestine cannot be denied statehood merely because of an agreed upon partial occupation by Israel.
Quite the contrary. In the Oslo accords, Palestine is given clear right and domain of governance (ibid). Their official and democratically elected government is in charge of the country, and all branches of government collectively perform all the functions of government. So, in fact, Palestine is doing "swimmingly well", and is not drowning as CON claims.
1. Palestine is a state
By the Brittanica and Cambridge definitions, Palestine is a state as it is both a country and a government. We ought to uphold the truth, in our case, the truth is that Palestine IS a state. In short, we should consider Palestine a state because refusing to do so means we continue deceiving ourselves and others.
2. We must not reject them anymore
The Palestinian people have suffered incredibly. From the birth of Israel unto today, violent conflict and political oppression has plagued the Palestinian people (whose fault is not important). From terrible humanitarian crises to international rejection of Palestinian hopes and patriotism, the world has hurt them in so many ways. By rejecting the statehood of Palestine, we continue crushing their dreams and working against their needs and hopes. We should consider Palestine a state, not only because it obviously is, but also out of compassion and respect for Palestinian people.
3. The two state solution needs our support
Especially since the entire Jerusalem was declared capital of Israel, and Donald Trump moved the US embassy to there, it is becoming apparent that Palestine is being overrun in the border making process. Israel backed by its allies basically takes what it wants of land. Combined with the illegal Israeli settlements
, this policy by Israel undermines the Palestinian side of the negotiation table. The problem is, if we don't considder Palestine a state, then we silently agree that Israel can ignore it or treat it as a less worthy part. If we want the two state solution to be implemented fairly, the two sides must be considdered equals, and Palestine must be considdered a state.
Extend all R2 arguments.
Palestine should be considdered a state.