The current (United Nations) recognized border of Israel are shade lighter yellow in the included map, while the State of Palestine is currently recognized as the two dark grey areas. While Palestine does not have full membership in the United Nations, it is recognized as a fully autonomous state apart from Israel. According to Robert Jackson's definition of sovereignty, Palestine is sovereign over both the West Bank and the Gaza strip because the Palestinian National Authority has both de facto and de jure control over those areas. However, they would not fit Max Weber's definition of sovereignty because Palestine has not had a "monopoly on legitimate physical violence within its territory" since WWII. Rather, the Israel military uses violence in both the Gaza strip and West Bank on a semi-regular basis.
Even when the PNA does not recognize Israeli violence as legitimate, world powers have consistently sided with Israel and found their actions legitimate. Furthermore the State of Palestine cannot prevent violence in their borders by Israel, while Israel can and has stopped military actions by Palestinians in both the Gaza strip and the West Bank. It stands to reason then, by Weber's definition of sovereignty, that Israel currently has
more legitimate sovereignty in Palestine than the Palestinians themselves.
However, if we view Palestine as an area controlled by separatists or rebels, then we see that Israel does not really have anything like a 'monopoly' on violence since if they did groups such as HAMAS would be unable to undertake attacks. Much of the governance also falls to FATAH and HAMAS in the regions. So there are some problems with Israel's claims of 'legitimacy' in the region.
ReplyDeleteI agree professor. I guess Israel does not have sovereignty in the region either. Maybe Weber's definition of sovereignty is flawed when considering a region as unstable as the West Bank or Gaza Strip. Maybe Weber's definition of sovereignty only works in regions not at war. I see now the US government did not have "sovereignty" during the Civil War, under Weber's definition. Weber's definition definitely seems at the very least incomplete.
ReplyDeleteHere lies the problem with not having a concrete definition of soverignty. Defing a concept does not necessarily make it universal. Even within the international court, there is discourse over written policies. It's almost impossible to come to a general consensus on who has more soverignty because Isreal and Palestine both have valid claims to soverignty.
ReplyDeleteGrace I agree with you and I think that Israel and Palestine is an interesting case study on what happens when other international states have varying viewpoints on what it means to be a sovereign state. I think this issue will remain relevant and important in the Middle East until a separate state or the United Nations makes a definitive stand and defines the sovereignty of Israel and Palestine.
DeleteEven though I agree with you Grace insofar as I think Israel and Palestine need to share the land, I do not think two government can truly "both have valid claims to sovereignty". It goes against any definition of sovereignty. Only one entity can have a claim of sovereignty, which in my opinion should be a democratically elected government representative of all religions, ethnicity, etc. in Israel/West Bank/Gaza region.
ReplyDeleteNoah, I think it is safe to say that Israel and Palestine are a prime example of the ambiguous understanding of sovereignty in the international system; while both Israel and Palestine may stake claims to the land and ultimately their independence as states, there is a fundamental conflict here. As you pointed out, the two cannot share the land and claim that they are sovereign - the states need to define clear parameters and boundaries before they can achieve true sovereignty and legitimacy as states.
DeleteIsrael and Palestine are a great example of conflicting definitions of sovereignty. It is very difficult to determine who has sovereignty, as both have legitimate claims over it. It will be interesting to see how this will be solved over the course of the next few years since as you mentioned, world powers often do side with Israel instead of Palestine.
ReplyDelete