I personally have no objections to a Kurdistan, ideologically or otherwise, if one could merely snap their fingers and will it into existence. But that’s not the way the world works and international law makes no pretense that it does either. There is nothing in your quote that conflicts with this observation. You tell me explicitly the …
I personally have no objections to a Kurdistan, ideologically or otherwise, if one could merely snap their fingers and will it into existence. But that’s not the way the world works and international law makes no pretense that it does either. There is nothing in your quote that conflicts with this observation. You tell me explicitly the means with which you would propose to bring a Kurdistan into existence, then I will explain my objections. War on Syria, Turkey, and Iraq? Who would wage it? What about those who live there and don’t want war imposed on them? What does international law say about that? Moving political boundaries are zero-sum—what one party gains, another loses. Who decides whose rights lose out to another’s? Let’s agree that it shouldn’t be keyboard warriors thousands of miles away. Defining rights of self-determination in terms of political boundaries is untenable.
Back to Israel as a Jewish state. My primary objection is to the framing of it as an ideological matter of some inalienable right. That is, that a party can be passively entitled to have someone else give it to them at the expense of other impacted parties. I see a 2SS with a Jewish majority state as a desirable, but manifestly-political outcome, in which the onus falls on the party in question—Israel-- to actively make it a reality by political means, including making the hard choices and sacrifices that Israeli Jews have become loathe to make. If they are unwilling to do that—and all indications of the last 20 years says that they are unwilling--then it’s perfectly justifiable for observers to move to support a binational “equal-citizenship- for-all”1SS as default. It’s not my position yet, but that’s where I think a lot of liberals who follow the issue are headed.
So you’re not ideologically opposed to a Kurdish state or a Jewish state. Then do you disagree with Beinart’s entire column? Because he’s arguing the opposite.
I personally have no objections to a Kurdistan, ideologically or otherwise, if one could merely snap their fingers and will it into existence. But that’s not the way the world works and international law makes no pretense that it does either. There is nothing in your quote that conflicts with this observation. You tell me explicitly the means with which you would propose to bring a Kurdistan into existence, then I will explain my objections. War on Syria, Turkey, and Iraq? Who would wage it? What about those who live there and don’t want war imposed on them? What does international law say about that? Moving political boundaries are zero-sum—what one party gains, another loses. Who decides whose rights lose out to another’s? Let’s agree that it shouldn’t be keyboard warriors thousands of miles away. Defining rights of self-determination in terms of political boundaries is untenable.
Back to Israel as a Jewish state. My primary objection is to the framing of it as an ideological matter of some inalienable right. That is, that a party can be passively entitled to have someone else give it to them at the expense of other impacted parties. I see a 2SS with a Jewish majority state as a desirable, but manifestly-political outcome, in which the onus falls on the party in question—Israel-- to actively make it a reality by political means, including making the hard choices and sacrifices that Israeli Jews have become loathe to make. If they are unwilling to do that—and all indications of the last 20 years says that they are unwilling--then it’s perfectly justifiable for observers to move to support a binational “equal-citizenship- for-all”1SS as default. It’s not my position yet, but that’s where I think a lot of liberals who follow the issue are headed.
How could Kurdistan come into existence? How about boycotts, divestments and sanctions?
So you’re not ideologically opposed to a Kurdish state or a Jewish state. Then do you disagree with Beinart’s entire column? Because he’s arguing the opposite.