Who Gets a State, and Why?
Sovereignty is the ultimate prize in international relations. But it is not an objective term -- increasingly, it is awarded and defined by powerful actors whose interests are at stake.
Related
Israel is pushing the Obama administration to tackle Iran's nuclear program before the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Washington shouldn't listen.
SINCE early March the Arab world has been shaken by an angry clash of views about its relations with Israel. Arab thinking on this subject had long been governed by what Whitehead once called "inert ideas"-that is to say, ideas that are merely received into the mind without being utilized or tested or thrown into fresh combinations. This inertia was suddenly broken by two closely related events. The Federal Republic of Germany sought the establishment of diplomatic relations with Israel, in conscious rejection of Arab pressure. And the President of Tunisia challenged the official Arab dogma about Israel's place in the Middle East. In statements which had a broad international resonance, Mr. Bourguiba indicated that Israel was a solid and entrenched reality with which the Arab nations would have to come to terms. To dream of sweeping Israel away in a torrent of violence was, in his view, sheer delusion.
Since winning elections in 2006, Hamas has demonstrated that it cannot be part of an Israeli-Palestinian peace process, nor part of a Palestinian body politic based on democracy and free elections. But can policymakers deny the group the ability to play the spoiler?

User Comments
Poor people must have equal rights
All individuals regardless of financial disposition should have and equal amount of rights.If you are a rich man it does not mean that you have all the power to rule everyone around you.
Sovereignty? Whatever.
'Sovereignty' has indeed gotten to be so relative.
You can now group it with subjectives like 'stupid' or 'smart' or 'ugly' or 'beautiful'. Because it depends on what you compare the thing to, doesn't it? Slippery! The way I still see it, it's more objective like 'equal'.
Your essay actually reminds me of the part of Orwell's Animal Farm in which they amend their manifesto to read: 'All animals are created Equal, but some are more equal than others...' I mean, why bother to use the word sovereignty anymore? No nation is sovereign. Those 'powerful interests' you speak of are the only real sovereign entities. The corporate banking interests working through governments, their militaries, and their CIA's, their KGB's, their Mossad, etc. to disrupt, overthrow, sow dissent, train militants, terrorize...
Every decision is based on the expansion of Empire and the control of money by these 'powerful interests'.
Sure there are people who still believe they are sovereign. That's part of the strategy, isn't it? Not until it's made painfully, violently obvious will it dawn upon them that perhaps they're not so sovereign after all. The frog in the water set to boil comes to mind. It's amazing to me that people in the US don't see it already, considering how our 'sovereign government' handed over trillions to these 'powerful interests' when they (The Fed) demanded it... to disappear down a black hole -and no accountability. People in the US still aren't aware the FED is a private bank, and is subject to NO oversight - even when Greenspan tells them so on national television. Now that's sovereign. Write an article about that why don'tcha?