The 1933 Montevideo Conference set out the preconditions for a 'state':

1.a permanent population;
2.a defined territory;
3.a government; and
4.capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

So, does Palestine meet these criteria ?

1. Does it have a permanent population, or - in the event of becoming a state - would its population materially alter ?

2. How do Palestinian authorities, Hamas and the PLO, define the boundaries of a Palestinian state ? By including all of Israel. So the recognition of Palestine would require the non-existence of Israel and any such recognition would be something of an act of war against an existing state, Israel.

3. Currently, Palestine has at least two governments, in two non-contiguous territories.

4. The various Palestinian authorities have the capacity to enter into the agencies of other states, and groups of states, but not state-to-state, since that would require, at the very least, one Palestinian body authorised to speak for all Palestinians, and for all of what Palestine would claim to be Palestine, i.e., including Israel.

So none of the four Montevideo criteria are met.

The Kurds meet the first two criteria, in spades. And my crude understanding is that the heartland of Kurdish territory, at least in northern Iraq, is under the control of one coalition government, with other areas currently being liberated from the Islamo-fascists;

The last criteria is the stumbling block, as it always is before sovereignty over territory is recognised, as in all liberation struggles. Still, the Kurdish authorities do control exclusively large swathes of territory. Meanwhile, it appears that many countries have recognised this existing Kurdish state, but have been careful not to recognise any further claims to the territories of other neighbouring states, especially the territory controlled by Turkey and Iran.

Joe

Well David, Turkey is something of an enigma isn't it? I mean here they are bombing the shiite of of the Kurds, the only force currently driving back ISIL?

You could be forgiven for thinking that Turkey or the islamic extremists now in charge there; had the same goal as ISIL?

Peace with the KUrds was on the table when this act of well thought out patent bastardry killed it stillborn!

Who needs enemies when we've got friends like the, can't lie straight in bed Turks, infidel!?

Perhaps there's a role for Israel in providing air cover for the kurds as some sort of joint operation against a common enemy, ISIL?
Rhrosty.

Singer's argument is logical, and Turkey does not apply the same standards to the Kurds as it does to the Palestinians. However, formation of any nation state on the basis of a shared ethnicity makes the possibility likely that those within the nation's borders who do not share the ethnicity which defines the state will be second-class citizens.

My concern in any nation formation is that there be no discrimination on the basis of ethnicity or religion. A Palestinian state will very likely discriminate against Christians and not allow Jews at all. In current Israel there is a non-Jewish minority which does not have the same opportunities as the Jewish majority even though it is probably far better off than Jews in a Palestinian state. I don't know how non-Kurds would fare in a Kurdish state. The danger is that any state formed on an ethnocentric basis can wind up with its minority which does not share the ethnocentrism of the state as second-class citizens. I believe it is best that nations be formed defined by ecosystems rather then by the ethnicity of the people within its boundaries. Probably, we can't get there from here.

Dear David,

Certainly, nobody wants to find themselves in a place where the rules are made by others who don't share one's values. Now why should this concern be limited to discrimination on the basis of ethnicity or religion?

The very concept of "nation" is the root of evil. Whenever people are being collectivised on the sole grounds of them happening to live in a particular geographical area, people are bound to suffer, some more than others.

Hi Yuyutsu,

"The very concept of "nation" is the root of evil."

Perhaps, but secure in, and in control of, one's own nation, is sure as hell an improvement over always being under the heel of some other nation. I don't recall the Kurds ever bothering anybody (although Saladin, Salah-ud-din, born in Kirkuk, was, like most people in Kirkuk at that time, Kurdish - but even he has had a good press), or ever invading any other country.

But I will always remember that the rescuers of the Yazidis and Christians and Turkmens over the past year in northern Iraq were the Kurdish militias. They don't have to fire rockets into Turkish towns, or bomb Turkish or Iranian market places. They just fight, and fight fair. They are the most heroic people, especially the women of the YPJ, the most progressive, the most anti-Islamofascist, and - if you want to put it onto some sort of scale - the most Left.

They are in a most difficult and complex political position, but I fervently hope that over the next decade or two, as the world defeats ISIS and its successors, that they can gain the nationhood that they so richly deserve.

Joe

Dear Joe,

I also admire and support the Kurdish people and wish them to live in peace and freedom.

You are correct that being secure and in control of one's own nation is better than being under the heel of some other nation. That granted, why should I wish my friends anything but the very best?