One of the most challenging aspects of resolving deeply rooted land disputes is deciding where to start counting from. In the cases of Israel-Palestine and Taiwan, the choice of historical starting points is not merely about history; it is a pivotal question that shapes national narratives and claims to legitimacy. This choice impacts territorial control and the rights of populations today, as historical accounts are selectively cited to serve modern agendas. The question of which era to prioritize — centuries past or recent decades — highlights a key tension between historical claims and contemporary realities.
Israel points to historical Jewish sovereignty in the land, dating back to ancient kingdoms like Judea and Israel, which existed until they were conquered by the Roman Empire in 63 BC and 70 AD, respectively. This claim emphasizes a cultural and religious connection to the land, fortified by continued Jewish presence over centuries. Following the Roman conquest, the land changed hands repeatedly, including long periods under Islamic Caliphates, the Crusaders and the Ottoman Empire, which ruled from 1517 until the end of World War I.
With the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the British took control under the League of Nations mandate from 1920 until Israel declared independence in 1948. Meanwhile, Palestinians underscore their longstanding presence and continuous habitation, asserting that they maintained communities on the land for generations before the establishment of Israel. For Palestinians, choosing a historical starting point closer to the Ottoman or British periods aligns with their narrative of self-determination.
Taiwan also reveals the complications of choosing a historical baseline. Taiwan was under varying degrees of Chinese control, particularly during the Qing Dynasty from 1683 until 1895, when it was ceded to Japan after China’s defeat in the First Sino-Japanese War. Taiwan remained under Japanese rule for 50 years, developing a distinct identity and infrastructure, until Japan’s defeat in World War II returned Taiwan to Chinese rule in 1945.
However, following the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the Republic of China government retreated to Taiwan, making the island its base, while the People’s Republic of China was established in China. Since then, Taiwan has functioned autonomously, a reality that many see as justifying a claim to independence distinct from historical Chinese governance.
A critical element often overlooked in these disputes is the time that has passed since Israel’s and Taiwan’s respective de facto independence — 1948 and 1949 — and what this sustained self-rule means for their claims today. Regardless of historical ties or sovereignty centuries ago, Israel and Taiwan have demonstrated decades of stable governance, democratic institutions and distinct national identities. With more than 70 years of independent governance, the question arises: At what point does self-rule establish a right to the land in its own right?
This inquiry suggests that while historical claims offer context, the modern realities of self-determination, stability, and identity might establish new bases for legitimacy over time.
With Israel-Palestine and Taiwan, history offers multiple points of reference, each serving different narratives. To move beyond gridlocked disputes, a balanced approach that considers ancient ties and modern governance might provide a framework for acknowledging the legitimacy of all perspectives. This balanced historical view could pave the way for a more nuanced approach to land disputes globally.
Dotan Rousso, born and raised in Israel, holds a doctorate in law and is a former criminal prosecutor in Israel. He lives in Alberta and teaches philosophy at the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology.
After nine days of holidays for the Lunar New Year, government agencies and companies are to reopen for operations today, including the Legislative Yuan. Many civic groups are expected to submit their recall petitions this week, aimed at removing many Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers from their seats. Since December last year, the KMT and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) passed three controversial bills to paralyze the Constitutional Court, alter budgetary allocations and make recalling elected officials more difficult by raising the threshold. The amendments aroused public concern and discontent, sparking calls to recall KMT legislators. After KMT and TPP legislators again
In competitive sports, the narrative surrounding transgender athletes is often clouded by misconceptions and prejudices. Critics sometimes accuse transgender athletes of “gaming the system” to gain an unfair advantage, perpetuating the stereotype that their participation undermines the integrity of competition. However, this perspective not only ignores the rigorous efforts transgender athletes invest to meet eligibility standards, but also devalues their personal and athletic achievements. Understanding the gap between these stereotypes and the reality of individual efforts requires a deeper examination of societal bias and the challenges transgender athletes face. One of the most pervasive arguments against the inclusion of transgender athletes
When viewing Taiwan’s political chaos, I often think of several lines from Incantation, a poem by the winner of the 1980 Nobel Prize in Literature, Czeslaw Milosz: “Beautiful and very young are Philo-Sophia, and poetry, her ally in the service of the good... Their friendship will be glorious, their time has no limit, their enemies have delivered themselves to destruction.” Milosz wrote Incantation when he was a professor of Slavic Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. He firmly believed that Poland would rise again under a restored democracy and liberal order. As one of several self-exiled or expelled poets from
EDITORIAL CARTOON
RSS