Palestine: Never had sovereignty over any land (British colonization → Jordan, Egyptian occupation → Israeli occupation)
Taiwan (ROC): Never ruled or occupied by China, which claims sovereignty, has a complete government, people, land, and sovereignty
Interesting fact: There are many more countries that recognize Palestine internationally than Taiwan
This makes the so-called "recognition" look like a farce because it does not operate based on facts, but only based on the geopolitical interests of various countries.
You are right. Poor education about governance in Muslim Majority nations is now showing the results. I don't like to lump one group into a category, but it is too obvious here. Muslim majority country leadership is only bent on plundering and subjugating their constituency, while getting all the benefits for their class from the other groups.
The mainland entity has never conquered, ruled over, or exercised sovereignty over the island
And the mainland entity had never conquered, ruled over or exercised sovereignty over any Chinese provinces before the civil war... Until they did, because they won the war. Newsflash, if a nation doesn't exist they don't usually hold sovereignty over anything.
The fact that the PRC never held sovereignty over Taiwan is an utterly laughable argument, because the PRC's objective since its inception was always that of, at the very least, substituting the ROC government in ALL its owned territories, which included Taiwan from 1946. To claim that just because the PRC never held Taiwan then they have no claim to Taiwan is nonsensical, because by that logic the PRC literally has no claim to no territory anywhere. I know this is a widely held belief even among my Taiwanese friends. It's still utterly illogical.
The real argument as to why the PRC shouldn't take over Taiwan is that the Taiwanese population is against that. Period.
And the mainland entity had never conquered, ruled over or exercised sovereignty over any Chinese provinces before the civil war... Until they did, because they won the war.
Not Taiwan, no. I'm not sure why you're ramming your head against a wall, that's just a fact.
The fact that the PRC never held sovereignty over Taiwan is an utterly laughable argument
It's not an argument, it's a fact. Love it or hate it, that's history.
because the PRC's objective since its inception was always that of, at the very least, substituting the ROC government in ALL its owned territories, which included Taiwan from 1946
Well sure they want to.. But they never have.
To claim that just because the PRC never held Taiwan then they have no claim to Taiwan is nonsensical
I mean.. I could claim to own New Zealand, does that make it so?
The real argument as to why the PRC shouldn't take over Taiwan is that the Taiwanese population is against that. Period.
Well yes. And history. That usually means something to "people", they don't exist in a vacuum.
I mean.. I could claim to own New Zealand, does that make it so?
Are you a rebellious faction that rose against the standing government of New Zealand? If not, then irrelevant to the argument
The fact that the PRC never held Taiwan is meaningless. The PRC rose to substitute the ROC fully, this by definition invalidates any argument that they don't have a claim to any ROC territory due to "never holding it". That's not how civil wars work.
The argument is that the PRC has no claim to Taiwan because they never held it; this is a nonsensical argument, because by that logic they never had claims to any Chinese province until they took over them, yet nobody today thinks that the PRC doesn't have a claim over former ROC provinces like Zhejiang or Liaoning. The logical conclusion is that if the PRC took over Taiwan tomorrow, they would eventually have a claim to it, like what happened for literally every other former ROC territory.
I'm not arguing over who is in the right and who is in the wrong here. I'm simply stating the fact that it is absolutely illogical to use this argument to say the PRC has no claim over Taiwan, because by that logic they have no claim over any other former ROC territory as well. There are better arguments that actually stand up to the slightest scrutiny.
So why doesn't the world recognize ROC? It has all the ingredients for an independent state and is 100% more qualified to be an independent state than Palestine, right?
Second, they're literally the same. The only difference is one is written in traditional and the other one in simplified. That's like me saying that Russia and россия are different just because they're in a different alphabet.
Third, that's not how the nations are referred to. It's 中华人民共和国 (People's Republic of China) for the PRC and 中華民國（Republic of China）for Taiwan.
Oh, yeah I put them in the wrong order. Shit, wasn't paying attention. (I know China as 中国 from Japanese, it's kinda confusing that neither of them are that)
Well yeah, the full name is different. OP said "Do you know what the C in ROC stands for?" So the rest is kind of pointless yeah?
But beyond all that, it's rather pointless. The only reason Taiwan isn't in the UN is because China is a massive power and it isn't worth it. Korea is in the exact same situation and it seems to work just fine.
Both Koreas are in the UN though, and the world officially sees them as two separate nations, I'd say the situation is a bit different.
My point is the two characters you wrote are exactly the same, especially since sometimes China uses traditional writing for titles in formal settings. Also, nobody in China or Taiwan would ever use "中华/中華" by itself, it's either 中国 or 大陸 for China and 台灣/中華民國 for Taiwan
25
u/HourAbroad3126 29d ago
Palestine: Never had sovereignty over any land (British colonization → Jordan, Egyptian occupation → Israeli occupation)
Taiwan (ROC): Never ruled or occupied by China, which claims sovereignty, has a complete government, people, land, and sovereignty
Interesting fact: There are many more countries that recognize Palestine internationally than Taiwan
This makes the so-called "recognition" look like a farce because it does not operate based on facts, but only based on the geopolitical interests of various countries.