> Who in the world does not agree that self-determination is good?

Generally the self-determination of a population is opposed if that population is viewed as the same ethnicity as you. Just look at the concept of the independence or real autonomy some day of Vojvodina or Transylvania. Besides blaming such talk on a Hungarian irredentist plot, Serbs and Romanians from further south are completely aghast that some of their fellow Serbs and Romanians might not want to share the same country with them.

There's a feeling that once an ethnic group has been gathered together into the same nation state, none of them have the right to leave it. Thus in China today, it's no surprise that the Han population in China (or at least its Han-controlled government) would be uncomfortable with the idea of the Han in Hong Kong (or Taiwan) going in a different direction.

> Generally the self-determination of a population is opposed if that population is viewed as the same ethnicity as you.

"Generally" isn't the right word. "In mainland China" would be a better. In Europe there are separate countries that are more similar than different parts of China. It isn't even true amongst Han countries. Taiwan and Singapore are mostly Han and still want to remain independent countries from China. Also how does this logic apply to the parts of China that were not traditionally Han? China would never have taken them over using this logic.

> There's a feeling that once an ethnic group has been gathered together into the same nation state, none of them have the right to leave it. Thus in China today, it's no surprise that the Han population in China (or at least its Han-controlled government) would be uncomfortable with the idea of the Han in Hong Kong (or Taiwan) going in a different direction.

Hong Kong's destiny is clearly set, but your reference to Taiwan is a bit odd. Taiwan already "left". Taiwan's and mainland China have been independent countries since the end of the civil war (though many people play word games to pretend this isn't the case). So say it what it is. Mainland Chinese want to invade and take over Taiwan.

>What is the difference between Hong Kong/China relationship and the often criticized West Bank/Israel relationship?

????? Hong Kong is wealthy, developed, and cosmopolitan and the West Bank/Gaza are not??

Israel and Palestine share the same landmass and China and Britain do not??

Israel is the most powerful nation in the Middle East and Britian is not the most powerful nation in East Asia--in fact it's a nation in Western Europe???

Even when Britain was highly relevant in Asia they were only ever a colonial power while Israel as a nation is inextricably tied to the land that it shares with Palestine?????

I'm really struggling to see where you're going with this one...

I was trying to compare the political situation, not quality of life, which as you mention is vastly different.

My comparison is more that:

-China controls Hong Kong with only limited local say in the government. Israel also controls the West Bank, with limited Palestinian Authority control of certain matters.

-Hong Kong can't have a military or conduct foreign affairs and isn't internationally recognized (same as West Bank)

-Palestinians in the West Bank are separated from Israel, and are required to enter checkpoints to cross over. Hong Kong residents also need to go through (less invasive) checkpoints to go into China.

At first I thought my comparison might be unfounded, but I thought it was interesting none the less. But I'm now struggling to see real political differences in the two situations (although obviously there are many differences in scale of policy differences, and also important historical differences). I'd love to be proven wrong though. Certainly Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank is a difference. Any other major differences?

I'd say that the biggest difference in terms of the political situation is that the people in Hong Kong are Chinese, and Hong Kong is part of China. Palestinians aren't Israeli (and Israel even talks about population transfers to remove Arab citizens), and Palestine isn't considered part of Israel (Israel's stance seems to be "we control this land and maybe some of it is part of Israel but maybe part of it isn't"). When you add to that things like the military conflict, blockades, settlements, etc., you can see that the situation is vastly different.

I don't know about that. 1.7 million (20%) Israeli citizens are Israeli Arabs, many of whom are close relatives of people in the West Bank.

But that's exactly the point. There's a huge difference between the Israeli Arab citizens and the Israeli Arabs who are non-citizens. People might talk about some of the issues faced by Israeli Arab citizens, but when they talk about the problem with the Palestinians they're specifically talking about the ones who are non-citizens. The Arabs who have citizenship are in a completely different situation, just like the Hong Kong residents are in a completely different situation since they have Chinese citizenship.

I guess I don't understand. Hong Kong residents are not really functional Chinese citizens[1] (as I understand it) just like Palestinians are not functional Israeli citizens. Obviously the situations are not identical, but it does seem similar to me.

Hong Kong residents need a permit to enter/work in China just like West Bank residents need a permit to enter/work in Israel (and something like 50k-100k Palestinian citizens (non-Israelis) have permits to work in Israel).

[1]https://www.quora.com/Do-people-in-Hong-Kong-and-Macau-have-...

Did you look at that link? Excerpt:

> If you are a PRC citizen (and most HK people are), you can get a Mainland travel permit, then you can work and settle in Mainland China without restrictions. Getting a Mainland travel permit is a routine matter, and almost everyone in Hong Kong can get one.

This is completely, entirely different from a Palestinian living in the West Bank. It is _not_ a routine matter for them to get a permit to work and settle in Israel proper without restrictions; it is extremely difficult to do so.

It's worth pointing out the unequal nature of the restrictions - with Israel/Palestine, members of the dominant power have the advantage over the weaker power (Palestine). Israeli settlers are able to move into the Palestinian territories much more easily than Palestinians are able to move to Israel (and Israeli settlements and annexation of the Palestinian territories exist, while the opposite is nonexistent for the Palestinians). This is most definitely not the case in China - Mainlanders aren't given preferential treatment over Hong Kong locals.

It's also not correct to think about them as separate entities like Israel and Palestine, since Hong Kong is represented in the National People's Congress. Palestinians do not get representatives in the Israeli Knesset, as HK citizens get in the NPC. The PLA is supposed to protect HK citizens, the IDF is not there to protect Palestinians - in fact, one of the goals of the IDF is to fight against the Palestinians. The goal of the PRC is to integrate HK into the mainland proper, the goal of Israel is to exclude the Palestinians from Israel. The government of HK is a local PRC government, whereas the Palestinian governments are separate entities from the Israeli government. There has been wars fought between Israel and Palestine, and blockades put up - nothing like this has happened between PRC and HK.

This is kind of like saying "I cut my hand cooking the other day; what's the difference between that and surgery." The two situations aren't even remotely similar.

There is no chinese language. There are many languages in China and the official language is Mandarin. There are many different ethnic groups in China as well, with different languages (not dialects) and even different writing systems. In my years in China in the 80's and 90's it always struck me that almost the first thing someone asks when you meet someone new is "what are you" Canton, Hakka, Chiu Chow etc. I lived in Beijing for a couiple of years too, and it was the same. The whole "we chinese" line that a lot of people believe is meant to hide the fact that Mandarin is the language of empire. This has changed in the last 20 years, but for most people I knew in Beijing in 2000, who were not from Beijing, Mandarin was a second language. And no one I met there could speak Cantonese. My wife, a native from Hong Kong, still has to speak English when going to Shanghai or Beijing. Hong Kong started as a British Colony and is now a PRC Colony.

You're choosing to focus on superficial similarities (checkpoints!) and completely ignoring the wildly different contexts that Hong Kong and the West Bank, a place that I was standing in literally one week ago, exist in.

-Political relations are a function of wealth. If Palestine were a wealthy and economically developed nation with a large number of international connections do you think their relationship with Israel would be quite the same?

-Do you think not having a military/international recognition is the same for a faux city-state and for an occupied territory??

-Have you considered how living in a shithole and being denied economic opportunity due to not being able to travel freely might be just a tiny bit different from being mildly inconvenienced when leaving the financial capital of Asia for a developing country (yes, mainland China is very much a developing country) with a fifth of your GDP/capita?

I think my main point/question is really what is the concrete systematic difference between a "faux state" (as you refer to Hong Kong) and an occupied territory?

Of course your points about the economic differences are correct. But are you saying that you agree that the current political situations aren't that different, that it's just the economic situation that's different?

And wow, as you mention, the Hong Kong/China GDP Per capita difference is approximately 5x. Israelis have 12x the Palestinian GDP Per capita[1].

[1] https://www.google.com/webhp?ie=UTF-8&rct=j#q=west+bank+gdp+...

You've made me think about this !

I recently had to pass between Canada and the US and I, too, was forced to enter a checkpoint where I was held by someone carrying a gun, who asked invasive questions about why I wanted to cross into a different territory and I had to satisfy the guard that I was not going to present any threat and that my purpose for travel was legitimate.

Like a fool, I previously believed this was a normal thing done by countries and that these were normal border policing activities at so-called 'border crossings'.

But after reading your post, I now realize I was forced to be subjugated by an evil oppressor.

At least, that is if I accept that an otherwise normal action at territorial separation points can be re-phrased in pejorative terms through re-naming of border crossings as the more sinister sounding 'checkpoints'.

edit:typo.

Until recently you could cross the border without a passport. It was pretty carefree. Why should'nt it be?

Where did you cross that someone pointed a gun at you?

>where I was held by someone >carrying a gun

Who said anything about someone pointing a gun?

Hong Kong was not wealthy, developed, or cosmopolitan to begin with. At the outset of the colonization the mean income was 1/3 that of Britain, a few decades later it was 4/3 that of Britain.

>-Who in the world does not agree that self-determination is good?

Governments of countries with secessionist movements. So, the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain, Russia, Ukraine, China, the list goes on.

A few of them fought bloody civil wars over the question of self-determination, both in the distant, and not-so-distant past.

> -Who in the world does not agree that self-determination is good?

China is extremely protective of its territorial integrity. So, China, for starters.

The problem is that Hong Kong was a colony for 100+ years so the effects of colonial mentality still remain.

Like black American slaves fighting for the Confederacy, we see that as wrong.

Hong Kong is not fighting to get put back under British rule.

They are fighting for self determination and to be rolled by themselves, instead of outside undemocratic dictators.