|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
|
Re: Was Israel's founding, its continuation, bad? or What's wrong with Israel? [Re: GazzBut]
#14409715 - 05/06/11 11:24 AM (13 years, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The topic of this thread was Israel, please try and stay on topic.
John's point, and his point in the previous thread he started on the same subject, was to try to determine why Israel - and only Israel - is widely considered to be an "illegitimate" state while other states with even more dubious claims to legitimacy are not so considered.
For example, no one considers Jordan to be an illegitimate state. Yet the rulers of Jordan have no more right to be its administrators (arguably way less right, being a dictatorship) than do the administrators of Israel.
So when I rebut your "explanation" for why Israel should be considered illegitimate by pointing out your reasons are not applied to any state other than Israel, I am dead-bang on topic.
Phred
--------------------
|
GazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 4 months, 13 days
|
Re: Was Israel's founding, its continuation, bad? or What's wrong with Israel? [Re: Phred]
#14409763 - 05/06/11 11:32 AM (13 years, 16 days ago) |
|
|
I disagree.
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
|
Re: Was Israel's founding, its continuation, bad? or What's wrong with Israel? [Re: GazzBut]
#14409772 - 05/06/11 11:34 AM (13 years, 16 days ago) |
|
|
You disagree that Jordan is considered a legitimate state?
Phred
--------------------
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: Was Israel's founding, its continuation, bad? or What's wrong with Israel? [Re: Phred]
#14409974 - 05/06/11 12:12 PM (13 years, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Why should Israel be held to a different standard than any other nation?
--------------------
|
ChuangTzu
starvingphysicist



Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
|
Re: Was Israel's founding, its continuation, bad? or What's wrong with Israel? [Re: Phred] 1
#14409981 - 05/06/11 12:13 PM (13 years, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said: And what country today exists because an original people voluntarily ceded the land to the present administrators? That's right, folks... none. Yet no one questions the validity of the existence of Canada or Australia or Spain or Denmark or Belize or Brazil or Jordan.... only of Israel. Israel is unique in the world in that regard.
It's not unique. Nobody questions the validity of the existence of Canada because the conquered people of Canada are no longer resisting. They lost, end of story. When the Soviet Union still existed, much of the world saw the occupation of Central Europe and the Baltic states as illegitimate (even if the respective governments were formally recognized) because the citizens of these countries were for the most part not complacent (resistance movements in Poland and the Baltic states into the 80s, uprisings in Czechoslovakia and Hungary).
Native Americans for the most part have given up fighting against the government of the US. To the extent that they haven't, some people still do challenge the legitimacy of the "occupiers". This is a fringe position because the number of American Indians still challenging this is about 5. Again, they lost, end of story.
Today there aren't that many situations like Israel simply because they've all mostly been crushed into submission or because those that continue to fight are in such a small minority as to not be taken seriously. To some, the wars in Afghanistan (going back to Soviet occupation) and Chechnya are seen as a struggle of the indigenous population against a foreign occupying force. There are probably a dozen parallels to Israel in Africa as well, but most people (including me) don't know enough, or care enough, about Africa to say anything.
Israel might get the most attention for a variety of reasons but it is not unique in the claims against it.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: Was Israel's founding, its continuation, bad? or What's wrong with Israel? [Re: ChuangTzu]
#14410007 - 05/06/11 12:18 PM (13 years, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ChuangTzu said:
Quote:
Phred said: And what country today exists because an original people voluntarily ceded the land to the present administrators? That's right, folks... none. Yet no one questions the validity of the existence of Canada or Australia or Spain or Denmark or Belize or Brazil or Jordan.... only of Israel. Israel is unique in the world in that regard.
It's not unique. Nobody questions the validity of the existence of Canada because the conquered people of Canada are no longer resisting. They lost, end of story. When the Soviet Union still existed, much of the world saw the occupation of Central Europe and the Baltic states as illegitimate (even if the respective governments were formally recognized) because the citizens of these countries were for the most part not complacent (resistance movements in Poland and the Baltic states into the 80s, uprisings in Czechoslovakia and Hungary).
Native Americans for the most part have given up fighting against the government of the US. To the extent that they haven't, some people still do challenge the legitimacy of the "occupiers". This is a fringe position because the number of American Indians still challenging this is about 5. Again, they lost, end of story.
Today there aren't that many situations like Israel simply because they've all mostly been crushed into submission or because those that continue to fight are in such a small minority as to not be taken seriously. To some, the wars in Afghanistan (going back to Soviet occupation) and Chechnya are seen as a struggle of the indigenous population against a foreign occupying force. There are probably a dozen parallels to Israel in Africa as well, but most people (including me) don't know enough, or care enough, about Africa to say anything.
Israel might get the most attention for a variety of reasons but it is not unique in the claims against it.
Are you saying that Israel would have more validity if they had completely eradicated the Muslims in their midst? Think carefully about your answer. You seem to be calling for genocide as the only acceptable means to establish unquestioned national validity.
--------------------
|
ChuangTzu
starvingphysicist



Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
|
Re: Was Israel's founding, its continuation, bad? or What's wrong with Israel? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14410792 - 05/06/11 03:10 PM (13 years, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Are you saying that Israel would have more validity if they had completely eradicated the Muslims in their midst?
No. While that might work in the long run, the local muslim population has strong ties to non-local muslim populations. It would take a long time for them to get over that (100+ years? Maybe longer if they outright murdered everyone of them, and shorter if they "merely" evicted them all).
Quote:
Think carefully about your answer. You seem to be calling for genocide as the only acceptable means to establish unquestioned national validity.
I didn't intend to provide a solution to the problem. Perhaps there isn't a very good one at this point.
All I'm saying is that it ain't over 'til it's over. While the war might be as good as won by the Israelis, their opposition hasn't quit yet, so talking about Israel as being legitimate based on the outcome of a war isn't really correct, since the war is still ongoing.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: Was Israel's founding, its continuation, bad? or What's wrong with Israel? [Re: ChuangTzu]
#14411475 - 05/06/11 05:33 PM (13 years, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ChuangTzu said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Are you saying that Israel would have more validity if they had completely eradicated the Muslims in their midst?
No. While that might work in the long run, the local muslim population has strong ties to non-local muslim populations. It would take a long time for them to get over that (100+ years? Maybe longer if they outright murdered everyone of them, and shorter if they "merely" evicted them all).
That has nothing to do with the question. The question wasn't at all about practicality, it was strictly about legal niceties, i.e. validity. Quote:
Quote:
Think carefully about your answer. You seem to be calling for genocide as the only acceptable means to establish unquestioned national validity.
I didn't intend to provide a solution to the problem. Perhaps there isn't a very good one at this point.
All I'm saying is that it ain't over 'til it's over. While the war might be as good as won by the Israelis, their opposition hasn't quit yet, so talking about Israel as being legitimate based on the outcome of a war isn't really correct, since the war is still ongoing.
Since it aint over, in your mind, until there is absolute surrender I ask again, under your qualifications, don't the Israelis have to eradicate the Muslims in their midst to achieve a valid state? The reason they haven't done it isn't because they couldn't, you know. They fucking well could. What would you have to say if they did?
|
Shins
Fun guy



Registered: 09/15/04
Posts: 16,337
|
Re: Was Israel's founding, its continuation, bad? or What's wrong with Israel? [Re: GazzBut]
#14411576 - 05/06/11 05:55 PM (13 years, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
GazzBut said: Which ever way you look at it a bunch of wealthy Europeans marched into a foreign land and felt compelled to claim it as their own based on a book of fairy tales. Well out of order.
Sounds like a modern day crusade to me.
PS: Out of curiosity, WHY were "the jews" kicked out of almost every other country?
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Was Israel's founding, its continuation, bad? or What's wrong with Israel? [Re: Shins]
#14411607 - 05/06/11 06:00 PM (13 years, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Because they didn't assimilate.
|
Shins
Fun guy



Registered: 09/15/04
Posts: 16,337
|
Re: Was Israel's founding, its continuation, bad? or What's wrong with Israel? [Re: DieCommie]
#14411613 - 05/06/11 06:02 PM (13 years, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said: Because they didn't assimilate.
Can you expand on that, i'm sure it's a bt more complex than that.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: Was Israel's founding, its continuation, bad? or What's wrong with Israel? [Re: Shins]
#14411630 - 05/06/11 06:06 PM (13 years, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Shins said:
Quote:
GazzBut said: Which ever way you look at it a bunch of wealthy Europeans marched into a foreign land and felt compelled to claim it as their own based on a book of fairy tales. Well out of order.
Sounds like a modern day crusade to me.
PS: Out of curiosity, WHY were "the jews" kicked out of almost every other country?
I dunno. Why?
--------------------
|
Shins
Fun guy



Registered: 09/15/04
Posts: 16,337
|
Re: Was Israel's founding, its continuation, bad? or What's wrong with Israel? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14411665 - 05/06/11 06:11 PM (13 years, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Quote:
Shins said:
Quote:
GazzBut said: Which ever way you look at it a bunch of wealthy Europeans marched into a foreign land and felt compelled to claim it as their own based on a book of fairy tales. Well out of order.
Sounds like a modern day crusade to me.
PS: Out of curiosity, WHY were "the jews" kicked out of almost every other country?
I dunno. Why?
Honestly, I'm not sure 
My guess is it had something to do with rampant Usury, Jewish supremacism, inclusiveness, Christian persecution, as well as some perception of Jews being "evil."
|
PMATL
Stranger

Registered: 04/22/11
Posts: 137
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
|
Re: Was Israel's founding, its continuation, bad? or What's wrong with Israel? [Re: Phred]
#14411923 - 05/06/11 07:04 PM (13 years, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said:
Quote:
Um.....that the Palestinian people did not voluntarily cede the land to their most hated ethnic/religious group.
And what country today exists because an original people voluntarily ceded the land to the present administrators? That's right, folks... none. Yet no one questions the validity of the existence of Canada or Australia or Spain or Denmark or Belize or Brazil or Jordan.... only of Israel. Israel is unique in the world in that regard.
Next, what's all this about the Jews having been the most hated (by "Palestinians") ethnic/religious group? I thought all you progressives insist that the problem is not that the Palis hate Jews for being Jews, but for having "stolen" the land. How could they have been hated by the "Palestinians" before they stole the land?
Your Freudian slip reveals your actual beliefs about the situation - it's not that someone "stole" the land, it's that Jews did.
Phred
I'm not a progressive and that wasn't a Freudian slip. They were hated by Muslims because the Muslim book of fairy tales and Mohammed the pedophile tell them that unbelievers are inferior people and will rot in hell for eternity. Much like illiterate dark-age Christians hated Jews. Probably because Jews are generally smart and get rich wherever they go.
Also, Canada, Brazil, USA etc. were all founded in the 17th-18th centuries, when that shit was less frowned upon than was in 1948. The could basically do away with the native populations without college students protesting it...
Not that I side with the Arabs. Isreal modernized the country more in the first 5 years than the Palestinians had in the last 2000, and if the Palestinians weren't such dumb violent fucks they would still have half of the holy land. But I understand their beef
-------------------- It is impossible to convey the life-sensation of any given epoch of one's existence--that which makes its truth, its meaning--its subtle and penetrating essence. It is impossible. We live, as we dream--alone. It's legs to walk and thoughts to fly Eyes that laugh and lips that cry A restless tongue to classify, All born to grow and grown to die
|
PMATL
Stranger

Registered: 04/22/11
Posts: 137
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
|
Re: Was Israel's founding, its continuation, bad? or What's wrong with Israel? [Re: Shins]
#14411934 - 05/06/11 07:06 PM (13 years, 16 days ago) |
|
|
They were always the 'other' in society wherever they went, thus subject to persecution. They kept to themselves and followed a religion that nobody really understood, so they figured their rituals involved shit like eating Christian/Muslim babies.
Also nobody likes bankers
-------------------- It is impossible to convey the life-sensation of any given epoch of one's existence--that which makes its truth, its meaning--its subtle and penetrating essence. It is impossible. We live, as we dream--alone. It's legs to walk and thoughts to fly Eyes that laugh and lips that cry A restless tongue to classify, All born to grow and grown to die
|
ChuangTzu
starvingphysicist



Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
|
Re: Was Israel's founding, its continuation, bad? or What's wrong with Israel? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14411949 - 05/06/11 07:10 PM (13 years, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: That has nothing to do with the question. The question wasn't at all about practicality, it was strictly about legal niceties, i.e. validity.
The question is why is Israel treated any differently than some other conquered territory. My answer was that it's because it's not completely conquered yet. Legal validity, more or less, goes to the victor, I think we agree to that. It's pretty clear that they haven't completely won yet.
Quote:
Since it aint over, in your mind, until there is absolute surrender I ask again, under your qualifications, don't the Israelis have to eradicate the Muslims in their midst to achieve a valid state? The reason they haven't done it isn't because they couldn't, you know. They fucking well could. What would you have to say if they did?
I wouldn't say that's the only way, and I wouldn't say that would necessarily work (there are external forces fighting against them as well, and there would probably be more if they exterminated anyone). I'm sure there are even legitimate countries around today that exist on land from which all traces of the indigenous population have been removed (Cuba, for example, could be a legitimate country some day if a non-fucked up government could ever be established there and there is just about 0 trace of any of the original inhabitants or their descendants). It just takes a really long time. In the case of Cuba, it probably helps that it happened before the internet and the Cuban natives didn't really have ties with foreign natives.
What would I think if they did? It doesn't matter what I think, the world would be outraged and Israel would have other problems. They are fucked either way it seems. There is probably a moral here somewhere... something about building a home in a bee's nest maybe...
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
|
Re: Was Israel's founding, its continuation, bad? or What's wrong with Israel? [Re: PMATL]
#14411956 - 05/06/11 07:11 PM (13 years, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
They were hated by Muslims because the Muslim book of fairy tales and Mohammed the pedophile tell them that unbelievers are inferior people and will rot in hell for eternity.
So your position is that if the British had decided to transfer the administration of that sliver of land over to... oh... let's say Lutherans... the Palis would have reacted the same? What about Buddhists? Because, let's face it, Lutherans and Buddhists are also unbelievers.
And would the legitimacy of Israel have been as much in question today by the non-Palestinian world if said Lutherans (or Buddhists or whatever) were running the show today? If not, why not?
Phred
--------------------
|
PMATL
Stranger

Registered: 04/22/11
Posts: 137
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
|
Re: Was Israel's founding, its continuation, bad? or What's wrong with Israel? [Re: Phred]
#14412071 - 05/06/11 07:36 PM (13 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Phred
Quote:
Phred said:
Quote:
They were hated by Muslims because the Muslim book of fairy tales and Mohammed the pedophile tell them that unbelievers are inferior people and will rot in hell for eternity.
So your position is that if the British had decided to transfer the administration of that sliver of land over to... oh... let's say Lutherans... the Palis would have reacted the same? What about Buddhists? Because, let's face it, Lutherans and Buddhists are also unbelievers.
And would the legitimacy of Israel have been as much in question today by the non-Palestinian world if said Lutherans (or Buddhists or whatever) were running the show today? If not, why not?
Phred
It probably would've provoked a similar reaction. There's probably more animosity towards Jews in the Muslim world now than there is against Christians, but that also relates to the fact that its the Jews who are occupying their perceived "holy land."
It would also depend of the foreign policy of said Lutheran/Buddhist state. Israel has been pretty fucking aggressive and hasn't done much to make friends since their founding. Not that they didn't have good reason, but still
-------------------- It is impossible to convey the life-sensation of any given epoch of one's existence--that which makes its truth, its meaning--its subtle and penetrating essence. It is impossible. We live, as we dream--alone. It's legs to walk and thoughts to fly Eyes that laugh and lips that cry A restless tongue to classify, All born to grow and grown to die
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: Was Israel's founding, its continuation, bad? or What's wrong with Israel? [Re: PMATL]
#14412454 - 05/06/11 08:52 PM (13 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
> but that also relates to the fact that its the Jews who are occupying their perceived "holy land."
From what most religious nutjobs claim, the entire world is their perceived "holy land". Christians gotta spread Christianity to the world. Muslims gotta spread Islam to the world. Jews gotta... woah, hmm...
And speaking of perceived "holy land", Christians, Jews, and Muslims all three claim that region as their "special place". Why do the Muslim claims get more weight than the Jewish or Christian claims? I'd say which ever religion is oldest probably has the most legitimate claim.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Was Israel's founding, its continuation, bad? or What's wrong with Israel? [Re: PMATL]
#14413183 - 05/06/11 11:40 PM (13 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
GazzBut said:
Quote:
I'm a bit confused by your stance though: previously you stated fairy tales aren't justification to decide residency, citezinship, et cet. Now you seem to suggest nationality is- is this correct?
I am saying the people who had been living there before the Jews decided to leave Europe had rights purely by the virtue of being there first, in my opinion.
No one's arguing whether they didn't have rights- everyone agrees they did. The issue is over soveriegnty and the legitimacy of it. If you mean that the people first their had rights to install a government, to the exclusions of others, then how does that lead to Israel being bad? Are you arbitrarily limiting the temporal range considered to exclude periods before the arab conquest of the land? You have not said how the criteria you favor supports your claim, and it seems like its arbitrary or counterproductive for reasons discussed above.
If, on the other hand, you only consider people living presently at the time of the determination, on the other hand, it would seem you'd have to concede Israel is legitimate by means of the present makeup of the areas they administer and the democratic institution in power.
Quote:
lol!
Is there some objection to the argument? Along with your prior comments, I wonder if this is just ridicule unrelated to the topic. If it is, I wish you'd stop.
Quote:
PMATL said:
 Dude, come on. You cannot possibly be this pretentious and this thick at the same time. The previous "de jure and de facto" (seriously with this vocab?) government was The British Empire. The Christians. The White Man. Europe. The West. The Infidels.
What is pretentious about my post?
Additionally, you criticize the words I've used, but haven't explained how they are improper or a problem. How would you have me describe the concepts of de jure and de facto sovereignty in a better way? Any alternative I could imagine would be unclear and tedious- requiring more space to describe concepts which these two terms describe. I really don't see what your problem with this is. (I'd note that the point is quite relevant given the various organizations which have claimed statehood in the region, especially in the arab lands right now, which lack one and often booth of these justifications for claiming sovereignty, and thereby would not be recognized as a state by pretty much anyone- let alone under international law)
Quote:
The previous "de jure and de facto" (seriously with this vocab?) government was The British Empire. The Christians. The White Man. Europe. The West. The Infidels.
What is your point?
Yes, they would be considered one of the previous soverigns, and that seems a convincing argument for at least the legality and legitimacy of the Israeli state- given it was from them (might have been the UN, but at least they were the previous owners) which the state obtained the territory.
|
|