|
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: johnm214]
#14413359 - 05/07/11 12:37 AM (13 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
John why are you struggling to understand what I am saying?
1) A native population existed in Palestine, although not under any particular government
2) European Jews decided to move their en masse for no good reason other than their book of Fairy tales told them to.
3) With the help of the British they managed to eventually take control of the land.
I consider this process wrong. Just because a similar process may have happened prior to this in other countries does not change my feeling that this is wrong. The way the Israelis continue to try and expand their land today is wrong, in my opinion. The way they try and keep the Palestinians in a state of economic hell is wrong, in my opinion. The way they bulldoze down houses illegally is wrong, in my opinion.
Zappa is fond of telling us that the "fucking Muslims" acted like animals etc etc and got what they deserved (or words to that effect) whilst conveniently ignoring the barbarism displayed by the Israelis.
You are welcome to pick apart what I have said like some ill equipped law student but I would prefer to hear your actual opinion on the matter.
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
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: johnm214]
#14413522 - 05/07/11 01:48 AM (13 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
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.
The words themselves aren't necessarily a problem, it's just your writing style comes across as a college student trying to cram as many SAT words into their essay as possible. But whatever, it's irrelevant and I'm sorry I brought it up because it detracts from the point i'm trying to make.
Western concepts of statehood are not necessarily seen as legitimate by those outside the West. Whatever the "legality" of the British Empire handing over the Palestinian Mandate to the UN, most of the Arab world views this as foreigners messing around in their homeland. A bunch of white Europeans sitting in a conference hall somewhere drew a line on a map and decided that they would award that land to the Jews. This was recognized legally because the Brits technically "owned" that land. The question is whether that ownership was legitimate. To the West, it was, but the Arabs, unsurprisingly, took a more dim view of this, seeing as they had been inhabiting that land for thousands of years before whitey showed up with guns and decided that the land was now "theirs"
-------------------- 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: GazzBut]
#14413531 - 05/07/11 01:50 AM (13 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
GazzBut said: 2) European Jews decided to move their en masse for no good reason other than their book of Fairy tales told them to.
Basically what it all comes down to is one stupid book of fairy tales told a group of people to move into a land populated by another group whose separate stupid book of fairy tales tells them to kill the first group.
So....fuck religion
-------------------- 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
|
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: GazzBut]
#14413636 - 05/07/11 02:40 AM (13 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
GazzBut said: John why are you struggling to understand what I am saying?
I've explained the problems I find with your post, and as you've not responded, I'll assume this is a disingenuous question. I note that you've not responded either to my suggestion that of the several ways you could interprete your "first one to reside in an area wins", all cut against your conclusion, which you've provided no explanation for, meerly asserting this calculus supports the view that Israel is/was unjust (it seems you must arbitrarily look back in history but only so far as convieniant, ignoring the arab conquests preceding whatever fault you find with the British mandate, in making your determination of who was there first. You fail to say what was wrong with the British mandate, yet suggest something was).
Quote:
You are welcome to pick apart what I have said like some ill equipped law student but I would prefer to hear your actual opinion on the matter.
I've asked you several times to stop insulting me. What is the problem here?
I don't have much of an opinion on the merits of teh question, since you ask. I don't know of any particularly persuasive argument against Israel, hence the question.
Quote:
Western concepts of statehood are not necessarily seen as legitimate by those outside the West. Whatever the "legality" of the British Empire handing over the Palestinian Mandate to the UN, most of the Arab world views this as foreigners messing around in their homeland. A bunch of white Europeans sitting in a conference hall somewhere drew a line on a map and decided that they would award that land to the Jews. This was recognized legally because the Brits technically "owned" that land. The question is whether that ownership was legitimate. To the West, it was, but the Arabs, unsurprisingly, took a more dim view of this, seeing as they had been inhabiting that land for thousands of years before whitey showed up with guns and decided that the land was now "theirs"
I'm aware there's disagreement, hence the question. The issue is not whether such disagreement exists amongst particular groups but whether there's any legitimacy to them on moral or legal grounds.
I take some exception to your description of the british mandate as ownership of the lands. People were free to own lands in Palestine during the mandate- the British were soverign, not owners. For the same reason I have trouble understanding the categorical objection to Israel amongst the arab/muslim folks who seem to just be bigots without any justification for their objections other than their desire to oppress people of particular classes dissimilar to themselves
|
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: johnm214]
#14427733 - 05/10/11 12:31 AM (13 years, 12 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
I'm aware there's disagreement, hence the question. The issue is not whether such disagreement exists amongst particular groups but whether there's any legitimacy to them on moral or legal grounds.
I take some exception to your description of the british mandate as ownership of the lands. People were free to own lands in Palestine during the mandate- the British were soverign, not owners. For the same reason I have trouble understanding the categorical objection to Israel amongst the arab/muslim folks who seem to just be bigots without any justification for their objections other than their desire to oppress people of particular classes dissimilar to themselves
Well I agree with your position to an extent. It's pretty much a race war at this point. More so on the side of the Muslims than the Israelis. I say Muslims and not Palestinians because I know a few Palestinian Christian refugees in the US who had totally legitimate beef with Isreal - being threatened at checkpoints, having passports & money confiscated, etc., just because they looked Arabic.
However a good amount of the anti-Isreal sentiment in the Muslim world is just the product of the rampant anti-semitism that is instilled in them from a young age.
Scary shit. But since Hamas is opposed to American foreign policy a good portion of the left will always see them as noble crusaders against the evils of Western imperialism. They only encourage children to carry out suicide bombings targeting civilians because "those are the only weapons they have" or some other such moral-relatavist drivel
-------------------- 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
|
gzuf
٩(̾๏̮̮̃̾๏̃̾)۶



Registered: 07/13/09
Posts: 6,535
|
Re: Was Israel's founding, its continuation, bad? or What's wrong with Israel? [Re: Shins]
#14427887 - 05/10/11 01:31 AM (13 years, 12 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Shins said: 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."
I don't get it. Everyone hates the Jews.
DA JEWWWZZZ. GET DEEEM.

The Jews just get kicked around for thousands of years. People fuckin' killing them here, killing them there. Oh guess we'll drop a H-bomb on you in the form of olocaust. People are always just so pissed about the Jews. I don't get it, I mean, they are good at business I guess. Humus is pretty tasty, in my opinion. It's just weird. Then, they get a little fucking country in the middle of nowhere after their people were just cut down by like 6 million and then the Islamic folk get mad, war after war after war for what? Some piece of land smaller than New Jersey where both Jews and Muslims live in relative peace.
I don't know I just don't understand it. Islam and Judaism along with Christianity all have the same roots. But at some point it has to be evident that Israel is here to stay, maybe it's time to just deal with it? I know there is a significant Muslim population in Israel, but I don't see a lot of that in Syria or Iran. The Gaza Strip has been turned in to shit because the people are given guns and rocket launchers to attack Israel in the form of "aid" rather than food. Such a pointless situation.
-------------------- +1 Post ٩(̾๏̮̮̃̾๏̃̾)۶
|
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: gzuf]
#14428849 - 05/10/11 08:51 AM (13 years, 12 days ago) |
|
|
Christianity went through a period where it could brook no dissent and tortured and killed apostates. That was a few hundred years ago. I think the Jews had a similar period (Bring me a hundred Philistine foreskins) but that was a few thousand years ago. Islam is doing it now. It is an insecure, immature religion that hasn't gotten past the "You must believe" stage. The Jews are not now a problem, the Christians are not now a problem,, the Muslims are, right now, a problem. By problem I mean raving, drooling, lunatic murderers. Not all of them, obviously, but a rather huge minority. Like in the hundreds of millions.
--------------------
|
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: zappaisgod]
#14432373 - 05/10/11 10:32 PM (13 years, 11 days ago) |
|
|
I wouldn't say hundreds of millions, but yeah. Islam is stuck in tha fucking Dark Ages.
-------------------- 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
|
communeart


Registered: 12/04/06
Posts: 1,021
Loc:
Last seen: 12 years, 1 month
|
Re: Was Israel's founding, its continuation, bad? or What's wrong with Israel? [Re: PMATL]
#14436151 - 05/11/11 05:57 PM (13 years, 11 days ago) |
|
|
I think there is a misunderstanding of islam when you compare it to our own religions whether christian or jewish. the real problem are their representative like Arafat ( which is no better an individual than Ben Gurion) who are argue in favor of terror suicide bombing as a way to cause psychological terror on the israeli population and thus lead to victory.
The real problem is that they are similar to christians in their attacks. Quotes from the Qu'ran such as kill them where you find them are easily misinterpreted according to one's whim to include genocide. While israel is hypocritical saying that the babies they kill are collateral damage, the muslims attack all jews as if they are non-believers and heretics. It is one of the reason why islamofascism is a good term to begin with , it is that nazi attack ruthlessly people they consider non-people, not inferior, but people who for example have been going back and forth in religious status, and thus become a strange brand of atheism, islamist despise such a person as somebody mix-matching their own religion in my opinion. just like nazi despise the mixed-race more than they despise true africans for example.
I sometime feel that John's reason for constantly opening thread about israel is that he is working for AIPAC and trying to figure out what are the arguments of his ennemies. but that's just my paranoid self .
|
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]
#14443523 - 05/13/11 02:10 AM (13 years, 9 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
communeart said: I think there is a misunderstanding of islam when you compare it to our own religions whether christian or jewish.
You seem to project your cultural views or understanding onto others. Christianity and Judaism are not "my religions", and I grew up knowing more about Islam than any of the former. None of that matters either way.
Quote:
real problem is that they are similar to christians in their attacks.
and this is based on what?
Quote:
Quotes from the Qu'ran such as kill them where you find them are easily misinterpreted according to one's whim to include genocide.
How is this a misinterpreation? Are you relying upon the limited class to which such commands apply?
Quote:
While israel is hypocritical saying that the babies they kill are collateral damage,
How so?
Quote:
I sometime feel that John's reason for constantly opening thread about israel is that he is working for AIPAC and trying to figure out what are the arguments of his ennemies. but that's just my paranoid self .
If so, it isn't working. I just get a bunch of hype and insults as to my person, without any clear claims. Those who have made clear claims have not defended them and appear to have rather signifigant problems (Gazzbut for example who has not explained his 'first class to live in an area wins soveirignty' rule and how that cuts against Israel- apparently considering only the twentieth century in his analysis of 'who was there first'.)
Quote:
PMATL said:
Quote:
johnm214 said:
I'm aware there's disagreement, hence the question. The issue is not whether such disagreement exists amongst particular groups but whether there's any legitimacy to them on moral or legal grounds.
I take some exception to your description of the british mandate as ownership of the lands. People were free to own lands in Palestine during the mandate- the British were soverign, not owners. For the same reason I have trouble understanding the categorical objection to Israel amongst the arab/muslim folks who seem to just be bigots without any justification for their objections other than their desire to oppress people of particular classes dissimilar to themselves
Well I agree with your position to an extent. It's pretty much a race war at this point. More so on the side of the Muslims than the Israelis. I say Muslims and not Palestinians because I know a few Palestinian Christian refugees in the US who had totally legitimate beef with Isreal - being threatened at checkpoints, having passports & money confiscated, etc., just because they looked Arabic.
However a good amount of the anti-Isreal sentiment in the Muslim world is just the product of the rampant anti-semitism that is instilled in them from a young age.
Yeah, the hate and open acceptance/advocacy of oppression is a problem. Politically, those opposing Israel would do better in international consideration if they weren't such open bigots.
Israel allows muslims to own property and worship. I don't see much suggesting the leading palestinian organizations vieing for governmental power would allow jews the saem privledge.
Whatever the merits of having a state for a specific ethnicity or religion, which seems a pretty stupid and poor idea to me, its hard for me to see much in the way of justified oppression against the non-jews in Israel other than some limited things and the prejudice/hatred that always exists when two distinct classes exist in close proximity with finite resources.
Quote:
Scary shit. But since Hamas is opposed to American foreign policy a good portion of the left will always see them as noble crusaders against the evils of Western imperialism.
Pretty much my view as well, lol. Seems silly yet predictable.
The whole 'US imperialism" stuff seems stupid though. Other than anti-capitalists, there seems to be no legitimacy to any of their gripes. At least the anti-capitalists are somewhat honest that they just don't like the concept of wealth in the first place nor a government relatively free that doesn't forbid its citizens from buying stuff with their wealth. How that buying of stuff by citezins in a country translates into imperialism by the country, however; seems never to be explained.
|
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: johnm214]
#14443912 - 05/13/11 05:55 AM (13 years, 9 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
(Gazzbut for example who has not explained his 'first class to live in an area wins soveirignty' rule and how that cuts against Israel- apparently considering only the twentieth century in his analysis of 'who was there first'.)
Whats to explain? Its my opinion that removing a resident population by means of force and coercion is wrong.
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
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: johnm214]
#14443918 - 05/13/11 06:00 AM (13 years, 9 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
its hard for me to see much in the way of justified oppression against the non-jews in Israel other than some limited things and the prejudice/hatred that always exists when two distinct classes exist in close proximity with finite resources.
Even more interesting, the original land that formed Israel was a bunch of worthless desert where few people lived. The nice areas in the region, which were populated, were not used to form Israel (which is why the original borders of Israel are so convoluted). The lust for Israel's land didn't come about until the Israeli people (not just the Jewish people) managed to turn their small parcel of worthless desert into a thriving oasis.
-------------------- 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: GazzBut]
#14443968 - 05/13/11 06:27 AM (13 years, 9 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
GazzBut said:
Quote:
(Gazzbut for example who has not explained his 'first class to live in an area wins soveirignty' rule and how that cuts against Israel- apparently considering only the twentieth century in his analysis of 'who was there first'.)
Whats to explain? Its my opinion that removing a resident population by means of force and coercion is wrong.
Explain:
a) the conclusion that this calculus cuts against Israel. Particularly, since the arab conquests imposed Islam and new governemnt on the conquered people, and judaism (the religion and ethnicity) existed amongst the population, it seems unlikely that the "first in the area wins sovereignty" analysis you favor supports the view that Israel is bad/shouldn't have been formed. How exactly does the criteria you advance support your view?
b) How does the right of whomever was originally in the area to enact a government have any baring on the morality/legality of creating Israel, given that the former soverign transferred the land willingly (unless you dispute this, though you've not said so). Whatever the rights of the people at the dawn of civilization or whenever you wish to analyze the situation (though you've not said how this analysis is conducted and would ask you how- it seems unworkable and ad hoc), wouldn't the fact that the Ottomans Empire attacked the allies in an aggressive war mean the sovereignty was rightly the UK's to divest to whomever they wished (ignoring the merits of the mandate system)?
In any case, the assertion is challenged on the grounds that it is said to be persuasive and just, not on the grounds that it is or is not your opinion. That something is your opinion is besides the point- the merits are what I've inquired of.
|
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: johnm214]
#14444031 - 05/13/11 07:00 AM (13 years, 9 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
a) the conclusion that this calculus cuts against Israel.
If you cant grasp this then there is not much point us conversing really.
Quote:
Particularly, since the arab conquests imposed Islam and new governemnt on the conquered people, and judaism (the religion and ethnicity) existed amongst the population,
I have already stated that in my opinion just because a bunch of Europeans happen to read the same book of fairytales as a bunch of middle eastern natives from the dim and distant past does not give the Europeans any reason to claim that they have a right to move on a well established population through means of force and coercion.
Also just because some Arabs also imposed themselves on a native population in the dim and distant past by no means serves as some form of justification for the actions of the Europeans who decided to claim this land as their own. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Quote:
b) How does the right of whomever was originally in the area to enact a government have any baring on the morality/legality of creating Israel, given that the former soverign transferred the land willingly (unless you dispute this, though you've not said so).
Who are you referring to as the former sovereign?
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
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: Seuss]
#14444034 - 05/13/11 07:04 AM (13 years, 9 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Even more interesting, the original land that formed Israel was a bunch of worthless desert where few people lived. The nice areas in the region, which were populated, were not used to form Israel (which is why the original borders of Israel are so convoluted). The lust for Israel's land didn't come about until the Israeli people (not just the Jewish people) managed to turn their small parcel of worthless desert into a thriving oasis.
Proven fact or convenient belief?
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
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: GazzBut] 1
#14444776 - 05/13/11 10:39 AM (13 years, 9 days ago) |
|
|
Your link has nothing at all to do with what I posted.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
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: Seuss]
#14454368 - 05/15/11 12:32 AM (13 years, 7 days ago) |
|
|
I take it you didnt actually read the link then as it has everything to do with the unsubstantiated belief that you attempted to parade as a justification for the behaviour of the European Jews.
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
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: GazzBut]
#14455291 - 05/15/11 08:40 AM (13 years, 7 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
GazzBut said: I take it you didnt actually read the link then as it has everything to do with the unsubstantiated belief that you attempted to parade as a justification for the behaviour of the European Jews.
You have the burden to establish the relevance and justifiability of your claim and the source. So far you've simply proffered it as dispositive and when Seuss observes it is not relevant you repeat your claim. This is not helpful- you've not offered even an argument for the relevance.
Looking at the article, I don't see what the proportion of Jewish-farmed land versus Palestinian-farmed land in 1944-1945 has to do with whether the lands for which israel was granted soverignty were largely dessert lands with few residents and low worth- as Seuss alleges.
If there were no Jewish farmers in 44-45, it woudl seem by the analysis you champion this would mean even if Israel was founded on a baren rock a few meters square in area, that Israle got the best land, because Jews previously didn't cultivate much compared to Palestinians? This seems an absurd argument and the agricultural yield an arbitrary criteria, even if it didn't have logical problems.
Given you fail to even make an argument, its difficult to know what your point is, but it sure seems to have failed.
Quote:
GazzBut said:
Quote:
a) the conclusion that this calculus cuts against Israel.
If you cant grasp this then there is not much point us conversing really.
What does what I understand have to do with anything? The point is the argument, or lack thereof, for Israel's founding being immoral or unlawful, not my personal feelings and understanding. Stop making personal remarks and discuss the topic. If you don't wish to do this, then don't post in this thread.
Quote:
Quote:
Particularly, since the arab conquests imposed Islam and new governemnt on the conquered people, and judaism (the religion and ethnicity) existed amongst the population,
I have already stated that in my opinion just because a bunch of Europeans happen to read the same book of fairytales as a bunch of middle eastern natives from the dim and distant past does not give the Europeans any reason to claim that they have a right to move on a well established population through means of force and coercion.
You've said this but since nobody has offered it as justification for the state of Israel and the topic is not the universe of possible unpersusive arguments for Israel but what argumetns there might be against Israel, it seems a waste of text.
I ask again, what justification do you have for asserting the calculus you offer leads to Israel being unlawfull or immoral?
Quote:
Also just because some Arabs also imposed themselves on a native population in the dim and distant past by no means serves as some form of justification for the actions of the Europeans who decided to claim this land as their own. Two wrongs do not make a right.
How is the state itself immoral because of the previous nationalities of its residents? You have said that the first occupants have the right to soveriegnty, and now seem to agree the arab conquests were wrong. How then is the establishment of Israel wrong if it allegedly neglects the views of the conquerors you claim to be in the wrong and to have no claim to soverignty? Who exactly is being disenfranchised here?
Quote:
Quote:
b) How does the right of whomever was originally in the area to enact a government have any baring on the morality/legality of creating Israel, given that the former soverign transferred the land willingly (unless you dispute this, though you've not said so).
Who are you referring to as the former sovereign?
The united Kingdom. Please answer the question.
|
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: johnm214]
#14455321 - 05/15/11 08:52 AM (13 years, 7 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
You have the burden to establish the relevance and justifiability of your claim and the source.
Interesting that you didnt make the same point to Seuss when he made his completely unsubstantiated claim. Double standards John? I didnt actually claim that this link offered the truth anyway just that it gave a different side of the picture to the comment Seuss had made.
Quote:
Given you fail to even make an argument, its difficult to know what your point is, but it sure seems to have failed.
I was just pointing out that Seuss made a completely unsubstantiated comment and that 10 seconds in google was enough to turn up information that could indicate he was talking out of his back side. No fail there old boy.
as for the rest of your musings on the immorality of Israels actions you should remember that I do not believe in any objective morality so I can only give my subjective opinion on the matter, I have done so. I feel under no obligation to prove how I subjectively feel about this subject.
Quote:
The united Kingdom. Please answer the question.
To my mind the UK had no right to act as Sovereign in the first place or to play a deciding role in decisions as to who should or should not be allowed to live on that land.
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
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: GazzBut]
#14455442 - 05/15/11 09:34 AM (13 years, 7 days ago) |
|
|
Please explain to me how those borders are any less legitimate than the borders of Europe or anywhere else. They were redrawn in Europe at roughly the same time as they were redrawn in the middle east.
--------------------
|
|