Reflections on Israel, UN rule, terror groups and freedom fighters and tribalism.

Remove all ads!

Shoshino,
for someone who not that long ago stressed something along the lines of social Darwinism, you're not exactly in a position to accuse mordea, for all his faults, of 'giving a crap about the suffering of the people'. That sudden complaint over lack of compassion is somewhat disingenuous, too. Mordea is all outrage, and certainly not lacking in compassion. If anything he is perhaps selective, but so are you. After all, you demand caring for suffering, while choosing to ignore it when it is on the Palestinian side, which mordea is obviously taking. All big picture? Before demanding mordea meets your posting criteria, try to get coherent yourself.

The Palestinians have inhabitated Palestine for at least the better part of the last, say, 800 years, meaning that their right is rather fresh. Israel is a colonialist enterprise, with all the consequences, and was conceived as that. When you read the founder of what was to become Likud, Jabotinsky - he was very clear about the nature of the act and of the consequences of newcomers pushing out the established residents.

Try to be as realistic as Jabotinsky. Israel is today largely characterised by Ashkenazi (i.e. immigrant) culture, and that is so for not even a hundred years. In that sense, the bit about Israel's claim to the lands of Palestine is going back millennia, that's a theoretical construct. Take Bibi Netanyahu. His father, Benzion, who was incidentally an aidee to Jabotinsky, was born in Lithuania and changed his name from Milikovsky to Netanyahu when he immigrated to Palestine. What we are speaking about is simply a religious-nationalist narrative. Or a biblical one, when we accept that The Lord gave the land to King David a couple millennia ago as an argument.

My father was expelled from East Prussia in 1945 at the age of 13, for nothing he could possibly be faulted for. Now Poles live there. While I feel myself vaguely rooted there, through the stories I was told by my father and my grandmother, I didn't inherit a claim to the land.

 

Ragusa, now you're getting into the stickiest part of the issue: why do people have 'claims to the land' in the first place? What gives the Palesinians the right to claim it? That they lived there? That they lived there for hundreds of years? Well, so did the Israelis, just a lot longer ago. That they lived there most recently? Well, now the Israelis live there. That they conquered the land fair and square? Well, now the Israelis have. Some blending of multiples (i.e. they most recently lived there for a prolongued period of time)? Why that standard (or any of them for that matter) and not another?

Mind you, I'm not saying any of the above standards are wrong, just that people will vehemently disagree about what standard to use. Usually, after picking a standard that supports their position. It's particularly sticky to find a standard that you can apply to Israel that you can't apply to the US and other American nations. The US hasn't even owned Hawai'i for a full century, and there is a native independance movement there (just not a very large one).

 

NOG,
it's a thing of ethics IMO. If I go to your place and tell you to leave, because I want to live there, claiming a right to be there, would you accept it? Would it be just? Imagine some Indian came to your house, referring to his ancestors and demanding you go - if inheritance of ancient residence rights flies as an argument, he does have the older right. I presume you would argue that his right has expired a hundred or so years ago. I would argue that Israeli claims on their land expired two millennia or so ago.

In German law the period you have to hold a thing in your possession to own it is thirty years. It is called 'Ersitzung' (literally and figuratively: 'Sitting on it'). It is a little more difficult with land, but the general idea still stands. I think it is a reasonable construct and a it serves well as a guideline. By that rationale, inhabiting a land for eight centuries gives a strong indication for ownership.

 

Because nobody "owns" the land. It's virtually impossible to do so. The land is merely an extension of your natural and legal rights. And it is those rights that are the issue, not the land. As Ragusa points out those rights are based upon ethical and legal principles. It's one of the major reasons we fought the Revolution. But it's ironic that your state of Virginia has some of the worst property rights among the states.

I don't mean to get off topic, but in fact, property laws in Virginia are a national disgrace. I think it's ironic because Virginia historically, among the states, has a record of reverence for property rights. It proves that you don't need a large army to take property and rights away from citizens, just a bunch of dishonest and crafty "politicians." You either protect and fight for your rights (both politically, legally and actually), or you lose them. That seems to me what the Pals are doing (at least in some ways).

 

Ragusa, the problem is that there isn't any corresponding international standard (at least, as far as I'm aware). Do we get to keep Hawai'i because we've had it for over 30 years? The Jews have had most of modern Israel for more than 30 years, but people are still fighting over it. Does the time get extended for a national or cultural entity, such as the Hawai'ians or the Palestinians? By how much? 10x? 20x? How long until the Jews have equal claim to the land as the Palestinians do? A generation? Three? Ten? How long until the Palestinians' claim expires? What are the legitimate means to terminate it? Conquest? Treaty? These are the issues that have arisen in that region, and they aren't easy to settle.

And, like I said, people tend to pick one that supports their preferred claim.

 

Why? I don't act like I do, he at times does. his outrage is based quite simply on nothing, I was actually going to point out if a reply came from mordea relating to it that you actually have an argument and a right to outrage because you care about the people and less about the ownership of the land.

so... a squatter can keep a house if they've been there for a while?

although.. if you wanted to go back there... and you had a gun, and they didn't, you could move them along.

really a word which has no basis in politics.

doesnt matter... if you have arms and power, just is irrelevent, your claim would be the one which survived, because if I resisted, you could just shoot me and take my land regardless. now I could ***** and moan, hold up in my house and you could barricade me in and attempt to starve me, and the neighbours could express their 'disgust' at the way your treating me, but your the one with the guns, your the one with the power.

there is property which belongs to my family which hasnt been occupied in a good long time, its a mostly empty plot of land which an empty rotting garage on it, belonged to my great grandfather he used to work on traction engines in it. we havent touched it for god knows how long, I havent even been there, but when travellers set up a caravan there, we had the police move them on. we dont want the land, we done need the land, we dont use the land (its useless, cant get planning permission to build there because the ground is unsteady), but its ours regardless who ever wants to live there.

and your coming back to a major issue, who's laws? your looking at land in another part of the world using your own ethical and legal view, the people there who have the power to make law say its theirs, the people who squat there have no legal or natural rights, your ethical and legal principles do not apply because the body which rules the area has a different code of law and ethics.

well, this is how the Israilites lost it, I only see it fair that the palestinians lose it in the same way.

 

There is evidence to suggest that the Palestinians are just another band of Canaanites.

Some people assume that 'The Jews' were the only indigenous inhabitants of the region. This is fallicious.

And Israel is still continuing to annex land and establish settlements on contested land. It's not like their theft concluded 30 years ago, it's *ongoing*. Furthermore, their treatment of the people they stole the land from is atrocious.

If the theft had concluded 30+ years ago, and the indigenous inhabitants had have been compensated, then I wouldn't care so much. But what we have is *ongoing* human rights abuse.

 

Natural rights and legal rights are two different sets of rights. That is why I listed them separately. It is true that the legal rights I refer to are based on common law rights going back to the Anglo-Saxons, but natural rights are quite different.

 

there is no such thing as a natural right, rights are what man gives itself, the whole phrase is human

the palestinians have been derived from nothing more then a large seriese of conquest. and now the modern hebrews have the power to take back their land, the entire area has been taken and taken and taken by whoever had the power to take it, and now it is the Isralies who have that power, so now, it is their land.

no, your right, the indiginous peoples of the land learned to read and write from the hebrews, and then they killed them.

what theft? I say that if the people who live there would give up their fight they would live well, as part of society.
In much the same way as they hawians live as American citizens or as the Welsh and Scottish live as British citizens.

 

Well...yes. I guess I'm not getting your point that it is "human." Sometimes natural rights are referred to as "human rights," thusly that would make sense. These rights are thought to be universal between all "humans." I haven't thought to extend these rights to animals, although some people do. I don't think that the debate about human rights going beyond humans would be very useful to the topic at hand. Unless you are saying that property rights don't exist. All I would bother to respond to that is "So what? Niether side has property rights? If you don't believe property rights exist, why are bothering to debate this at all?" Neither side is right, or wrong, since neither has any rights.

Natural rights exist in a natural state of being. If someone or something interupts those rights that is an external condition, thusly "unnatural" or an unnatural state; a perversion of the natural state of order or the human condition.

 

but for that to happen, you'd have to get all humans to agree on these universal 'rights', it has been repeated over and over again in war that human rights only apply to your own people, not your enemy.

no no, property rights do exist... between the owner of the property, and the government, if the government says "we're building a motorway through your property" my property rights no longer apply.
In the case of the palestinian conflict, property rights are taken by who ever has the power to take it, in this case, the Isralies. As Ive said before, if it wasnt for international meddling this conflict would have been over along time ago, because the Isralies would have taken the land like everyone did in the old days.

 

That's really a contract, and some of the Founders understood natural rights within the context of legal rights, at least between the government and its citizens. The Constitution is that sort of contract. But natural rights are far more basic, in that you have the right to your property including your person. In other words, you have the right to yourself. Jefferson wrote it out as Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. The Palestinians are just as entitled to these rights as much as the Jewish people are.

You are right in that property rights are constantly violated by the government and other assorted thieves, but that doesn't mean that the rights don't exist. The government does thievery under the guise of the "greater good" of the community, but we both know that is not often the case.

 

the point is not whether to keep Hawai or not. It is about how to live fairly with the natives after the fact. One cannot turn back the clock.

Iirc it was President Woodrow Wilson who proclaimed the right of self determination of the people. That has a flip side, the right to resist foreign occupation. Iirc Zionist Colonists invoked that, among other things, before and when they founded the State of Israel. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. The Palestinians have the very same right.

By colonising Palestine the Israelis have denied the Palestinians to determine their own course. Now, many Israelis, the sabra generation, have the misfortune of having been born into this mess. To uproot them for the sins of their fathers is as unfair as driving Palestinians from their homes to perpetuate and build on the sins of the fathers.

The Israelis have to find a way to live with the Palestinians, now, before the tribalist kooks on both sides make it impossible. In this I explicitly include the Israelis, who are far from saintly, or weak for that matter. Israel cannot survive perpetually when surrounded by enemies. Israel cannot sustain that posture, even more so when one considers the extent to which they are dependent on US support to maintain their qualitative military edge over all their neighbours combined. Add to that 200+ Israeli nukes. Contrast that strength to the countervailing narrative of Israeli weakness and persecution (here is an excellent article on that point).

No matter what the Palestinians do, what I see is that Israel, the stronger party and pre-eminent military power in the region, is not only not trying hard enough, I have difficulty believing they are trying at all. The expansion of settlements on Palestinian land (beyond the 1967 borders) speaks a very clear language in that regard as well.

Once people have that tribalism sentiment they don't want to compromise. The Israelis have that aplenty: Think of Avigdor Liebermann. Or think of Bibi Netanyahu bragging about killing the Oslo Peace Process. Or about Sharon unilateral withdrawal from Gaza - to undermine even Bush 43's meek and watered down so-called 'roadmap for peace' (i.e. the withdrawal was aimed on preventing negotiations).

My point is this: A truce for ten years, that holds - may even be extended, even with a Hamas that still doesn't recognise Israel as a Jewish state - is better than anything that Israel has ever had. Not good enough! Never mind that, if it fails they can just continue the bombing. A truce is worth a shot (pun!). Israeli insistence for instance they they will only talk with Hamas when they recognise Israel as a Jewish state - a demand that is unacceptable for Hamas for theological reasons (as the Israelis know full well), is a guarantee that nothing will come of that. I have come to believe they prefer it that way.

 

The Palestinians are the indigenous inhabitants of the area, and have weathered a large series conquests. They have lived on the land for literally thousands of years, often suspect to the whim of imperialistic empires.

Come to think of it, it seems that little has changed. The 'owners' change, the residents remain the same.

'Modern Hebrews'? 'Their land'? 'Take back'? That's three misconceptions in half a sentence.

The Transjordan area has come under the control of numerous empires, true. But the peoples of that land have remained.

Your mask of humanitarianism has just fallen off.

So you admit that the Palestinians are indigenous? Then why do you think it is appropriate for immigrant Jews to dispossess them?

The annexed land.

If the Palestinians were to allow the murderous squatting Israel regime to complete their theft, that would simply further legitimise the squatter's presence. 'See, we own *all* the land now, the Palestinians are just going to have to go and find their own land'.

Yes, I'm sure that non-Jews would have a place in a Jewish State. I mean, that's precisely why Israel was established by both the Zionists and the UN, right? So that the Palestinians (who were allocated a separate partition of the Transjordan area, funnily enough) could become part of Israeli society.

Just out of curiosity. Do you read what you write before posting it?

You're comparing a multicultural and multiracial nation such as the United States to a theocratic nation that was explicitly established as a homeland for Jews?

Whatever dude. Go sell your snakeoil to someone with an IQ of less than 80.

 

*Conquered*, Mordea. They *conquered* the land. That's what we call it when nations take things from other nations by force. Oddly, we also tend to give more legitimacy to it than to theft, especially when it was conquered in the course of a defensive war, as is the case here.

Ragusa, there are a lot of good points in that post, and I don't have time to respond to them all. I'm glad to hear you say that Israel and the Palestinians need to work from where they are now. A lot of people that oppose Israel insist it has to give up everything for there to be any hope of peace.

Unfortunately, I fear that both the Palestinians and, quite possibly, the Israelis have already passed beyond the point of no return (in terms fo tribalism), and that only a violent overthrow (whether from within or without) of one or both parties could possibly lead to any eventual peace.

I have one question, though. You invoke a people's right to self-determination, but what is the limit of that right? If one people has a right to resist another's occupation, does that other have the right to resist the first's resistance? It seems just as much a matter of self-determination for the conquerer as it is for the conquered.

 

Semantics. Conquest is simply theft at the level of the State.

However, if it makes you feel better, allow me to rephrase:
"If the conquest had concluded 30+ years ago, and the indigenous inhabitants had have been compensated, then I wouldn't care so much. But what we have is *ongoing* human rights abuse."

'We'? Since when did you speak for me?

False. That's the equivalent of arguing that Nazi Germany was fighting a defensive war to hold its territories against the Allies.

 

likewise, the Isralies are the indigenous inhabitants of the area, no 'theft' has taken place, the Isralies belong there and have belonged there for a damn long time.

explain.

whats your point?

when have I ever supported the notion of humanitarianism?

no, I was refering to the neanderthals who inhabited philistine, before learning to read and write from the Hebrews.

what annexed land?

whats your point?

strange, because it seems to have worked all around the world, the native americans are a part of american society, the hawians are a part of american society, the scottish are a part of british society, the welsh are a part of british society.
back when these lands were conquered their land was taken, but over time people's integrate into the dominant society.

whats happening now has nothing to do with the mandate.

yep, though I dont think you actually read mine... especially shown where you accuse me of humanitrianism.

umm, yes, back when the new world was settled, it was all religion. the multicultural and multiracial came alot later, you know, after people were killed simply for being black.

How do you like your new snakeoil?

umm.... the war did turn to a defensive war for the germans, you know, when the allies launched their invasion, and the germans defended their territories... thats defensive war.

 

That is up for debate. Furthermore, even if the Israelis are all indeed indigenous inhabitants of the area, the Palestinians still have hundreds (if not thousands) of years recent habitation on the land.

Quite the contrary. Land was taken via force and coercion from the current occupants, who also happened to be indigenous and have lived there for millenia.

Why? Ah, let me guess: God ordained it. A land without people for a people without land, etc etc.

After having been residents in host nations for over a thousand years? Given that sort of logic, white nations would be fully justified in colonising Africa, given that it is their 'ancestral homeland'. After all, all lines of humanity emerged from Africa.

'Modern Hebrew' = Misconception. Many Jews have mingled with the stock of their host nations, and as such little of their Hebrew ancestry remains. This is evidence by the existence of black Jews. In fact, I'd argue that some Jews have *no* Hebrew ancestry, and are European converts to the religion (eg. The Khazar Jews).

'Their land' = Misconception. The Jews were living in other nations, and actually owned land and assets in them. To imply that they have a greater claim to Palestine than the natives already living there is laughable.

'Take back' = Misconception. That implies that it was theirs to begin with, which is debatable.

Oh, very clever. When someone points out an inconvenient truth, just ignore it.

My point was that despite the fact that the Transjordan area has indeed changed hands between many empires of thousands of years, the Palestinian residents have remained the occupants. If the American States were pass between China, India and Russia, the Native Indians would remain the native residents of the land in spite of such takeovers.

It was you who stormed into this thread whining that "you dont seem to give a crap about the suffering of the people, more soemthing about ownership an government of a piece land. "

This implies that *you* care about the suffering of the people in the Transjordan region, whereas I don't. Which is rather ironic, since you are espousing a 'might makes right' approach.

What's your point?

What Holocaust?

If the Palestinians were to surrender their fight and allow the Israelis to claim all contested territories and establish settlements upon them, then their claims to the territory would become far weaker. 'We have civilization on your land, therefore it is no longer your land'. Better for the Palestinians to kill more invaders, methinks.

No offense, but I wouldn't try to hold up the historical occurences of the United States as some sort of ideal.

Like the Jews?

If the Jews weren't satisfied with being assimilated into their host nations on foreign soil, then I don't see why they should expect the Palestinians to assimilate into a foreign society which has been established on their own land. Seems a little hypocritical, doncha think?

False. Israel was established as a safe haven for *Jews*. For you to expect a state that was established (and continues to run as) a Jewish white supremacist nation to integrate millions of dispossessed brown non-Jews as equals is a *****y pipe dream. I suspect you know this, but are purposively ignoring the elephant in the room in order to appear reasonable.

"Boo hoo hoo, you don't care about the suffering of the people, just legalities over land." Yeah, doesn't sound like you were passing yourself off as a humanitarian...

And *that* is what you are espousing as a solution to the dispute in the Middle-East? Kill and coerce enough Palestinians until they are ready to take their place as third class citizens in a Greater Israel?

Need I ask why the reverse (ie. kill all the Jews and coerce the remainder into taking their place as third class citizens in a Greater Palestine) isn't a viable option? Oh, wait, sorry, they are brown sand-niggers and terrorists. lol.

So one can fight a defensive war while still remaining the aggressor? Thanks, you just made my argument for me. The Israelis are Nazis, plain and simple.

 

I don't. I was speaking for society in general. Don't worry, I don't count you among them.

That depends on if you think closing the Suez Canal to all Israeli-bound vessels is an act of war. Considering the first UN military force was created and deployed to guarantee it, one may suppose the UN agreed that it was.

 

Not to really throw a wrench into this discussion, but when talking about who was first in the area, the Palestinians or the Israelis, I'm of the inclination to say "both". If you go back 8,000 years or so, I think it is a near certainty that the people living in that area gave rise to both the Israelis and Palestinians we see today. Sure, there was no civilization in that area 8,000 years ago, but there were people there 8,000 years ago.

What I'm saying is that the difference in the groups is cultural - not genetic or geographic. Trying to figure out whose land it is and who got there first is ultimately futile, as it is far more likely that both groups arose from the same stock of people.