12 million Jews in the world

[Berzerker]

Natan - This is what you said:

No, you were opposed to extension of soveriegnty over anyone who didn't want it, regardless of what happened to their property.

And when I asked for proof that I dis-regarded property, you quoted the following:

If you and your neighbor create a "state" and then claim either my land as part of your state or claim "jurisdiction" over my existence and my land

How did you fail to see the word "land" in that statement?

There is no purpose in having a dicussion of private property when your real objection is to states, not their actions.

Where did I say this? I have repeatedly expressed opposition to creating a state that includes taking other people's property or sovereignty, not opposition to "states". Creating a state that then takes the property or sovereignty of others is an action. And I don't see why there is no purpose in having a discussion
about private property regardless of my position regarding "states" so maybe you can explain that connection.

No, what I'm saying is that the reason I support Israel and consider its cause to be just and the reason I consider Israel to be the just side in its wars is that Israel has always treated those under its administration better than any other contestant for control of the area.

That isn't what you said. You said this:

I believe that whatever ensures more justice/fairness/good stuff is more valid.

What if the people whose property and sovereignty was taken by the "state" of Israel neither share your view of "morality" or the beneficience of Israel?
Claiming Israel can "morally" take the property and sovereignty of others because other people are bad doesn't justify Israel's actions.

Right, and 181 was a General Assembly resolution and no Security Council resolution had been made on the question of Israel at this time, nor could the British have made one, since the USSR supported the creation of Israel as a means of destabilizing the region.

First, it doesn't matter what the USSR wanted, Security Council members can veto any UN action - and Britain was/is a member. If the Security Council didn't react to the GA's vote, it was because the Security Council members did not object, not that they had no power to nullify the UN action.

[Natan]

Originally posted by Berzerker
How did you fail to see the word "land" in that statement?

Your objection seems to be not to the actual seizure of land, but to the extension of soveriegnty over it regardless of how it affects the rights of the owners.

Where did I say this? I have repeatedly expressed opposition to creating a state that includes taking other people's property or sovereignty, not opposition to "states". Creating a state that then takes the property or sovereignty of others is an action. And I don't see why there is no purpose in having a discussion
about private property regardless of my position regarding "states" so maybe you can explain that connection.

It seems to me that your real objection is not to the fact that Israel took the property of some people after the 1948 war, but that Israel extended its soveriegnty over them. You apparently view the latter as a crime in and of itself regardless of the latter, and you seem not to want to separate the two issues either. In your mind, both are equally theft, so there is no point in my spending a great deal of time discussing the issue of property rights and the 1948 war only to be told that it is irrelevant since the real issue is one of states and jurisdiction. I've no interest in trying to explain why governments can have jurisdiction over people who didn't ask for it, although I bet you could figure it out for yourself.

What if the people whose property and sovereignty was taken by the "state" of Israel neither share your view of "morality" or the beneficience of Israel?
Claiming Israel can "morally" take the property and sovereignty of others because other people are bad doesn't justify Israel's actions.

I never said that Israel could. What I'm saying is that Israel's position is morally right because Israel has provided justice (and aid) to those under its administration better than any other contestant for administration over the same area, and that this makes Israel's cause just despite some injustices perpetrated by Israel. That is my position.

First, it doesn't matter what the USSR wanted, Security Council members can veto any UN action - and Britain was/is a member. If the Security Council didn't react to the GA's vote, it was because the Security Council members did not object, not that they had no power to nullify the UN action.

False, since making a new resolution in the Security Council contrary to the General Assembly resolution would have required that none of the five members with veto power exercise said veto, and the USSR (if not the US and France as well) would have exercised their power to stop a British resolution on behalf of the Arabs.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


I know a couple vandals and a some really cute goths.

I was referring to ethnic groups, not behavior or cults.

[Berzerker]

Natan -

Your objection seems to be not to the actual seizure of land, but to the extension of soveriegnty over it regardless of how it affects the rights of the owners.

I see what you're saying, that because the property seizures allegedly occured after the war, and because the possible loss of sovereignty occured before the war, you think I care about the latter and not the former inspite of my repeated opposition to the property seizures. I care about both and have repeatedly said so. Assuming no property or sovereignty was effectively seized by the UN resolution - a big assumption since the UN resolution partitioned the land according to chegitz, both were seized because of the war - and that is still theft.

It seems to me that your real objection is not to the fact that Israel took the property of some people after the 1948 war, but that Israel extended its soveriegnty over them.

Both. Had I known I was debating someone who didn't know they are intertwined I would have explained their connection earlier. If no property was seized prior to the war, but a proclamation - the UN resolution - giving the new Israeli state "sovereignty" over land owned by others before the war, then the post-war property seizures would constitute a separate taking. But the seizure of sovereignty was an announcement that the "state" had the authority to make laws concerning the property and people under it's jurisdiction, that theft led to the actual taking of property thru legislation later on after the war. Without the former taking of sovereignty, the second taking of property wouldn't have been "legal".

You apparently view the latter as a crime in and of itself regardless of the latter, and you seem not to want to separate the two issues either.

Both are crimes. Claiming "sovereignty" over another person is an attack on their property - the most fundamental piece of property a human being can own is themself. If you say I am no longer a sovereign individual and that you now own my sovereignty, you also have the authority to make decisions about my existence. This means any distinction between the loss of sovereignty and eventual loss of property is minor at best since both take away something that does not belong to you...

In your mind, both are equally theft

True, so why did you just say I did not regard property as relevant given my repeated references to property seizures constituting theft.

so there is no point in my spending a great deal of time discussing the issue of property rights and the 1948 war only to be told that it is irrelevant since the real issue is one of states and jurisdiction.

Property rights and the 1948 war are irrelevant because the "real" issue is loss of sovereignty? I never said this.

I've no interest in trying to explain why governments can have jurisdiction over people who didn't ask for it, although I bet you could figure it out for yourself.

No, I can't "figure" this out for myself. I'm talking about the morality of - or the lack thereof - creating a "state" and imposing it upon others who did not agree to be part of your state. Your only defense is that you've decided this imposition is moral, fair, and just (with other "good stuff") because you (your state?) can better administer their lives than they or other contestants can.

I never said that Israel could. What I'm saying is that Israel's position is morally right because Israel has provided justice (and aid) to those under its administration better than any other contestant for administration over the same area, and that this makes Israel's cause just despite some injustices perpetrated by Israel. That is my position.

Providing better "administration" than other "contestants" over the freedom and property of others is not morally right, it's theft. If I told you I would "administer" your life and belongings better than you, what would be your response? You "seem" to think that Israel's thefts are justified because Israelis can do a better job at administering "justice" than other thieves.

False, since making a new resolution in the Security Council contrary to the General Assembly resolution would have required that none of the five members with veto power exercise said veto, and the USSR (if not the US and France as well) would have exercised their power to stop a British resolution on behalf of the Arabs.

Wrong. The UN doesn't work that way. Any action agreed to by the GA must also be agreed to (or at least met with no objection) by the SC where members have veto power. The US has repeatedly vetoed GA resolutions regardless of what the other SC members or the GA wanted.
No proposed action by the GA and supported by the USSR while vetoed by the US was ever enacted.

[Natan]

Wrong. The UN doesn't work that way. Any action agreed to by the GA must also be agreed to (or at least met with no objection) by the SC where members have veto power. The US has repeatedly vetoed GA resolutions regardless of what the other SC members or the GA wanted.
No proposed action by the GA and supported by the USSR while vetoed by the US was ever enacted.

False. If this were true, we'd have stopped a lot of GA decisions which we didn't.

Both are crimes. Claiming "sovereignty" over another person is an attack on their property - the most fundamental piece of property a human being can own is themself. If you say I am no longer a sovereign individual and that you now own my sovereignty, you also have the authority to make decisions about my existence. This means any distinction between the loss of sovereignty and eventual loss of property is minor at best since both take away something that does not belong to you...

This is what I'm talking about - this is no longer really a debate about the ME, but about Libertarianism. You seem to think that if the Israeli government weren't around, the region would revert to a state of Libertarian Utopia - and that governments are inherently criminal. Your objection to the Israeli property seizures is only a tangential part of your objection to Israel itself.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Wrong. The UN doesn't work that way. Any action agreed to by the GA must also be agreed to (or at least met with no objection) by the SC where members have veto power.

I don't think that the UN works the way you say it does. IIRC, the GA can resolve whatever it pleases without objection from the SC because none of thier resolutions have any binding effect.