Israil oversteps the mark

[Oldenbarnevelt]

"Israel overstepped the mark."

What mark is that?

Certainly not the mark of 7,000 civilians (conservative estimate) that have been killed in Afghanistan as a result of America's justified war against terror.

[Felch]

In terms of Alsace and Lorraine, I'd say that Alsace should be German, and Lorraine French. It's important to recognize that they aren't the same, and shouldn't be handled as a pair all the time. The former is more German than the latter, and it would make sense for it to belong to the Germans. Ideally of course, the situation could be resolved through a referendum.

[Eli]

http://www.gadol.com/various/ambu_win.zip

Great movie.

[tandeetaylor]

Originally posted by MrFun



Israel is far more suitable for Jews today, because of the historical roots there. What Israel needs to do, is welcome the possibility of citizenship for Muslims and Christians as well, given that these two religions also have roots there. And Israel is already doing that.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure you will), but I've read that the last time there was a state of Israel was in app. 135 BC and that at the time just prior to the founding of the current state of Israel the population of the area was 32% Jewish and owned 5.6% of the land. Does the fact that a race or religion once inhabited an area almost 2,000 years ago supersede a current population's claim? Does it make the confiscation of legally owned land justifiable?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by tandeetaylor
Does it make the confiscation of legally owned land justifiable?

It's called war, tandee. The winners get the spoils. Didn't they teach you anything in the Army?

[Felch]

Originally posted by tandeetaylor
Now, correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure you will), but I've read that the last time there was a state of Israel was in app. 135 BC and that at the time just prior to the founding of the current state of Israel the population of the area was 32% Jewish and owned 5.6% of the land. Does the fact that a race or religion once inhabited an area almost 2,000 years ago supersede a current population's claim? Does it make the confiscation of legally owned land justifiable?

Judea was conquered by Babylon in [checking Alström's The History of Ancient Palestine] 586 BC. The breach in Jerusalem's walls was made on the ninth of the month of Tammuz. Not sure what year that would be in the Hebrew calender, but I'm sure somebody can figure it out. After that, Palestine was essentially a Babylonian holding, then Persian (Cyrus the Great being famous in part for returning the Jews to their homeland), then Hellenic, and then Roman. It may have briefly been independent, or at least autonomous, but it ceased to exist as a real historical entity around then. Still, your point holds, I'm just showing off my useless ability find out when the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem was ended.

And no, I don't really have much of a life.

[Eli]

Wasnt it the ninth of Av?

Or did they fight in the city for a month before burning the temple?

[Natan]

Originally posted by tandeetaylor
Now, correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure you will), but I've read that the last time there was a state of Israel was in app. 135 BC and that at the time just prior to the founding of the current state of Israel the population of the area was 32% Jewish and owned 5.6% of the land.

Jews may only have owned 5.6% of the land (I'm not sure), but Arabs didn't own the rest, most of it was owned by the British government.

Felch: AFAIK, they are both very French now, and besides, most Europeans (including Germans) are uncomfortable espousing the idea that all ethnic Germans should be united in one state.

[CyberGnu]

Drake, there was a story in the LAtimes just a few days ago about how much oil the U.S. inports from OPEC and other sources. Saudi-Arabia alone stood for more than 10%.

Europe imports most of their oil from Norway and Russia, IIRC. (plus domestic producation in Britain).

And I can't see how Israel is a tiny country defending itself... that claim is invalidated by the occupation of other peoples territory. 'Yes officer, the fight started when he hit me back'.

If Israel stops the occupation and solves the right of return, then I might be convinced that Israel is a tiny country trying to defend itself (depending on cirumstance, of course.). But up till that point, Israel is just another nation trying to gain more lebensraum by the removal of its neighbours.

you are right about the land in Poland, I forgot about that. Sorry. The main point still remains, though.The emphasis after WW2 was to rebuild, not punish.

Now, why should the germans live with that but the palestinians shouldn't? Well, how about that the germans started WW2, but the palestinains never caused the jews to flood palestine, nor did the palestinians cause the founding of Israel. That the arab neighbours went to war in 1948 I don't hold against them - The U.N. happily gave away land that wasn't theirs to give away, and the arabs only tried to retian what belonged to them.

Natan, I actually do think that China should be nuked if it doesn't release tibet. However, China has nukes too, so reality prevents of from doing that.

Just like I believe that Israel as a state should morally be dissolved ceompletely, but practially I realize that Israel is there to stay, and a compromise must be reached.

The lesson is: one can have two opinions, one based on ideology and one based on reality. The first often shapes the second, but the second is the one that must be carried out. too many people int he world don't see the distinction, and turn out as fanatics.

But if practicality does no hinder the ideological, there is no reason NOT to carry out the ideological one. As it is, the world could force Israel to behave like a civilized nation if it only wanted to... (Well, if only the U.S. wanted too, that is).


the 'arbitrary' point in time isn't arbitrary, and I didn't pick it. At the end of WW2 the world recoiled from the horrors that had occured, and sat down to make sure it wouldn't happen again. The result of this was the global agreement that aggression is not a legitimate way of obtaining land. Ever since, land boundaries have been essentially fixed, with the exception of nations fragmenting into smaller nations as ethnic groups free themselves.

If you don't like that, well I'm sad for you. This is one of the greatest achievements of mankind, IMO, and finally brought us from a 'might gives right' society into a global society ruled by law.

So you accept that the Vichy government was the legitimate government of France?

So, you really are saying that you don't understand how bizarre this argument is?

Before you answer, I'l give you some advice. See what happened to Petain AFTER the war, and you might come up with some conclusions on your own.

Well, the first part is obviously assuming that there is no genocide present... I thought that was quite self-evident...


Your whole claim seemed to be that the real Nazi crime was annexing French land, not killing people.

You still don't seem to get that they are two independent acts.

Germany could have invaded France without ever starting a holocaust.

Germany could have started a holocaust without invading France.

Both are crimes, but they are different from each other.
the first one would entail a resistance movement, who is more than justified doing whatever it can to eliminate the occupying power.

The second is a crime against humanity, and the international community is morally obliged to stop it. Most likely by military intervention, but if possibly through non-violent means, such as the blockade of South Africa.


However, this all started with your original thesis, that the french resistance didn't care at all about germany occupying france, but only killed nazis for their political ideology. I think this is not only wrong, but actually terrifying in that it shows how little you undertsand about human motivations...

Are you actually claiming that they tried to kill Hitler ONLY to dismantle the deathcamps? Not at all to stop the losing war? I don't think so...


I don't see how it's that important. Stalin wasn't fighting to save Poland from Nazi domination, but it was still good that he fought against Hitler. Pretty much every actor in every war has some ulterior motive for its involvement. I'm not arguing that they're angels, but I'm using them to show a point, that it's the genocide which made Nazi Germany evil, not its border changes.

Well, it is important of your original thesis.

On the contrary, I'm stipulating that most French couldn't care less whether germany carried out a holocaust or not, as they were dealing with german occupation, a much more immediate problem from the french point of view.

And as far as I know, EVERY SINGLE OCCUPYING POWER IN HISTORY HAS BEEN BRANDED AS 'EVIL' BY THE OPPRESSED PEOPLE. Even the english were branded as 'evil' by american revolutionaries...

I assumed that your moral equivalencies between Nazis and Israel reflected your belief that genocide and land annexation are equally evil, rather than simply rather mediocre trolls.

what is a mediocre troll? I've said repeatedly that sharon is equivalent to a 1935 hitler, i.e. before the holocaust started. Does Sharon look up to Hitler as a guiding symbol? Yes, I think he does, although not consiously. This is actually quite common among people who are victimized... Look it up in any moderns psychology textbook if you want.


Drake and Natan:
The situation in Africa is a lot more stable than it could be. While there are several civil wars, there are, AFAIK, only one actual interstate war, Ethiopia vs. Eritrea? and that one is partly a civil war as well. You might claim that the international community doesn't care enough, but it is a fact that does care.

Finally:

As to your question, my point is that there isn't some hard and fast formula to apply to such a matter.

so, you are basically saying 'If jews take land, it is OK, but if jews lose land, it is not OK'. That is pretty much what I figured.

[CyberGnu]

Guardian, as I posted earlier I agree that right now, suicide bombers aren't the most effective way to peace. Unfortunately, The only palestinian leader who understand this is Arafat, which is why Israel is trying to get rid of him...

Rasputing, the myth that there was no such thing as 'palestinians' are one of the most widespread lies of the Israeli propaganda machine. Next to the 'we offered Arafat 95% of what he wanted at Camp David' myth, the second biggest, I think...

Claiming that palestinians didn't exist is like saying that Norwegians doesn't exist... Sure, they look like Swedes, and they were ruled by Denmark for many many years, but Norwegians are definetly an ethnic group. Claiming otherwise would only get you beaten by a lusekofte.

Oldenbarnevelt, very poignant, as long as you realize that it is ISRAEL that carries out terrorism, not the other way around... Terrorism is still terrorism even though it is carried out by people in uniform.

[CyberGnu]

Spraybear?

MTG?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
The situation in Africa is a lot more stable than it could be. While there are several civil wars, there are, AFAIK, only one actual interstate war, Ethiopia vs. Eritrea? and that one is partly a civil war as well. You might claim that the international community doesn't care enough, but it is a fact that does care.

War is a comparatively rare phenomena in the international system to begin with. The fact that there is only one interstate war going on at the moment in Africa is hardly suprising to say the least given that fact.

[CyberGnu]

Only in the last 50 years.

If you look at any given area with several states of reasonable equal power, there is historically very few times of peace...

[Natan]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Now, why should the germans live with that but the palestinians shouldn't? Well, how about that the germans started WW2, but the palestinains never caused the jews to flood palestine, nor did the palestinians cause the founding of Israel. That the arab neighbours went to war in 1948 I don't hold against them - The U.N. happily gave away land that wasn't theirs to give away, and the arabs only tried to retian what belonged to them.

Why are "the Arabs" a monolithic group? As che can tell you, their goal was in no way to help the Palestinians get independence.

Natan, I actually do think that China should be nuked if it doesn't release tibet. However, China has nukes too, so reality prevents of from doing that.

So don't say that supporting flexibility with borders means that Drake, Dinodoc and I support changing every border in existence. But assuming that it was possible to place nuclear charges in all of China's nuclear weapons sites and cities, you would support that, even though it would mean exterminating a fifth of the world's population?

The lesson is: one can have two opinions, one based on ideology and one based on reality. The first often shapes the second, but the second is the one that must be carried out. too many people int he world don't see the distinction, and turn out as fanatics.

I agree, but I don't even consider state's borders to have much moral value.

the 'arbitrary' point in time isn't arbitrary, and I didn't pick it. At the end of WW2 the world recoiled from the horrors that had occured, and sat down to make sure it wouldn't happen again. The result of this was the global agreement that aggression is not a legitimate way of obtaining land.

You know, they also agreed (UN declaration of human rights) that every person has a right to two weeks of paid vacation. Yet very few countries offer that right, are they all evil for violating the international community's will and their own agreements?

Ever since, land boundaries have been essentially fixed, with the exception of nations fragmenting into smaller nations as ethnic groups free themselves.

Not true.
- Morocco seized Western Sahara against its inhabitants will.
- China seized a portion of Kashmir and also seized Tibet
- Massive border shifts (such as in Poland) throughout eastern europe.
None of these have been punished or even condemed by the international community.
Also, how do you decide what ethnic groups deserve nations?

If you don't like that, well I'm sad for you. This is one of the greatest achievements of mankind, IMO, and finally brought us from a 'might gives right' society into a global society ruled by law.

Firstly it isn't enforced and secondly, if it were it would be merely inflexible. You yourself acknowledge an exception for "ethnic groups" which "free themselves," so you actually do believe that changing borders by force is okay under certain circumstances. How you determine what ethnic groups deserve states, I don't know.

So, you really are saying that you don't understand how bizarre this argument is?

Before you answer, I'l give you some advice. See what happened to Petain AFTER the war, and you might understand

You know, the leaders of Germany were put on trial to, but they were Germany's "legitimate" leaders; no one argued that the Nazi government was not the "true" German government. Petain was the legitimate ruler, and of course he was executed, De Gaulle won and besides, Petain supported the evil (and more importantly to the factual side of this, losing) Nazi regime in Germany. But Charles I was executed too, and so were Czar Nicholas, South Vietnam's President Diem, and Iraq's Kareem Abdul Qassim. That he was executed doesn't prove anything. You yourself agree that a government can give away part of its land in a negotiated agreement, so tell me, why was Petain an illegitimate ruler?

Both are crimes, but they are different from each other.
the first one would entail a resistance movement, who is more than justified doing whatever it can to eliminate the occupying power.

The second is a crime against humanity, and the international community is morally obliged to stop it. Most likely by military intervention, but if possibly through non-violent means, such as the blockade of South Africa.

Why is changing a border worse than murdering millions of innocent people? I've never heard anyone argue this before. Is this idea taught in Sweedish schools?

However, this all started with your original thesis, that the french resistance didn't care at all about germany occupying france, but only killed nazis for their political ideology. I think this is not only wrong, but actually terrifying in that it shows how little you undertsand about human motivations...

I did not say that was the motivation of the French resistance - I said that it is the reason they are praised. Do you think that the Polisario front, Hamas, and the Jaish e Muhammed are highly praised?

Well, it is important of your original thesis.

On the contrary, I'm stipulating that most French couldn't care less whether germany carried out a holocaust or not, as they were dealing with german occupation, a much more immediate problem from the french point of view.

Again, it's not my position that the French were motivated by their desire to end the Holocaust - but the reason they are praised is that they fought against the Holocaust's perpetrators. I am discussing the motive of those who speak well of the French resistance (and other WWII combatants), not of the motives of the actual actors in the war. Everyone praises the Partisans who fought against Hitler, many fewer (although admittadly some) praise the very same Partisans who kept on fighting to liberate Ukraine and the baltic republics from the USSR after the war.

And as far as I know, EVERY SINGLE OCCUPYING POWER IN HISTORY HAS BEEN BRANDED AS 'EVIL' BY THE OPPRESSED PEOPLE. Even the english were branded as 'evil' by american revolutionaries...

It's not actually true (I know of no protests by the inhabitants of Sakhalan against Russian occupation), I don't see why it would be so surprising - I know of very few wars in which both sides did not brand each other 'evil.'

The situation in Africa is a lot more stable than it could be. While there are several civil wars, there are, AFAIK, only one actual interstate war, Ethiopia vs. Eritrea? and that one is partly a civil war as well.

There's the attempt of the Polisario front to liberate Western Sahara, and guerillas with Rwandan support are fighting in Zaire. It's not clear to me why you brought up Africa, but I would point out that the civil wars are just as bad if not worse than interstate ones, and that further division into states might in at least a few cases prevent war.

You might claim that the international community doesn't care enough, but it is a fact that does care.

Why do you say that?

so, you are basically saying 'If jews take land, it is OK, but if jews lose land, it is not OK'. That is pretty much what I figured.

No, I'm not arguing that Jews should have a right of return to Poland or Iraq.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Only in the last 50 years.

It's a much longer time than that, at least since the begining of the 1900's if your going to advance the theory of the Democratic Peace.

Personally, I'd go back further than that though.