israeli aggressors building more housing in East Jerusalem

[Kuciwalker]

Regardless, I don't think it has any relevance to the modern question of Israel.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


But one premised on a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Paris Peace Conference actually operated. Self determination was never the sole determining factor in ANY of the questions it faced. I dont have time for details, but I would suggest the book "1919".

how the conference operated is utterly irrelevant to the question of values.

To state it very simply, it was wrong for European Imperial powers to have decided for themselves and their own benefit how the world should be carved up, and which peoples got to have self rule and which ones didn't.

The miseries that were to follow after the conference in Paris go merely to show what a colossal and monumental failure it was in the long term.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

This is the fundamental problem, that the League of Nations utterly ignored and violated the principle of self-determination for the Arabs people. Why should Arabs ever accept a European colonial entity, which is what Israel essentially was folliwing this decision?

Is a modern moral question.

Trying to deal with you can only be exasperating....

To put is simply then for you: If the decisions that lead to the creation of Israel are illegitimate, then the very legitimacy of Israel is in question. Simply existing does not make something legitimate.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by GePap
how the conference operated is utterly irrelevant to the question of values.

If the decisions that lead to the creation of Israel are illegitimate, then the very legitimacy of Israel is in question. Simply existing does not make something legitimate.

Wow there, Nelly.

The question of one's current values is totally irrelevant to the question of legitimacy. Legitimacy depends on international norms and what ever values existed in the context of the historical period.

You could apply your questionable illegitimacy test to almost any place in the world where a territorial dispute has existed, and claim that what ever occured is illegitimate because it does not stand the test of your personal values at this moment.

And any discussion with you would be futile.
As it is already, btw.

[Kidlicious]

Re: Re: Re: israeli aggressors building more housing in East Jerusalem

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Syria isnt routinely accused of attempting to ethnically cleanse its capital through housing policies. I guess I forgot you guys dont follow this stuff in detail.

Wait. You think this is suppose to prove that Isreal isn't ethnic cleansing. Ok so they are showing some intent to let some Palestinians live in some neighborhoods, but that doesn't mean they aren't ethnic cleansing.

They are still managing demographics in the area for political gain. That is ethnic cleansing, even if it isn't going on Arab hunts.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12
To summarize, the difference between Israel and Palestine is that Palestinains see civilians as military targets a a main policy. Israel's main target is militants, but civilians are killed accidentally. Some from neglect, some from incompetance, and some from the occasional rougue soldier who decides to take matters in his own hands, but not as official Israeli policy.

Proof that fox news is your only source for information.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12
One thing I think most people can agree on is that there can be no peace, not without the total annihilation of one side or the other and that's not going to happen unless you believe in some kind of Apocolypse.

If you don't live by the principles of peace you can never have peace no matter how many enemies you annihilate.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
The cause of Palestinian terrorism, is historically instigations and propoganda made by local leaders for advancing their private political fortune.

Propoganda or not, what Israel does today is more the cause of terrorism that what it did in the past.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap


Trying to deal with you can only be exasperating....

To put is simply then for you: If the decisions that lead to the creation of Israel are illegitimate, then the very legitimacy of Israel is in question. Simply existing does not make something legitimate.

Oh, I know that's your claim. I just think it's absurd under any reasonable moral system.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov


Wow there, Nelly.

The question of one's current values is totally irrelevant to the question of legitimacy. Legitimacy depends on international norms and what ever values existed in the context of the historical period.

Ah, no. Since "norms" are variable, and there is no such thing as "international norms" that are universally agreed upon at any one time. Therefore the best way to judge legitimacy is not against some variable, funglible "norm", but instead against some clearly defined ideal, such as "soverignty", or "Human rights", or whatever.

You could apply your questionable illegitimacy test to almost any place in the world where a territorial dispute has existed, and claim that what ever occured is illegitimate because it does not stand the test of your personal values at this moment.

You would be correct in that. Your point?

And any discussion with you would be futile.
As it is already, btw.

The question is most clearly NOT futile, because given that a dispute remains, and is likely to continue to remain, one needs to come to basic decisions about the rightness of actions both in the past, in the present, and actions that may be taken in the future.

The grievences of Palestinians won't go away simply because Israelis tell them, "Well, we are here, were are not going anywhere, tough." All that may be true, but that won't (rightly) satisfy the grievences they have, nor does it distinguish hope that that will change, since if anything is NOT permanent in the ME, it is borders. Just because Israel is strong today does not mean in 100 years it will still even exist.

The only way to assure any long term resolution of the conflict is coming to an agreement in what basic underlying values should determine the legitimacy of the political system in the land, and what values that system or systems stand for. Ignoring the past and assuming those past questions of legitimacy are gone makes that impossible, and simply allows the issue to fester indefinitely.

[Kuciwalker]

Ah, no. Since "norms" are variable, and there is no such thing as "international norms" that are universally agreed upon at any one time. Therefore the best way to judge legitimacy is not against some variable, funglible "norm", but instead against some clearly defined ideal, such as "soverignty", or "Human rights", or whatever.

Dude, those are norms, some of which are as variable as anything else ("human rights").

The question is most clearly NOT futile

But discussing it with you is.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Oh, I know that's your claim. I just think it's absurd under any reasonable moral system.

says the kid who thinks animals don't feel pain because they are like automatons. Sorry, but you don't seem a particular good judge or moral norms. And you graps of "reasonable" is also questionable.

[Kuciwalker]

says the kid who thinks animals don't feel pain because they are like automatons. Sorry, but you don't seem a particular good judge or moral norms.

IOW, I win.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Dude, those are norms, some of which are as variable as anything else ("human rights").

For someone so capable with technical stuff, you are so astoundingly dumb sometimes.

I stated using ideals to judge. That would necessitate one clearly laying out what would constitute the term Human Rights before then using that ideal as the yardstick.

this invariably means not using the fungible and vague phrase "human rights" that people banter about.

Now, this should be aimed at Siro and not you, because, well, you don;t really add **** to most threads anyways:

The actions on the Great powers in 1919 were not in any way agreed upon by the world community. Certainly the many people's left out of the table in Paris did not a gree with their acts. Hell, many who sat on the tables thought things did not turn out well, as the rejection of the League of Nations by the US senate shows. Even in 1919 there was no agreement on the validity of those actions, on their legitimacy.

[Kuciwalker]

For someone so capable with technical stuff, you are so astoundingly dumb sometimes.

Given how ignorant you are of technology, it's astounding that you can't do anything else well either.