Is Any Criticism of Israel

[jbg]

With all the intrigue, fighting and absentee ownership, it's remarkable how little was done with this land. The Arabs' attitude reminds me of that of a child in a sandbox who ignores a toy shovel until another child wants to play with it. When the other child wants it all h*ll breaks loose.

Even if your remarkably unsurprising opinion there were taken as correct or true, I don't see how it would change the relevant rights and wrongs of the situation.

Last I checked, much land ownership law is based upon occupancy and use. A property can be "adversely possessed" if someone inhabits it (in New York at least) for 10 years without the true owner bringing a trespass action. The homestead grants of land in the US were dependant upon improvement of the land. The Arabs forfeited whatever right they had by using the land little if at all. Israel has made it bloom.

[WestViking]

Whoa! You're 100% wrongo there Rue. Catchme's comment there is totally apt and bang on the point in regards to how international law works. It sustains the right of people to stay where they live and have self-determination there, but it says nothing in favor of people claiming a right to take a territory based on habitation there in the remote past.

With all the intrigue, fighting and absentee ownership, it's remarkable how little was done with this land. The Arabs' attitude reminds me of that of a child in a sandbox who ignores a toy shovel until another child wants to play with it. When the other child wants it all h*ll breaks loose.

Even if your remarkably unsurprising opinion there were taken as correct or true, I don't see how it would change the relevant rights and wrongs of the situation.

In the decades immediately prior to WW-I almost all of North Africa or the Middle East if you prefer was under Ottoman (Turkish) rule. At the end of WW-I the powers who won decided to strip the Ottoman empire and split the area into two roughly equal portions, one under British rule, the other under French rule. So it continued from 1919 to 1945.

During WW-II, the British promised tracts of what was then called the Palestine territory to both the Arabs and the Jews for different reasons. The British solved their problem at the end of WW-II by turning over the territory to the newly formed United Nation. The UN in turn created separate sectors of the old British protectorate into Israel and Palestine, subject to the approval of the respective groups.

The Jews approved of the UN plan and settled into their designated territory. The Arabs refused the UN plan and declared they were going to eliminate Israel and have been trying to do so since. The whole Middle East has been partitioned along purely political lines created by mostly European diplomats ignoring traditional tribal territories. To make matters worse, many tribes were nomadic and claimed a right to different lands during different seasons.

The Middle East is a real, live exercise in modern multiculturalism. The area is a seething caldron of isolationist, separate tribes who compete fiercely with one another and wage feuds dating back centuries. The tribes ignore both the geographic and political boundaries created by others and as in past engage in conflict whenever they have the opportunity to do so.

Maintaining that one tribe or another has some sort of inherent right to a territory none of them have been able to rule except by brute force for over a century, torn apart by two world-wide conflicts and filled with tribal and political intrigues is a pure flight of fancy.

Democratic Israel is a notable and recent exception and for that, she is criticized. The Middle East is currently in chaos, sundered by roving groups of fanatics bent on gaining control over the region by undermining whatever authorities are in place to create a dream world of Islamic might. Even the fanatics cannot gain much ground as their followers often ignore direction to engage in personal and family feuds rather than work to a common objective.

[jbg]

That post is definitely a keeper. And given the waves of (presumably) human garbage we see in these e-parts, this post is refreshingly honest, straightforward and thoughtful.

I wish we had more posters like you.

[Figleaf]

With all the intrigue, fighting and absentee ownership, it's remarkable how little was done with this land. The Arabs' attitude reminds me of that of a child in a sandbox who ignores a toy shovel until another child wants to play with it. When the other child wants it all h*ll breaks loose.

Even if your remarkably unsurprising opinion there were taken as correct or true, I don't see how it would change the relevant rights and wrongs of the situation.

Last I checked, much land ownership law is based upon occupancy and use. A property can be "adversely possessed" if someone inhabits it (in New York at least) for 10 years without the true owner bringing a trespass action. The homestead grants of land in the US were dependant upon improvement of the land.

I don't know when or where you checked, but land ownership law I know of is based on title obtained from original government grant passed through a chain of for-value purchasers.

Adverse possession is both difficult to obtain, and can never be obtain over the active objection of the titled owner.

ANYWAY, the relevant law here is international law of, which is different from domestic land 'ownership' law.

The Arabs forfeited whatever right they had by using the land little if at all.

That's an amusing opinion that perhaps makes you feel good. But it's not correct.

[Figleaf]

Whoa! You're 100% wrongo there Rue. Catchme's comment there is totally apt and bang on the point in regards to how international law works. It sustains the right of people to stay where they live and have self-determination there, but it says nothing in favor of people claiming a right to take a territory based on habitation there in the remote past.

With all the intrigue, fighting and absentee ownership, it's remarkable how little was done with this land. The Arabs' attitude reminds me of that of a child in a sandbox who ignores a toy shovel until another child wants to play with it. When the other child wants it all h*ll breaks loose.

Even if your remarkably unsurprising opinion there were taken as correct or true, I don't see how it would change the relevant rights and wrongs of the situation.

In the decades immediately prior to WW-I almost all of North Africa or the Middle East if you prefer was under Ottoman (Turkish) rule. At the end of WW-I the powers who won decided to strip the Ottoman empire and split the area into two roughly equal portions, one under British rule, the other under French rule. So it continued from 1919 to 1945.

During WW-II, the British promised tracts of what was then called the Palestine territory to both the Arabs and the Jews for different reasons. The British solved their problem at the end of WW-II by turning over the territory to the newly formed United Nation. The UN in turn created separate sectors of the old British protectorate into Israel and Palestine, subject to the approval of the respective groups.

The Jews approved of the UN plan and settled into their designated territory. The Arabs refused the UN plan and declared they were going to eliminate Israel and have been trying to do so since. The whole Middle East has been partitioned along purely political lines created by mostly European diplomats ignoring traditional tribal territories. To make matters worse, many tribes were nomadic and claimed a right to different lands during different seasons.

The Middle East is a real, live exercise in modern multiculturalism. The area is a seething caldron of isolationist, separate tribes who compete fiercely with one another and wage feuds dating back centuries. The tribes ignore both the geographic and political boundaries created by others and as in past engage in conflict whenever they have the opportunity to do so.

Maintaining that one tribe or another has some sort of inherent right to a territory none of them have been able to rule except by brute force for over a century, torn apart by two world-wide conflicts and filled with tribal and political intrigues is a pure flight of fancy.

Democratic Israel is a notable and recent exception and for that, she is criticized. The Middle East is currently in chaos, sundered by roving groups of fanatics bent on gaining control over the region by undermining whatever authorities are in place to create a dream world of Islamic might. Even the fanatics cannot gain much ground as their followers often ignore direction to engage in personal and family feuds rather than work to a common objective.

I don't think Israel is criticized for being democratic. I never hear that.

[Black Dog]

Maintaining that one tribe or another has some sort of inherent right to a territory none of them have been able to rule except by brute force for over a century, torn apart by two world-wide conflicts and filled with tribal and political intrigues is a pure flight of fancy.

Democratic Israel is a notable and recent exception and for that, she is criticized.

Self-contradiction. Israel's existence is almost wholly predicated on the belief that one tribe (the Jews) have an inherent right to the territory they now occupy.

[White Doors]

Maintaining that one tribe or another has some sort of inherent right to a territory none of them have been able to rule except by brute force for over a century, torn apart by two world-wide conflicts and filled with tribal and political intrigues is a pure flight of fancy.

Democratic Israel is a notable and recent exception and for that, she is criticized.

Self-contradiction. Israel's existence is almost wholly predicated on the belief that one tribe (the Jews) have an inherent right to the territory they now occupy.

They do. The UN says so. (not including the west bank of course)

[Black Dog]

They do. The UN says so. (not including the west bank of course)

Can you please quote the text that says so? And even if they did, that doesn't make it so (I doubt accepting all UN resolutions as gospel is a road you want to go down).

Furthermore: if the Jews do, why doesn't anyone else have the same right (acording to WestViking claims by "one tribe or another" of some "inherent right to a territory" is "a pure flight of fancy." Do you agree or disagree?)

[White Doors]

So it is your assertion that the political state of Israel is illegitimate?

yes or no will do.

If yes, then you are clearly a bigot and if no then why are you asking me for proof of something you already accept?

[Black Dog]

White Doors, before I deal with your tripe, would you kindly provide a citation proving your statement that the UN recognizes the Jew's inherent right to the land they now occupy? Thanks. Onward...

So it is your assertion that the political state of Israel is illegitimate?

yes or no will do.

Um I think I'll reject your simple-minded and clumsy dichotomy, thanks. The question of legitimacy is irrelevant. The state of Israel exists and my stance on how that came about won't change that, so in that sense the question is irrelevant. But suppose I opt to play your little game: first, you'll have to define the term legitimacy. I would reject the suggestion that Israel has legitimacy based on religious or historical grounds for reasons I've already made clear. One could argue Israel is legitimate based on thing like the Balfour Declaration and the UN partition plan, but that raises the issue of whether those decisions were themselves legitimate. The only real, solid basis to claim Israel's legitimacy is the principle of "to the victor go the spoils." But that's not what we've been discussing. Really, the only proper answer to "is Israel legitimate?" is "who knows and who cares?"

If yes, then you are clearly a bigot and if no then why are you asking me for proof of something you already accept?

Just to be clear: not believing Jews have an inherent right to the land because some desert nomad three thousand years ago claimed his imaginary sky-god gave it to him and his people makes on a bigot now? Wow,m way to stretch the defintion of the term. To paraphrase Python, if I went around claiming I owned the land because some fairy creature lobbed some stone tablets at me, they'd put me away.

[White Doors]

Then you must also believe that the following countries have less legitimacy that whatever level of legitimacy that you may or may not bequeeth upon the state of Israel:

Jordan, Syria, Turkey & Lebanon..

Interesting.

If you do not then you are a hypocrite and your bigotry is assured.

Just to be clear: not believing Jews have an inherent right to the land because some desert nomad three thousand years ago claimed his imaginary sky-god gave it to him and his people makes on a bigot now?

Not sure who was arguing that? Are you saying that's why the UN created Israel?

That was the basis of their decision?

[Black Dog]

Still waiting for that cite. Don't worry, I'm not holding my breath or anything.

Then you must also believe that the following countries have less legitimacy that whatever level of legitimacy that you may or may not bequeeth upon the state of Israel:

Jordan, Syria, Turkey & Lebanon..

Interesting.

Why less? Those countries are no more or less "legitimate" than Israel. But, as I tried to say above, the whole legitimacy thing is a red herring. The question under discussion was, essentially, "do the Jewish people have an inherent right to the land of Israel?" If yes, I'd like to know why they in particular have this right while others apparently do not (WestViking's position).

If you do not then you are a hypocrite and your bigotry is assured.

I'd love to see you explain this bigotry thing. Quite simply, I'm saying the Jews have no more an inherent right to anything than anyone else. If that makes me a bigot in your world, your world is fucked.

Not sure who was arguing that? Are you saying that's why the UN created Israel?

That was the basis of their decision?

Apparently you're just now finding out about this whole "Arab-Israeli" business. The Biblical contract beween God and the Jews (hint: "promised land") is often cited as the reason Israel is where it is.

[White Doors]

Why less? Those countries are no more or less "legitimate" than Israel. But, as I tried to say above, the whole legitimacy thing is a red herring. The question under discussion was, essentially, "do the Jewish people have an inherent right to the land of Israel?" If yes, I'd like to know why they in particular have this right while others apparently do not (WestViking's position).

Why less? because they were created only by one nation whereas Israel was by the UN.

Jewish people? I wasn't saying anything aout Jewish people, i was talking about the state of Israel.

You do know that those are different things do you not?

[White Doors]

I'd love to see you explain this bigotry thing. Quite simply, I'm saying the Jews have no more an inherent right to anything than anyone else. If that makes me a bigot in your world, your world is fucked.

Because you are not holding the same standards of proof/legitimacy to anyone else except Israel.

I hope it's because you have an issue with their constitution or something and not because 80% of the population is Jewish, although I'm leaning towards the latter in reading your posts.

[Black Dog]

Why less? because they were created only by one nation whereas Israel was by the UN.

And the UN's decision was based on promises made by the Brits. In all cases, the land was never Britain's or the UNs to divvy up.

Jewish people? I wasn't saying anything aout Jewish people, i was talking about the state of Israel.

Actually: you were talking about the Jewish people:

I said:

Israel's existence is almost wholly predicated on the belief that one tribe (the Jews) have an inherent right to the territory they now occupy.

and you replied:

They do. The UN says so. (not including the west bank of course)

The only possible reading of this is that you are saying the tribe I mentioned (the Jews) have an inherent right to the land. Do try and keep up.

You do know that those are different things do you not?

Sure do. The question is: do you? Because you appear to be using the terms interchangably.

Because you are not holding the same standards of proof/legitimacy to anyone else except Israel.

Whatever. Go back and re-read this thread from WestViking's post on. It's pretty clear that what I'm against is the claim that the the Jews have more of a claim to the land than anyone else.

[White Doors]

Apparently you're just now finding out about this whole "Arab-Israeli" business. The Biblical contract beween God and the Jews (hint: "promised land") is often cited as the reason Israel is where it is.

It could be suggested by some that that is the reason but I have not made that assertion and it is completely irrelevant to our debate. Some could suggest that one should only wear pink hats because they like the colour pink. Who cares?

[White Doors]

Sure do. The question is: do you? Because you appear to be using the terms interchangably.

Well I moved on from that quote. I have been asking you about your views of legitimacy of the state of Israel. I am not talking about any races ability to emigrate there. Immigration policy is up to that state.

Whatever. Go back and re-read this thread from WestViking's post on. It's pretty clear that what I'm against is the claim that the the Jews have more of a claim to the land than anyone else.

I can see where you would think i was making that claim but I was not. I was only talking of the legitimacy and right of the State of Israel to exist.

[Black Dog]

It could be suggested by some that that is the reason but I have not made that assertion and it is completely irrelevant to our debate.

Um, it's relevant because that was the point I was responding to when you inserted yourself into the discussion and what precipitated the exchange to now. Perhaps you should have taken a second to check out the context and establish what point you were defending before you waded in.

Well I moved on from that quote.

How conveinient for you.

I have been asking you about your views of legitimacy of the state of Israel.

Yeah: without bothering to establish what you mean by "legitimacy" and while making sly innuendos about bigotry. Excuse me for not thinking you're apporaching this in good faith.

I am not talking about any races ability to emigrate there. Immigration policy is up to that state.

No one was talking about immigration. Why are you bringing it up?

[Black Dog]

Okay: I'll leave the "inherent right" business for now.

I can see where you would think i was making that claim but I was not. I was only talking of the legitimacy and right of the State of Israel to exist.

Why does Israel have a "right to exist?" Do other nations have the same right (for example, Lebanon)?

[moderateamericain]

Okay: I'll leave the "inherent right" business for now.

I can see where you would think i was making that claim but I was not. I was only talking of the legitimacy and right of the State of Israel to exist.

Why does Israel have a "right to exist?" Do other nations have the same right (for example, Lebanon)?

A better question for you black dog, is why DONT they have a right to exsist? Now im not saying your for the annihalation of the Jews but by why basis do we decide whos land that belongs to? Its been conquered and reconqured through history more times then i can remember. If anyone has a good understanding on conquest throughout history it may be worth while post and intresting to boot. So by what standard do we judge legitimacy? If i recall correctly the Jewish people were the original inhabitants of that area and lived peacefully with muslims. When the modern state of Palestine was created by the british government. Why did the Arab population decide to up and leave? And make no mistake about it folks, the Arab governments for this reason want to see it wiped clean. If you dont believe that your livining in a dream world. I believe appeasment can work in certain cases but the hatred between Arabs and Jews runs so deep that i doubt that any consessions by Israel will ever be enough to placate the Arabs. Anyways, thats my 2cents on the issue.

[Black Dog]

ModAm:

A better question for you black dog, is why DONT they have a right to exsist?

Why is that the better question? What we're trying to establish is whether nation states have a right to exist in the same way individuals are (in western thought, at least) regarded as having certain rights. Israel just happens to be pretty much the only state that is said to have a "right to exist."

[moderateamericain]

ModAm:

A better question for you black dog, is why DONT they have a right to exsist?

Why is that the better question? What we're trying to establish is whether nation states have a right to exist in the same way individuals are (in western thought, at least) regarded as having certain rights. Israel just happens to be pretty much the only state that is said to have a "right to exist."

I see what your saying, the obvious reason most people say that is "look at the suffering they have to go through" Now i dont buy into that reasoning. And i see where your coming from. My point is by what standard do we determine who palastine belongs too? Its a complicated mess to say the least. Do arabs deserve to live there? cetainly. But do the Jews deserve to not? If your neighbor wanted to wipe out your family would you defend it? Of course you would. I will say this, if arabs say palastien belongs to them based on the Muslim religion they are SORELY mistaken, the Jewish religion was around far before the Muslim religion took hold in the early 600's. And lets not forget the Jews were forced into slavery a few times by Arab cultures.

[Figleaf]

I was only talking of the legitimacy and right of the State of Israel to exist.

Can anyone cite for me the source of the idea that states have a 'right to exist'?

[Figleaf]

And lets not forget the Jews were forced into slavery a few times by Arab cultures.

If you mean the ancient captvities in Egypt and Babylon then it's not accurate to call them Arab cultures.

[moderateamericain]

And lets not forget the Jews were forced into slavery a few times by Arab cultures.

If you mean the ancient captvities in Egypt and Babylon then it's not accurate to call them Arab cultures.

why is it not accurate to call them arab cultures? they are part of the Arabian Peninsula (well except the egyptians) It would be inaccurate to call them Islamic.