Sunday, May 22, 2011

Israel has a Right not only to exist, but to define it's existence. Period.

The courtyard of the Supreme Court of Israel,
intended as a physical representation of the
verse from Psalm 85:11: “Truth springs from the earth,
And righteousness looks down from heaven”
A couple points regarding the region now known as Israel
The 'ancestral homeland' of any people is of little interest to me, or of relevance to the issue... but since that's not the case with most people, a couple points are in order.

First, no political entity from ancient times has persisted in any real form into modernity... with the partial exception, if give extremely generous leeway and multiple exceptions, of Egypt. If we look beyond mere genetic attributes, the reliance upon which amounts to the very definition of racism, only the Jews have any meaningful connection with the people who lived in that area in ancient times, their connection of course being that of the Jewish religion and through which they had a political presence in the area up through the time of the Romans.

The peoples populating the Arab and Persian peoples (with the exception of a few pockets of highly persecuted peoples, Zoroastrians, etc, who have no significant political presence or influence today), have absolutely no connection to those inhabiting the middle eastern region today. The political affiliations which existed during those times were wiped out well over a thousand years ago. The religious beliefs of the peoples who live there in ancient times, were thoroughly assaulted and stamped out by those bearing the beliefs of those who live there today, during the brutal expansion of the Islamic crusades (tweak) which followed the founding of Islam in 7th century, which includes what historian Will Durant described as the 'bloodiest period in all of human history', when the Islamic crusaders invaded and took possession of India and that portion of it that is known today as Pakistan (sorry, Pock-eess-stahn...not).

In fact, for those who'd like to make an issue of 'ancestral homelands', the dominant political and religious views of those who had centuries worth of established history in the area with political states having unbroken links stretching back to the time of the Romans, were those of the kingdoms and states which were avowedly Christian in their religious affiliation, and the defense of which the original European Crusaders sought to protect from the Islamic invaders.

In fact, if you insist on making a case for returning lands to the 'ancestral owners' of the region, then by your own views, the Islamic invaders who currently occupy the regions of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Cyprus and Byzantium (now Turkey), should be expelled immediately, and a 'right of return' instantly extended to the persecuted Christians and Armenians who still endure living under their oppressive control today, throughout the area.

I'll assume that dispenses with any argument for ancestral rights.

Modern Middle East
Fast forward to modern times, the relevant political considerations of the area today stem from the period following WWI, when the victors, primarily meaning Britain and France, created the current states out of the territories once controlled by the defeated Turks. The political states we know of today as Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, came into being from the decisions of the Western powers, which after some juggling of other assorted regional conflicts, also included Arab Transjordan and Egypt. There was serious discussions in the early years of creating a Jewish state (of much more sensible borders than those decided upon in 1948), but for reasons of one political maneuver or another, it wasn't followed through on.

Any discussion of Palestinian lands, on the other hand, as a supposed political entity, has no equivalent basis in fact; they were given no such status in any serious considerations on the part of the Western powers who were responsible for creating the modern middle east. The Palestinians were nothing more than an ethnic subset of Arabs, predominantly living in the area of Transjordan, and even prior to WWI, had no political standing there, no such place as a 'Palestinian State' (a name first given the region by the Romans in 200 a.d., redefining the region as punishment to the Jews for one of their revolts against them) as a homeland for ethnic Palestinian Arabs has ever existed in the area (Wiki has a decent history of the area from ancient times to present).

Those who we call the Palestinians today have no more claim to any parts of the region than do the Jews, who also, and in the same way, had been living in the same general area, in and amongst them, for well over three thousand. Additionally, beginning in the late 19th century, the region saw an influx of European Jews who began migrating to the general area of their legendary homeland, bringing Western political and economically productive ideas and benefits with them, ideas which greatly enhanced the lands and prosperity of both peoples. But in any case, these two ethnic peoples, and others, populated the region with neither of them having had established any political claims to it.

IOW, neither people has any better claim, based upon their ethnic identities or political realities, to any part of the region on the basis of their ethnicity alone.

After WWII, the victorious Western powers, under the auspices of the U.N., and with the severe persecution of the Nazi Holocaust in mind, and some distressingly guilty thoughts of what might have been had they followed through with their proposals for a Jewish state after WWI, the Western powers felt it was time to redraw the political lines of the middle east, lines which of course were originally drawn by them, to include a political state surrounding the areas which currently (then), and historically, had a large population of Jews.

The new design wasn't a particularly generous allotment of land, it included none of the oil producing wealth of the region - wealth discovered and produced by Western interests alone btw, - it wasn't even a contiguous allotment of land; it consisted of three odd splinters of desert along the Mediterranean and Sinai, as well as control of a portion of the Jewish holy city of Jerusalem.

It was an odd, I'd say almost ridiculous token of acknowledgment, a way to soothe guilt without costing too much to the powers that be, but the fact of the matter is that it was undertaken by those who had the power to do it, those who had created all of the other states in the region as well, drawn from an area consisting of Arabs and Jews. The population numbers vary depending upon who you talk to, but saying that they were roughly equal population densities isn't far from the mark. Even so, in the agreements which created Israel, there was actually a prohibition against Jews inserted into it, barring them from settling in parts of the area which we now know of as Jordan.

There was not a similar prohibition against Arabs living in the region to be known as Israel, though. IOW, the Jews living in Jordan, which numbered in the hundreds of thousands, were 'legally' forced to vacate that state, while the Palestinian Arabs had no such prohibition against them from remaining in the new state of Israel.

Got that?

Even so, rather than accepting the lines of the new Jewish state, which were drawn in such a way as to greatly benefit the regional Arabs, at more than a little discomfort to, as well as mandated expulsion of Jews, the Arab states did what Arab states have long established a propensity for doing: they worked themselves into an hysterical lather, and the five neighboring states not only declared war upon the new state of Israel - which was just as much a product of Western political design as their own states - but declared their intent to slaughter and/or drive into the sea, the area's entire population of Jews.

The amassed Arab states (nearly a half century old) invaded the tiny, splintered, non contiguous lands of the newly created, one day old, state of Israel.

How's that for fair dealings?

The darkly laughable result of their tribal hostility, was that, though created by the West, and benefiting from Western productions in oil, etc,, they had none of the abilities inherent in those who have adopted Western ideas of political, industrial and economic ideas (Japan, for instance) - they thought and fought under the leading of their tribal traditions, and though supplied with the fruits of Western materials - tanks, guns, etc - they were embarrassingly beaten by the tiny enclave of Jews, who were deeply infused with (not surprisingly, since the West is typically described as being a Greco-Roman/Judeo Christian culture) Western ideas of political, economic and military organization.

In short, the Jewish David kicked the ass of the amassed Arab Goliath, all across the desert sands.

The unreasoning Arab bluster resulted in a lopsided beating which still pains them today, as it should. They looked ridiculous. Better still, they should have learned from it. Fat chance. They wouldn't even admit to being beaten, and asserted that they were still in a state of war with Israel.

Fine. They made their choice, and have had to live with the shame of it ever since.

Some other choices were made that bear heavily on the situation today. The ethnic Palestinians who, under their own free will, chose not to stand in and with Israel, but to leave in order to join with the invaders in expectations of slaughtering and annihilating the Jewish state, found themselves, of their own free will, and as a result of a stupid choice, homeless.

Having abandoned the lands they could have remained in, they had only the other areas where they had a ethnic association with, to move to. Did that happen? No.

While hundreds of thousands of ethnic Jews were forced to flee the lands they'd long lived in within the Arab holdings, and with the still standing state of Israel being the only choice open to them, they settled there.

The Palestinians, could have, and should have done the same. Problem was, their Arab brothers didn't want them and wouldn't allow them to settle in their lands. The Palestinians, arguably a sizable ethnic population, didn't even follow the lead of the Jews, and petition for a state of their own, to be drawn around their greatest area of population density, and neither would their Arab brothers have allowed them to if they had.

Jordan, with no more standing than having helped to launch a war which they humiliatingly lost, annexed what is known as the West Bank, for themselves, though not for the Palestinians.

Israel, from the position of having been invaded by every one of their Arab neighbors, and having victoriously and resoundingly beat them back, took possession of the lands between their bizarre original boundaries, and made themselves a contiguous state.

West vs. Mid-East.
By any reading of history and the rules of war, the Arab states overplayed their hand, blundered in a military venture, and lost, and their intended victim, having beaten them back, understandably and completely justifiably, solidified and secured their state. Having attempted to live by the rule of force, they can not now lay claim to benefits through the rule of reason. There is no justifiable claim on the part of the Arab states in general, or of the ethnic Palestinian Arabs in particular, to even one square inch of Israeli lands.

They attacked, they lost, they need to deal with it, as best as their primitive tribal beliefs will allow. Sadly... the intervening history is a demonstration of how well their culture enables them to do so.

Israel, is a product of Western actions, not only in the creation of their political boundaries, as are the existing Arab states, but in their philosophical and religious understandings, they are a solid member of, and outpost of , the West, in a hostile middle east.

To be sure, especially in their original political ideals, the Israeli state was a product of some of the worst of Western ideals, having originally chosen a socialistic political structure, but Western they were and remain. Ideas such as the rule of law live in Israel, as they are nowhere else (meaningfully) to be found in the entire region.

And being Western to their core, when faced with the reality of the inherent failure of socialistic ideals, Israel has moved more and more towards a market based society and greater and greater respect for the property rights of its citizens, Jew and Arab, and have enjoyed the prosperity such choices typically bring. They have a long way to go, IMHO, but even so they are markedly and thoroughly Western to their core.

That is what I stand with. That is what every Western nation should see first and foremost in regards to any political considerations between Arabs states and Israel, and of course any self aware citizen of the West should do the same, not out of loyalty to those of like mind, but out of regard to the facts and the ideals of individual rights which so many today only mouth a regard for. In Israel, and only in Israel, freedom and liberty and the rule of law have a home, and that is always, Always, worth defending, anywhere and everywhere such a state may be found.

Today, such a state is found in Israel.

If any remaining defender of multicultural idiocy remains, the unyielding demonstrations of the unreasoning Arab claims against them, their enthusiastic endorsement for terrorist assaults upon civilians, their insistence on ethnic, tribal and religious retribution against a political entity which stands for individual rights, must be denounced and brushed aside with the only merit it deserves: None.

Additional Incidentals
The Arab states, not content with their previous humiliation, continued their 'state of war' against Israel, periodically attempting to put their actions where their rants were, and remarkably losing even more wars against Israel, which, as a result of Arab belligerence, idiocy and incompetence, continued to grow in size, thanks to their losses. Through their primitive tribal designs and military incompetence, in the wars of 1967 and 1973, they enabled the Israeli state to grow well beyond its original, and untenable, boundaries.

Egypt, finally seeing some shred of reason under Anwar Sadat, partially woke up to the futility of their position and agreed on a peace with Israel, and in recognition of which Israel gave back much of the land Egypt had lost to them.

Should any other state or peoples choose to acknowledge the Right of Israel to exist, Israel has made it clear that they would be willing to discuss peaceful terms and even (unwisely, I think) consider yielding some lands back to them. The Arabs have not, and so have no, none, zero, claim to them. Israel has a Right to exist, and not only is that right theirs from the same political sources which their surrounding Arab states derive their political form from, but by recourse to the far greater justification being that they are a state which respects the individual rights of those within its boundaries, a state which is established upon the rule of law and recognition of their citizens political and property rights of everyone, Jew or Arab alike, including the right of representation, which several elected members of the Israeli government demonstrate by dint of being Arabs themselves.

Needless to say there is no such equivalent measures extended to Jews in the Arab states.

As such, any claims, whether of political or ethnic enthusiasms, made against the people and state of Israel, have no legitimate standing and are unworthy of any consideration or claim at all. I dismiss them out of hand, without apology, and with only that amount of respect as they deserve: none.

To stand with Israel, to insist on it's right to exist, and it's right to dispense with the lands under its control as it deems fit, is the only position open to those who might wish to hold a credible claim to believing in Individual Rights and the rule of law themselves.

Any leader, one of which is unfortunately President of the United States of America, who doesn't see that as the primary consideration at hand, or who seeks to flatter and appease the tribal and savage claims of those opposing Israel at their expense, puts themselves at odds with the interests of Western Culture and in serious opposition to the interests of the United States of America, whose people have longstanding and valuable property interests in the region, and who would reap nothing but harm and violence should Israel falter or fall.

That's where I stand, with America, with the West, and with Israel.

How about you?

39 comments:

Anonymous said...

... the facts and the ideals of individual rights which so many today only mouth a regard for. In Israel, and only in Israel, freedom and liberty and the rule of law have a home, and that is always, Always, worth defending, anywhere and everywhere such a state may be found.

Israel is an occupying power. Arabs within the territories it occupies are denied very basic "individual rights". So irrespective of what is "Right", Israel has five choices:

- continue as an occupying power indefinitely
- formally annex the occupied territories but deny the Arab inhabitants full legal rights (ie, full-scale apartheid)
- annex the territories and give the Arabs full rights, which will be the end of Israel as a Jewish-majority state.
- expel the Arabs from the territories (ethnic cleansing, generally frowned on)
- a two-state solution.

All sane people realize that the last option is the least bad. The US has advocated this for decades; Obama just made it more explicit than usual. What's you preference?

I also wonder how somebody so concerned with individual rights can also talk blithely about the Rights of nations. And how Israel can have a right to exist, but Palestine doesn't, or why the Church of Scientology or any other group can't immediately proclaim it has a right to exist as a separate state.

Van said...

Anonymous said "All sane people realize that the last option is the least bad."
Notice that the Palestinians have not realized or accepted the last option, which should tell you something about their sanity.

Israel is the victorious power in a war it didn't ask for, but for which the palestinians most definitely did ask for. Seeing as they lost and lost bad, they have a couple choices to make.
A. Accept the reality of the situation - they picked a fight and lost - choose to deal with the conseqences as civilized people by acknowledging that the state of Israel exists and either:
- choose to peacefully live within it,
- leave (as did the Jews from Arab lands where they were forcibly expelled (notice Israel has not chosen that option towards the Palestinians)),
- or recognizing that Israel exists and has a right to, negotiate with them in good faith for establishing a state of their own withing the lands which, as you point out, are nothing but a burden to Israel.

B. The Palestinians, showing themselves to be neither civilized, reasonable or good losers (being so experienced at losing, you'd think they'd get the hang of it) reject each possibility, and so I reject every and all claim they make. That leaves a couple options for Israel in dealing with them:

- since the Palestinians, having chosen to continue in a state of war with Israel, Israel has the full right as a sovereign state to deal with them under the rules of war, and further, since the Palestinians, by dint of not only allowing, but encouraging and celebrating civilian suicide bombing and other forms of terrorisim, have forfeited the rights usually accorded to a civilian population. If I were Israel, I would give them 1 month to flee the area or be entirely wiped out with far less mercy than we gave the Iraqi army as they fled Kuwait on the 'Highway of death' at the end of the first Gulf War. Notice our 'mercy' enabled and garaunteed the second Gulf War.

"The US has advocated this for decades; Obama just made it more explicit than usual. What's you preference?"
Israel has also advocated this for decades, requiring of course that the fundamental condition be met - that they recognize Israel's right to exist - without which they would only use their a land of their own to continue their war against Israel. It would be insane for Israel to continue any talks without that... which tells you something about Obama for having advocated it.

"I also wonder how somebody so concerned with individual rights can also talk blithely about the Rights of nations."
In most cases it's more proper to speak of States as having powers, not rights, except where it is speaking of a direct extension of it's peoples rights, such as their right to life and liberty within their borders. Individual's cannot possibly be secure in any of their rights, without it being acknowledged that their state has a right to exist, a right to be free from incursions against them, and a right to expect other peoples to respect their borders and behave peacefully towards them. Perhaps you ought to give the matter a teensy bit more thought yourself.

Van said...

Anonymous said "And how Israel can have a right to exist, but Palestine doesn't, or why the Church of Scientology or any other group can't immediately proclaim it has a right to exist as a separate state."
States are created by those with the power to create and recognize them, that being other established states. Typically that situation comes about as a result of war, which was the case after WWI, when the losing power, the Ottoman empire, was divvied up by the victorious Western powers. BTW, the Western Powers did a pathetically bad job of divvying those lands up... they took little or no consideration of either natural geographic characteristics for defining the borders of the new states they were creating, or of the cultural realities of the peoples who had been living in those lands.

A state, to be viable, must be made up of people who have some means of seeing themselves as belonging to one state together. Ideally, as with America, they would unite around an Idea, that being of ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ under the rule of law. That, however, requires peoples who understand that in dealings with others, ideas and law take precedence over desires, anger and vengeance – not a historic characterization of the Arab peoples of the middle east.

Obviously, it would have been best for the Western powers to have created the state of Israel at the same time as they created the other states, but having done a pretty bad job all around of creating states, they botched that one also. After WWII, they found themselves faced with the type of choice most international decisions involve – bad and worse. However, given that there were no stable, western oriented states in the region, a region vital to the interests of the West, creating the state of Israel was the closest thing to a good decision that could be made.

Failing to fully and completely back up Israel, failing to force Jordan to use some or all of its annexed land as a place for the voluntarily homeless Palestinians to relocate to, failing to state that the Arabs and Palestinians were egregiously in the wrong and without any standing or right for their claims and behavior however, was the worst choice the Western powers could choose to make, and we have all been paying dearly for that error ever since.

Anonymous said...

States are created by those with the power to create and recognize them, that being other established states.

OK, I more or less agree with that. But then how can Israel have a "right" to exist? It has such a right because it's militarily superior to those who want to destroy it, but if that ever changes, poof, no more right, no more Israel.

Failing to fully and completely back up Israel,

I really can't imagine what you are talking about. Israel has been the recipient of enormous amounts of US aid, regularly uses its veto power in the UN on Israel's behalf, and helps Israel in many other ways. It's hard to see how the US could do more short of sending in its own troops.

I also question why anyone should believe that the US has the obligation to 100% back up the actions of a foreign country. Ally or not, the interests of Israel and the US are not identical. And why should they be? What other country could make such a claim on the US?

Anonymous said...

Notice that the Palestinians have not realized or accepted the last option, which should tell you something about their sanity.

I wonder why you, as an individualist, are so ready to lump people together into collectives who believe exactly the same things and are judged as a group.

Palestinians regularly poll around 25-50% in favor of a two-state solution. That's not a majority, but its not negligible either.

Anyway, the argument I gave is completley independent of what the Arabs want or how sane they are. They aren't going to go away, no matter how much you or the Israelis dislike them. So, what should Israel do about them?

mushroom said...

The two-state solution is acceptable under the condition of recognizing Israel, but a return to the pre-1967 borders is not viable. Israel can certainly not afford to surrender the Golan. There is no need to uproot Jewish settlement that have expanded into areas claimed by the Palestinians. Jerusalem -- all of it -- should remain in Jewish control.

"Occupied territories" is a ridiculous and loaded term. What is the time factor necessary for occupation to become possession?

Van said...

Anonymous said "OK, I more or less agree with that. But then how can Israel have a "right" to exist?"

First, back up a bit to the end of my first comment,
"In most cases it's more proper to speak of States as having powers, not rights, except where it is speaking of a direct extension of its people’s rights, such as their right to life and liberty within their borders. Individual's cannot possibly be secure in any of their rights, without it being acknowledged that their state has a right to exist, a right to be free from incursions against them, and a right to expect other peoples to respect their borders and behave peacefully towards them. Perhaps you ought to give the matter a teensy bit more thought yourself.
"


The Right of a State and the Rights of its people, are not separate considerations.

You cannot discuss Rights, any Rights, as if they were self contained objects found here and there in the world around us, they are not. Rights are concepts derived from principles which are heavily dependent upon the context they are being discussed within. Rights are derived from the nature of human beings, and are dependent upon a person’s respect for the rights of others and the rule of law. For instance, a person has a right to life and liberty, assuming they haven't unjustifiably taken the life of another, thereby forfeiting their own rights and liberties and, depending upon the full context of the crime, perhaps even forfeiting their own life.

You simply cannot deal with Rights as if they were kantian imperatives, that is the path to the complete destruction of rights as such.

Back to your point, a state has a right to exist in that it is an extension of the right of its people's rights. Our Constitution sums it up best with its opening phrase of "We the People..." - all power and legitimacy in a state is derived from the people, and that state's legitimacy and even its right to exist, are derived from its people as well as its regard and respect for them.

"It has such a right because it's militarily superior..."

No, a state derives no Rights on the basis of its military, to the extent a state can be said to have rights; it is only in its capacity as representing the general rights of its people.

There are a couple things which this implies, one being, that a State's legitimacy is derived from the rights if it's people, and to the extent that a state impairs or denies the individual rights of its people, it's legitimacy is diminished.

The other, is that a State, to the extent that its people do not respect the rights of each other and of their neighbors (within or outside its borders), again, the legitimacy of that state is diminished as a result.

(annoying blogger break for comment size)

Van said...

(cont)

I opened another post a month or two ago, which bares on this as well,
""Tyranny anywhere is a threat to freedom everywhere" - Thaddeus Kosciuszko - Polish Lithuanian who served as a colonel in the American Revolution"

Which is something I agree with entirely. Any state which respects and defends the rights of its citizens has the Right, to make war upon a tyranny, anywhere. Whether or not it should do so, depends upon the real interests, concerns and costs such an action would bring to bear upon its own people.

How this plays out in recent history, is that any legitimate Western state had the right to invade Saddam's Iraq, by virtue of its own disregard for, and violation of, its own people’s rights.
The point that it became worthwhile for us to do so, the first time, was when Iraq invaded Kuwait, and later on for all the 20+ reasons cited by Congress regarding Iraq's violation of the previous treaty, and in addition, Saddam offering bounties to the families of anyone who would carry out suicide bombing against American or Israeli interests - no need to go any further for justification of our invasion of Iraq. The whole WMD fiasco was a foolish degradation of our legitimate rights and claims (apparently made to give Britain cover regarding its Parliament), and we were deeply injured by shoving our real legitimate cause, in favor of mere particulars. Those particulars (WMD) had value only in our calculations of whether or not it was worthwhile to invade, not in the justification for doing so.

And the other half reflects how much we are required to respect the borders of failed or failing states such as Somalia or Pakistan: we aren't. If their own people are harboring and/or engaging in attacks on neighbors, and their state is unable to control them or sufficiently punish such actions, then its neighbors are under no need or obligation to respect their sovereignty.

Continuing with what you said "It has such a right because it's militarily superior to those who want to destroy it, but if that ever changes, poof, no more right, no more Israel."

Now you're moving beyond Rights to a simple question of raw power with no consideration for anyone’s rights at all, which is the state of precivilized barbarity. As I said above, Israel, because it respects the Rights of its citizens, Arab and Jew (and no, for the reasons I already went to earlier, the Palestinians do not count in that equation, by their own choice), is a legitimate state and absolutely does have a right to exist, a right which is derived from its people and its regard and respect for them.

Should a criminal state, Iran for instance, attack Israel, it would be an utterly unjustifiable act of pure barbarity, and should we be negligent enough to allow the gathering threat of Iran to exist and grow long enough to do that, anyone, be it America or Poland for that matter, any legitimate state having the means and ability to wipe them out, should, and it would be a craven act of injustice, to not do so.

(I see your following comment, it may be a while before I have a free moment to address it. Obviously I don't agree with you, but you make good points which I appreciate... which you'd use a nic rather than Anonymous).

Anonymous said...

"Occupied territories" is a ridiculous and loaded term. What is the time factor necessary for occupation to become possession?

It's a perfectly descriptive term.

If Israel goes ahead and actually annexes the territories it now occupies, then it either becomes an officially apartheid state, loses its Jewish nature, or has to resort to ethnic cleansing or genocide. Which was my original point.

This has been obvious for decades, which is why letting Jews build illegal settlements in the occupied territories was such a bad idea. But Jewish wingnuts are apparently no smarter than their American equivalents, and can't see beyond their immediate gratification.

Van said...

Anonymous said "I wonder why you, as an individualist, are so ready to lump people together into collectives who believe exactly the same things and are judged as a group."

Which is particularly amusing followed by "Palestinians regularly poll around 25-50% in favor of a two-state solution. That's not a majority, but its not negligible either."

You do realize that your poll is speaking of people lumped together into two collectives, don't you? Those collectives are defined by a single opinion which lumps them into the 25% or the 50% portion of the population.

Likewise, when I speak of the Palestinians, I am speaking of those Palestinians who remain in their 'areas' and accept people such as Arafat, Abbas or Hamas as their spokespersons. If you've bothered listening to a single speech by these leaders to their local audiences, or to the broadcasts of their 'spiritual leaders' and even proponents of public education to young children, all who essentially speak of, as I heard one of them today, Israel being 'human filth' to be disposed of.

They, those who choose or abide by those leaders to speak for them, are defined by them, and they define themselves as being led by the darkest of unreasoning hatreds and desires and expectations which are difficult not to describe as insane.

This has nothing to do with any one individual who is, or is of, Palestinian heritage. Many Palestinians have left those disgusting communities, immigrating to other states, including America and even Israel, and choose to fully integrate into, accept and live as individuals who respect the rights of their fellows and support and abide by the rule of law.

And of course those people I am speaking of, who can be numbered into the hundreds of thousands, are in that context 'lumped into a collective' of reasoning, freedom loving individualists.

Context. It's a biggee.

"Anyway, the argument I gave is completley independent of what the Arabs want or how sane they are."

Again, no, it isn't completely independent of what the Arabs say, or the sanity of what they say. What they say, and which they say loudly and often, is an unrelenting message of hatred and violence for Israel, and for America too. That is a very important part of the equation. It is because of what they do say, and refuse to agree with (Israel, and its peoples, right to exist) which defines them and lets us know how they should, and must, be regarded and dealt with because of their chosen ideas!

"They aren't going to go away, no matter how much you or the Israelis dislike them. So, what should Israel do about them?"

What Israel will do, I don't know, but I told you above what I would do, IMHO they've chosen by their words and actions to define their entire people as combatants intent upon the destruction of Israel and its people. I would give them, and their 'Arab brothers' 30 days to flee or be destroyed as I would any other offensive army encamped in hostile formation on ones border.

Unapologetically.

Van said...

anonymous said “It's a perfectly descriptive term.”

It is a perfectly descriptive term... for the Palestinians who are occupying adjacent lands with the publicly stated intent of destroying Israel and making it doubly clear that that is their intent, by not only refusing to agree to Israel’s right to exist, but by aligning themselves with the terrorist organization Hamas.

They have no other rights than those of any other hostile force. Israel’s sole consideration, properly, is how best to eliminate the very real threat, whose destruction and violence is realized upon their people on a daily basis (rocket attacks, suicide bombers, home invasions, etc) they pose to them... a consideration I personally believe they have been only somewhat less negligent in dealing with, than has the leftist collectives of the West, on display in the disgusting words and actions of the U.N., and in the new position of the Obama administration.

Please see my previous comment for my productive recommendations.

Anonymous said...

I would give them, and their 'Arab brothers' 30 days to flee or be destroyed as I would any other offensive army encamped in hostile formation on ones border.

You choose the ethnic cleansing option, then. OK, well, at least you're upfront about it.

...as I heard one of them today, Israel being 'human filth' to be disposed of.

But don't you see that that is exactly how you are talking about and propose to treat the Arabs? And their "disgusting communities".

I don't see the sides in this conflict as Israelis and Palestinians. I see the sides as those who favor ethnic agression (on both sides) vs those who want to find a peaceful settlement (on both sides). You are clearly in the former camp, right there with Hamas.

Van said...

Oops, missed this part from Anonymous replied to a portion of my comment of "Failing to fully and completely back up Israel" with,

"I really can't imagine what you are talking about. Israel has been the recipient of enormous amounts of US aid, regularly uses its veto power in the UN on Israel's behalf, and helps Israel in many other ways. It's hard to see how the US could do more short of sending in its own troops."

I don't think Israel needs U.S. Troops, or would want them, and barring an attack from an outside aggressor who would be maneuvering against our interests, I would be against it in any other way than logistical and intelligence support, and of course enabling them to purchase whatever supplies they might need, especially if it became an East Berlin sort of scenario.

Personally I don't think we need to do anything other than what I've already said here. Actually I think that that would be an enormous benefit to Israel, and would give the type of support, moral support, which is what one nation should give to another like minded nation (in the area of Rights and Law) with some intersecting interests in the region.

I'm no fan of foreign aid, 98% of which I think is improper and unjustifiable, especially in any area which is not directly relatable to the actual defense of our nations interests. Don't mistake my support for Israel in principle, for support for every action they've ever taken - their attack on the U.S.S. Liberty in the 1967 war comes bitterly to mind - but in principle, as one Western nation to another, I fully and completely support them.

And seriously, regarding "...regularly uses its veto power in the UN on Israel's behalf", are you saying we shouldn't regularly use our veto power on Israel's behalf? You'd prefer we use it to back up the interests of Syria? Iran? Libya? To disgusting to contemplate.

"I also question why anyone should believe that the US has the obligation to 100% back up the actions of a foreign country."

To stand by and watch despicable acts, even evil ones, being done and to say nothing... to let them just go on by with nothing more than some mealy mouthed reference to 'unfortunate occurrences', is to act in support of evil. To not speak out in support of those who have been wronged, to behave as if what they have suffered is no big thing, is not only cowardly, but aiding the opposition.

We have no obligation to back up any other nation with physical actions and financial aid, but we, as a moral country, and that is what we are in our very nature and founding ideals, the first explicitly moral nation in the history of the world (speaking philosophically, rather than religiously (but not in exclusion of)), have an absolute obligation to ourselves and to the world to unshirkingly call out wrong doing wherever we see it.

Do we hurt our position when we engage in the same? Damn right we do, and have done, far too often in the past, but that doesn't alter the fact that as Americans we have an obligation to ourselves to denounce the underhanded and despicable actions of other nations and to give at the very least, moral support to those who have been wronged, and who are, hopefully, our 'friends'.

Always be mindful though, that in the ultimate sense nations do not have Friends, only mutual interests... but also don't let that cloud the fact that their peoples may have deep friendships and affections between them, in addition to those mutual interests.

Again, the context matters.

"And why should they be?"

Why? Because of our nature as a moral nation and in respect of a mutual respect for individual rights and the rule of law which may exist between us and other nations.

"What other country could make such a claim on the US? "

Perhaps not in the quite the same sense, but I think Britain could, Australia too... Japan perhaps, Canada too.

Van said...

aninnymouse said "You choose the ethnic cleansing option, then. OK, well, at least you're upfront about it."

No, I choose the option of facing up to understanding the reality of what the nature of the situation is that you face. I won't pretend a state of war that someone else has declared, should be ignored or discounted. How'd that work out with the Khobar Towers? The Kenyan bombings and the attack on the U.S.S. Cole? Something else fairly significant followed not too long afterwards didn't it?

You, on the other hand, apparently choose the pathetic option of emboldening and encouraging the spread of violence and destruction of ever greater degrees which appeasement all but ensures. Your supposed 'fair mindedness' is nothing but a refusal to identify the nature of those involved, and for nothing more than for the purposes of indulging your wishful thinking, it will, as it almost surely must, and nearly always has, result in even greater conflicts, all so that you can feel good about your false sense of 'compassion'.

"But don't you see that that is exactly how you are talking about and propose to treat the Arabs? And their "disgusting communities"."

No. I am not calling those Arabs of like mind who with those who describe another people - on the basis of just being a people - such things as 'human filth' and worse than any parasite or pestilence. I am not teaching children the glory of killing the 'Jewish dog' wherever they might be found. I am not making monsters of humans, but simply acknowledging the clear meaning of what they themselves have stated - it is they who have singled out and identified themselves as being opposed to, and unless they have a severe change of heart, unworthy of civilized consideration.

When anyone, whether it be an entire community, or a single thug who breaks into my house and threatens me & mine, if they say "You have no right to exist! You are nothing but filth! I am going to kill you starting with your daughter here!", the proper reaction is not to assure them you mean no harm to them, but to kill them first. Quickly. ASAP. And without regret. Sadness, perhaps, over the waste of a human life, but the choice would have been theirs, not mine.

"I don't see the sides in this conflict as Israelis and Palestinians. I see the sides as those who favor ethnic agression (on both sides) ..."

No, you see the sides in this conflict as multi-cultural equals. They are not. One side respects human life, individual rights and the rule of law, the other side see's everything in terms of racist and religious hatreds. It is the Palestinians who have chosen their course and determined the only proper way for them to be dealt with.

"...vs those who want to find a peaceful settlement (on both sides)."

You don't want peace, you want to avoid conflict at any cost, up to and including abandoning all understanding and means of Justice. That is barbaric.

"You are clearly in the former camp, right there with Hamas."

Thank you for identifying yourself as someone who has no understanding of the requirements of civil behavior or Justice, and for living up to every negative I've come to expect of the cowards who spew under the name of anonymous.

Anonymous said...

No, I choose the option of facing up to understanding the reality of what the nature of the situation is that you face.

I described the reality. You chose the option of ethnic cleansing, no matter what you want to call it. It is still what it is, even if the Arabs are barely human garbage and the Israelis angels in human form. Just admit it.

No, you see the sides in this conflict as multi-cultural equals. They are not. One side respects human life, individual rights and the rule of law,

That is such garbage. Israel was established through conquest (with plenty of ethic cleansing in the process), and has been ILLEGALLY settling its citizens in the occupied territories. It has no regard for the individual property rights of the Palestinians it displaced.

This does not make Israel uniquely horrible among nations, this is what states generally do. But they can't act like that and still maintain an aura of moral superiority.

Only idiots like you are fooled, however. Most Israelis are not under that kind of illusion, no matter what their politics are.

Van said...

aninnymouse squealed "That is such garbage. Israel was established through conquest..."

Lol. What's apparent here, is that I made some statements and provided the historical and contemporary context for them, supported them, and when questioned by you, I backed up my reasoning for them.

You on the other hand have tossed out some labels stomped and called my positions, and myself, some rather distasteful names, and asserted what it is you wish to force me to believe.

While I appreciate the opportunity to laugh in your face, it doesn't help your argument at all. But then again... that is the nature of all things leftist: Positions, assertions and accusations and nary a one supportable. Floating Rationalization, thy name is leftie.

"You chose the option of ethnic cleansing"

I chose the option of acknowledging the Palestinians declaration of war. You pissed your pants over it. Not very becoming of you. Also not very surprising.

Thanks for the laughs.

Van said...

BTW, this bit from aninnymouse is just too amazing to leave alone: "Israel was established through conquest (with plenty of ethic cleansing in the process), and has been ILLEGALLY settling its citizens in the occupied territories. It has no regard for the individual property rights of the Palestinians it displaced."

Note the all caps word "ILLEGALLY". Think about that in context with the meaning of the rest of the sentence. It really shows just how disconnected and disintegrated that words, concepts and reality are in the leftie world.

Not that I share any respect for what they consider to be the font of legality, the U.N., but just what is their basis for declaring Israel to be Illegal?

That'd be the proclamations and actions of the U.N..

What is it which created Israel?

That'd be the proclamations and actions of the U.N.!

How can they possibly claim that Israel was established through conquest, when it was created by the U.N.? Israel was created by the Western Powers under the auspices of the U.N., it was the Arab nations who sought to obliterate the newly 'legally' created state of Israel, the very next day, in direct opposition to the U.N.!

To declare that Israel was established through conquest, while at the same time holding the U.N. up as the source of international legality, is such a feat of twisted evasion and self deception as to be very nearly awesome.

And as for the "(with plenty of ethic cleansing in the process)"... perhaps our aninny is British.?.. has to be something like that, where it's lately considered illegal for a homeowner to harm a burglar, illegal to shoot someone who invades your home and threatens you and yours with bodily harm. However, elsewhere in the world, Texas comes to mind, if you invade a home, the homeowner has the right to blow your damn head off.

If you, and several of your established brother states, declare War on one newly created state, in direct disregard and opposition to the same powers who created you and your established brother states in the very same way they created your new neighbor; if you and your buds invade that nation with the stated intent of wiping them out and slaughtering every last one of its inhabitants, then everyone participating in or supporting that invasion is thereby removed from any recourse to 'law', and has nothing else to expect than what has always been released with the dogs of war - the risk of utter annihilation.

What is amazing to me, is that Israel has allowed the hostile force newly known as 'the Palestinian people' to exist on its borders for all of this time.

They should demand that they, as I said above, either:
- choose to peacefully live within it,
- leave (as did the Jews from Arab lands where they were forcibly expelled (notice Israel has not chosen that option towards the Palestinians)),
- or recognizing that Israel exists and has a right to, negotiate with them in good faith for establishing a state of their own within the lands which, as you point out, are nothing but a burden to Israel.

By refusing any of those options, the so-called Palestinian people, by their own choice, forfeit the protections and expectations of civilized behavior and commit themselves to a course of pure warfare, by their own choice, and they really ought to take an old saying to heart: "As ye sew, so shall ye reap."

Anonymous said...

Where did I mention the UN? The transfer of populations by an occupying power is prohibited by the Geneva conventions.

but just what is their basis for declaring Israel to be Illegal?

If you really think I said anything of the kind then you are too stupid to be worth talking to. It is the specific actions of transferring population to occupied territory that is illegal under international law.

Maybe if you stopped blithering on and on in your incoherent and ungrammatical style and tried to think, you'd get somewhere. But I wouldn't count on it.

Anonymous said...

Oh, and it may interest you to know that Netanyahu issued a statement back in November (with the US) that agreed to EXACTLY WHAT OBAMA PROPOSED in his recent speech, the exact same thing that has idiots like you flipping out -- a two-state solution, based on the 67 borders with land swaps.

I'd enclose the URL but it probably wouldn't get through -- google [clinton netanyahu communique mfa]

Van said...

Ok Lucy, a fairly reasonable response, I'll take another run at the football.
First you scored a couple hits,
* 'ungrammatical'... something I'm painfully aware of... doubly so in that one of my favorite authors is Richard Mitchell, 'The Underground Grammarian'. A late in life concern, I do what I can.
* My sentence should have been 'acted illegally', sometimes commenting while coding and debugging has less than stellar results.

On to yours. You mentioned the UN in your 2nd comment,

"I really can't imagine what you are talking about. Israel has been the recipient of enormous amounts of US aid, regularly uses its veto power in the UN on Israel's behalf, and helps Israel in many other ways. It's hard to see how the US could do more short of sending in its own troops."

, and I had mentioned that Israel was created under the auspices of the UN and since you made no other mention of who you thought the authority was, I assumed you meant the UN. We both get a fault on that one.

However, the Geneva Conventions? That can be called compliance, non-compliance and violations but not 'ILLEGALLY', unless you're bringing in the Int'l Court by extension? All of which operates in general affiliation with the UN... but it's murky at best.

How about you take a few moments out from calling me stupid and show us the sense of your argument - assuming you have one - if you do, you've yet to show it. So how about it, are you just repeating phrases you've heard or lifted from Wiki or have you actually thought this through? If you have, I'd be interested in seeing it.
(arghhh... size break)

Van said...

(cont)

I see you've left another pleasant note. Not that it matters, but I'd bet there's a bit of context that's been dropped from your Netanyahu quote (I'll check later)... but if you take a look at my post, I haven't mentioned Netanyahu or anyone else as examples or defenders of what I believe, and as I mentioned, I do not agree with America's or Israel's handling of things, though obviously for entirely different reasons than yours.

Most 'authorities' on the subject, I heartily disagree with - including the idea of 'international law' itself which is an invalid concept. Codified Law requires a higher body of authority to be valid, no sovereign nation can or will fall under such an arrangement, the result is that they mouth platitudes about it when it suits them and disregard it when it doesn't, which all in all works to the disadvantage of the very standards being espoused.

Not even the EU is able to make a credible go of their 'international law', and their arrangement is far more solidified than any other. The only alternative is to truly unite under a single governing body with authority to enforce its laws, as the individual United States finally did under our Federal Government... but any President who explicitly proposed such a thing would be (I hope) be impeached on the spot. The vast majority of the countries making up the UN are despotic and unworthy of our granting them the status of proper governments, let alone of officially uniting with.

Treaties and conventions are as close as it gets, but even there, as the U.S. has found over and over throughout the last century, more often than not that results in our abiding by them, with our opponents using the agreements as a weapon against us, while they comply with as little as they feel like complying with.

And still with all that said, the fact remains that Israel was created by Int'l Agreement (see what I mean about people using such agreements as it suits them? ;-) ), and those Arab states who were created under essentially the same means, denied the validity of Israel, it's right to exist or it's peoples, and they made immediate War the very next day with the intent to annihilate Israel. They failed, but for most of those states they still have not renounced their intention to destroy Israel.

Under those conditions none of them have any 'right' to expect some sort of fair play from Israel. Whether we’re talking about an individual or a state, agreeing upon each other’s right to exist is a fundamental requirement for any civilized discussions, let alone agreements. Absent that, they declare themselves to be in a continued state of war with Israel, and deserve no further consideration until they correct their positions.

Van said...

Thought so. I should check further, but no time at the moment. If what I found using your google suggestion is accurate, I do believe that if you bring your grammar skills to bear on this, you'll find it does not state that Netanyahu agreed to the '67 border with land swaps, but only that they agree that they'd like very much to reconcile their two separate positions, one of those being the '67 borders with land swaps (that'd be the Palestinians wishful thinking), with the second and distinctly different desire of Netanyahu being borders which satisfy their security requirements.

Here's what I found:
"The Secretary reiterated that "the United States believes that through good-faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state, based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.""

If you can manage to take that as an endorsement of Netanyahu for Obama's position, which is the Palestinians position, you are willfully living in a fantasy land.

Anonymous said...

In the US, signed international treaties have the force of law. It's right there in Article 6 of the Constitution, which I thought you worshipped as a sacred document. I don't know how it's managed in Israel but I imagine it's similar. Both countries are signatories to the Geneva Conventions.

International law is somewhat murky territory, I will agree. It is somewhat of a pretense to pretend that states can be constrained by law, but it's a pretty important pretense. The Nuremberg trials were flawed, but at least they sent a message to tyrants and war criminals that they could be tried and executed in a court of law.

Yabu (EOTIS) said...

You nailed it again. Great post. You really should write a book.

Van said...

anonymous said "In the US, signed international treaties have the force of law. It's right there in Article 6 of the Cons..."

That's all you've got? Really? Semantics? Treaties by virtue of being treaties have the force of law [insert "Duh!" here], but usually you don't hear them referred to as "ILLEGALLY", but as "... that's in violation of the Geneva Convention! Article..." and so forth. At the very least most people, just to make sure they've set up a good context, will refer to that first, and then with that established as the foundation, then they will refer to something or other being legal or illegal. I guess it matters whether or not you have any respect for context or not, whether you care about or even have, a reasoned argument to begin with, or not.

In addition to that, as even you acknowledge, int'l legality is murky at best.

Still, regarding the Fourth Geneva Convention Article 49, paragraph 6, for instance,

''The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.' '

, to say that your (and the Palestinians) interpretation,

"It is the specific actions of transferring population to occupied territory that is illegal under international law."

, as if it were a clear and undisputed statement, even if that is your interpretation, to behave as if it is a clear and undisputed is to say that you either have read nothing on the matter beyond your own preferred propaganda, or that honest discussion of the matter is the furthest thing from your mind, that forcing agreement is just fine by you. So far you seem to be a mix of both. Without your bothering to give your reasoning, it's unclear. Or very clear. Hard to say. How about you clear that up by making your case with something other that unsupported assertions?

There are a number of issues which cloud any claim to undisputed clarity. So... Israel is deporting or transferring parts of it's population? Really? No, not. Allowing your citizens to settle in an area is not the same as a state mandated operation of deporting or transferring it's civilian population into those lands. Some Int'l Courts have volunteered their opinion on the matter to the contrary, but they have no compelling jurisdiction or power, and more to the point, their judgment does not make the matter into a clear an undisputed light, but the opposite. There's also the issue that all of the lands in question had Jews living in them prior to May 14, 1948, forcibly preventing them from moving back into the territories, IMHO, would itself be a technical violation of the treaty.

There's also a number of issues regarding what is a 'protected person', it's meant to protect 'innocent civilians' haplessly caught in a war zone. IMHO the Palestinians do not fit that description in the least.

And where's your outcry over the thousands of Jews who were forcibly expelled from Arab lands such as Jordan? Why no outcry over that clear violation of 'Int'l law'? So far you seem to have nothing but beliefs, positions and assertions (aka: leftism), rather than understandings.

I await proof to the contrary.

Anonymous said...

There is not much clarity. The point remains, there are two separate ethnicities with claims to land. Either they fight it out, or they make peace, or one side gains such a total crushing victory that the other side simply gives up. The last option seems to be what you and Hamas favor, the second one is what most intelligent observers would like to see.

BTW, here is that left-wing rag the economist pointing out that the Palestinians have started adopting non-violent tactics and the ball is now in Israel's court:

[link omitted, you can find it]

Van said...

aninnymouse said "The last option seems to be what you and Hamas favor, the second one is what most intelligent observers would like to see."

Probably pointless to reply, but it's too fascinating to ignore... like trying to pass by a horrific car crash without looking.

"there are two separate ethnicities with claims to land..."

The ethnicities do not matter whatsoever, if you mean that in any other way than merely descriptive... disgusting. It's enough to say that there are two claimants to the land, one of which initiated war against the other, lost, but refuses to acknowledge that fact.

"Either they fight it out, or they make peace, or one side gains such a total crushing victory that the other side simply gives up. "

A false alternative. There are more than two options, a third is that the Palestinians, who initiated war against Israel, officially acknowledges that Israel has a right to exist, and forswears acts of terrorism as an acceptable policy against them. Then actual, productive and worthwhile dialog can take place.

"The last option seems to be what you and Hamas favor..."

The willful blindness and evasion it requires to say that is mind boggling.

"...st intelligent obs...."

You really shouldn't use words when you don't understand what they mean.

Unless your next comment contains an intelligent explanation of your position, I'm done with kicking your troll can down the road.
(See the message over the Comment Box)

Van said...

Thanks Yabu.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Van said...

aninnymouse said "You seem to be the sort of person who believes that..."

... trolls are amusing for awhile, then best punted. You are incapable of stating your case in anything other than attacks on anothers.

Fun to kick around, then it's time to kick 'em to the side.

Ta-ta.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Van said...

LOL. If you ever figure out how to make an argument, I'll leave it up, otherwise... he swings... he hits... it's outta here!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Stuff your fingers in your ears all you like.

And for pity's sake, learn the difference between "it's" and "its" if you don't want to appear illiterate.

Van said...

I'll happily take my confusion over "its" and "it's" over your confusion over right and wrong. Your pedantic concern for minutia while missing the important principles involved, is the sort of foolishness 'up with which I shall not put.'

Again, if you've got an argument, make it. Note: calling the other point of view stupid, doesn't count as an argument... and though it does have some entertainment value in showing your own stupidity... it wears thin.

Anonymous said...

Sloppiness in small things is indicative of sloppy thinking in general.

Why would I bother to make an argument when you are deleting my comments? You could answer the arguments already made if you are in the mood to, but I'm not wasting any more time.

Van said...

Lol. Being unable to make an argument is indicative of not having one to begin with.

A certain amount of rough wording and insultainment is fine if it serves or animates your argument, but when slathered about in place of one, it pegs my disgust-o-meter and gets deleted, as stated above the comment box, which I reminded you of above @5/25/2011 1:19 PM

I'll let the thread stand on its own, any readers can judge for themselves who attempted to make their case, and who did nothing but snipe and whine.
Now please, unless you can do better, please follow through on your pouting and be gone.

Van said...

From a new article on this posts subject, by Bruce S. Thornton, on Victor Davis Hanson’s site, Corrupt Language Breeds Bad History and Bad Policy

“As the history of communism and fascism both illustrate, modern political tyranny has relied on fabricated history to legitimize its claims and actions, and such history in turn relies on the debasement of language. Nowhere is this axiom more evident than in the conflict between Israel and the Arabs — so much so that, as Obama’s recent remarks about Israel show, the false history and its false vocabulary are now taken for reality and made the basis of policy.

Start with the use of “borders” to describe what is in fact the armistice line marking the farthest advance of the five Arab armies that invaded Israel in 1948. That line is not an international “border” in the strict sense of a line dividing one sovereign state from another. The territory in question was never a state. Once a state is established, then the international border will be settled by negotiations. As Israeli ambassador Dore Gold points out, UN resolution 242, as well as later agreements such as the 1993 Oslo Accords, preserves this “flexibility for creating new borders.”

Then there’s “occupation,” used to describe the Israeli presence in the West Bank, itself a misleading term that obscures the historical fact that this region is Judea and Samaria, the heartland of the ancient Jewish state. Aside from that, using “occupation” to describe Israel’s control over a disputed territory whose final status will be determined by negotiation evokes misleading analogies with historical events like the Nazi occupation of France during World War II, or the Soviet occupation of the Eastern bloc during the Cold War. But that analogy is false: Germany and Russia invaded and then occupied sovereign nations defined by international borders. Israel ended up in the West Bank territories as the result of a defensive war against aggressors. Israel’s continuing control is a defensive necessity, just as after World War I the traditional launching pad for German aggression against France, the Rhineland, was demilitarized and subject to Allied military control. Indeed, the Allied decision to evacuate their forces from the Rhineland was one of many mistakes that led to World War II....”

Well worth reading.

Property Rights said...

To stand with Israel, to insist on it's right to exist, and it's right to dispense with the lands under its control as it deems fit, is the only position open to those who might wish to hold a credible claim to believing in Individual Rights and the rule of law themselves.

I agree completely with the “you attacked us so we conquered some of your lands as compensation” position. For me, it works with Individual Rights and the rule of law.

But regarding the events beforehand, it is more difficult. I was once referred by a pro-Palestinian reparations type to a website (cant find it now with limited time) run by similar, who wanted fair compensation for their former property which had been ‘eminently domained’ so to speak, by Israelis after the ’49 Green Line but before 1967. Not as a tribe, but specific individuals for their individual pieces of land. This does not concur with Individual Rights (property), but possibly the rule of law per the Israeli government.

Somewhat OT, but the reason for the creation of Israel was that the Brits wanted out after things had become more than they were willing to handle. Or, it can be argued that Israeli freedom fighters were successful in making this so and then “guilt” amongst UN members swung the vote.

Van said...

Property Rights said “But regarding the events beforehand, it is more difficult. I was once referred by a pro-Palestinian reparations type to a website (cant find it now with limited time) run by similar, who wanted fair compensation for their former property which had been ‘eminently domained’ so to speak, by Israelis”

I think I mostly agree with the gist of what you say… but it has some squishy edges. Let me put it this way, if the people who lost their land – lost it, not simply had the governance of it changed - because they gave their support to the Arabs… and now want it back… bummer, tough luck and all of that. On the other hand, if there are people who did not align themselves with the invading forces, who stood with and supported the govt of Israel and the rule of law, yet somehow had their lands taken from them individually or as part of some blanket action, sure, they have a justifiable complaint and are due not only their lands back but some hefty re-compensation for their troubles.

“Somewhat OT, but the reason for the creation of Israel was that the Brits wanted out after things had become more than they were willing to handle.”

The whole thing has been a mess from the get-go, but the creation of pretty much all of the modern states of the mid-east were drawn from out of the lands controlled by Britain or France. For whatever reasons they decided to divest themselves of those lands, they did, and not one of the resulting nations has any more or less legitimate claim to the lands they came to control than another.

Whether or not they have a legitimate claim to keeping those lands today, is another question.

The only legitimate claim that can now be made, for or against them, is on the basis of their form of government and its respect for, or against, the individual rights of its citizens, and the rule of law they maintain for the defense of them. The only one in the entire mid-east that can make a credible claim to existence, the only one which any proper nation could make no solid argument for invading, is Israel.

Those who nationalized the oil production of Western nations have even less of a legitimate claim to existence than those who violate the rights of their own people (or in addition to them). It was nothing less than shameful and criminal negligence on a massive scale, for the United States, Britain, France, etc, to allow their property to be nationalized. Is that Blood for Oil? Damn right it is and every bit as important to defend as would be ‘Blood for dirt!’ if Mexico or some other nation attempted to nationalize a single square inch of California, etc. Was it a prudent decision in the context of the Cold War? I don’t think so, and we’ve paid dearly for that devils bargain ever since.