Show me anything in international law that recognizes the existence of my left shoe. If you can’t, and international law is to be taken as the perfect descriptor of reality, one could only conclude that my left shoe doesn’t exist.
So adorable…
I think the debate is only clouded by talking about the “right” to conquer lands. It’s simply a fact that we recognize, whether or not any nation has a “right” to do it. Pure pragmatism. But that’s the way it has always been. And with those facts come consequences. The US “stole” Texas from Mexico, and we’ve reached a mutual agreement that the matter is settled.
Israel did the same, only the matter is not settled. No pun intended.
Actually, that is a very persuasive argument.
All in favor of returning Texas to Mexico?
I believe in the greater biblical Israel, so yes.
I would be most happy if it would end. How that would happen, I honestly can’t say. I think what happened when Israel gave back Gaza and ended up with years of rocket bombardments proved that Palestinian leadership can’t be trusted. What happens if we give back the Shomron, and rockets start falling on Tel Aviv? What does Israel do then?
As part of the failed Oslo accords, the PA agreed to take care of Joseph’s Tomb in Shechem/Nablus. Yet, it was almost destroyed. What guarantees are there that the same thing won’t happen in Chevron/Hebron?
So, I don’t have any solutions. I am not a Meir Kahana fan, so I don’t advocate moving the Arabs out of Israel.
But then we have to wake up and find that we live in the real world! Fancy that.
Um…yeah. That’s exactly what they TRIED to do man. Were you sleeping that week in history class? Had they managed to drive the Jews out of Israel, do you seriously think that they would have just handed the land back after the shooting was over? Seriously?
Welcome to the real world. Glad you could join us.
Leaving aside the fact that I’d probably put you in a body bag if you tried, individuals and nations don’t scale one for one. They don’t have the same legal issues, and they don’t interact in the same ways. You see, basically we live under the laws of the land imposed upon us by the nation state we live in (if we are lucky enough to live in a nation state with those law thingies)…they have overwhelming force to impose and enforce those laws on us. Nation state, however, don’t have this luxury. Certainly the UN doesn’t exersize this type of control or authority.
How will you impose your will on my property? If we lived in Somalia it would depend on if your pirate band was stronger than mine. Living in the US, I’d simply call the cops and have you arrested, dragged off to prison and hopefully enjoying the attentions of your new cell mate Bubba. See the difference betteen that and how nation states operate?
-XT
You’re the one asserting the exsitence of a legal right. Put up or shut up.
I can certainly produce cites showing that aggressive attempts at conquest are ILLEGAL. There is no such thing as a “right of conquest.” Sorry. That’s just a made up and completely selecticve right used to defend aggressive territorial expanasion and land theft by only one country in the world.
Right here.
Funny how Israel has a right to take land because it was “stolen” 2000 years ago, but then once they steal it, it’s theirs by “right of conquest.”
Alessan doesn’t want to annex the West Bank, so you’re probably arguing with the wrong person.
And of course, the problem with annexing the West Bank is that you’d either have to expel all the Palestinians, or allow them to stay but without civil rights, or make them citizens. Expelling them is gonna be a bit tough and would lead to regional war. Making them non-citizens gives you the status quo, so what’s the point? And making them citizens means that Israel isn’t a majority Jewish country anymore.
So either Israel has to abandon the West Bank, or abandon its majority Jewish identity, or abandon democracy. If I were an Israeli I know which option I’d choose.
These are not really responsive answers. It sounds like you’re still falling back on “might makes right.” If I have my own private army and I can pay off the local cops, do I then have a right to take your house? Are you really saying that moral right boils down to nothig more than who has the most physical power?
Actually, the Texans fought a war of independence and did not join the US until almost 10 years after breaking away from Mexico.
So where do you draw the line time wise ?
I’ll fight to keep my home and country against the aboriginals, but I believe they have a moral right to fight to take it back.
The Jews are the only dispossessed people from way back that I know of who have maintained their distinct identity and culture with a constant view to
return to their land and possess it as a people.
You’re asserting a departure from reality, so… right back atcha.
What would be so fucking horrible about Israel abandoning a “Jewish” state identity? It wouldn’t mean any individuals would have to abandon any practice or beliefs. So they would no longer have a state policy of special racial entitlements. So fucking what?
All that talk of “Jewish identity” in Israel sounds exactly the same to me as when I hear American rednecks bitching about how the US is supposed to be a “white country.”
I’m not personally big on the “dispossessed” argument (i.e. I don’t feel I can make a claim based on something that happened to my ancestors before I was born), but I am kinda curious how the whole Kurdistan thing will play out.
If you have magic pixie dust you could just sprinkle it on me and make me fly away. If you have flying monkeys in your ass you could just expel them in one fell cloud to swoop down upon me and conquer me through force of monkey arms. If you have the sovereign powers of a government then you can do all those things as well.
But you don’t, and you and I don’t interact as governments do…we interact as citizens do under the lawful authority of a SOVEREIGN NATION. Sovereign nations, however, are, well, SOVEREIGN…that means they do what they like, and the only constraints they have are whatever constraints are imposed on them by OTHER sovereign nations.
Moral? MORAL?? WTF does morals have to do with it? If you want my OPINION on whether Israel’s acts are ‘moral’, then I’m certainly glad to give it to you…but that has zero to do with the question we were discussing. Morals, whatever those are supposed to be, have nothing to do with the issue of whether or not Israel could have annexed those territories. Zero.
-XT
“Right of conquest” doesn’t usually mean there’s a law on the books somewhere that says “finders, keepers”. It’s more code for “Well, we’re here now, and we have weapons. It isn’t worth enough to you to turf us out”. Basically it’s pretty much just a statement of the practicalities rather than deference to some legal basis.
No, not at all. We checked out several communities via internet while we were researching our aliyah, and we visited several of them when we came on a pilot trip. This is where we thought we would do best.
And to everyone who was asking about the freedom the kids have here:
I feel much safer here, as far as my kids are concerned. The can travel on buses or trains by themselves for much farther distances than we ever would have allowed them to do in America. The street crime here is a fraction of what it is in the U.S.; on the yishuv, it’s practically non-existent. My kids can stay out as late as they want without me worrying.
In the U.S., I would never let them walk the dog at night. Here we have that luxury. They have cellphones, so they are pretty much on their own when they want to travel.
Gasp! You mean Sargon of Akkad was operating without legal sanction?! Does The Hague know?
The last time Arabs governed Palistine was way back in the early16th century.
Except for a brief 10 year occupation by the Egyptians in the early 19th century.
The right of conquest is extinguished once you’ve been conquered.