By the way, those reading along really should take the time to look up the issue of property ownership, which Elvis has been corrected on numerous times but which doesn’t get in his way. Under roughly 400 years of the Ottoman land codes, which were maintained up to and through Jordanian rule, most of the land did not qualify as Mulk, but Miri,Waste Land and so on. Even some of Israel’s harshest internal critics, folks who aren’t above shading the truth when it suits them, like B’tselem, have confirmed that the clear majority of land that the settlements are built on was never privately owned by Palestinians.
Likewise, the land codes clearly stated that one only gained temporary rights on Miri land, and then only by continuous cultivation of it. Leaving the land and/or not cultivating it would have voided the claimant’s temporary title to the use of that land (which was never a title of ownership in any case, but use). This is part of why obfuscatory talk of “Palestinian land” harms honest discussion, it does not enhance it. More egregious examples, like Red Fury’s earlier lie that 90% of the territory in Palestine was owned by Palestinians, aim at distorting the issue irrevocably via falsehood and fiction. As do Elvis’ repeated claims that somehow all the West Bank is “Palestinian land” even though it wasn’t, not under any of the sovereign powers who controlled it. The idea that Jordan could, after it no longer had control of the territory and had in fact refused an offer of its return, dictate new property laws to a nation acting in accordance with the 4th Genava Convention is, shall we say, a very interesting viewpoint.
Ah well.
Readers might also want to check out why his claims of discrimination against a nationality aren’t racism, why those who didn’t own land have no claim to it, and how even then most of the populace that fled in '48 were not “kicked out” in any case. Just, ya know, for factual completeness.
I am shocked that you a) believe anyone who isn’t participating in your little tete a tete is capable of even getting through your frothy poorly-cited posts; and b) that you believe anyone really gives a shit if you’re right or not. You see, you might have all the facts and answers, but no one would be able to tell, because you’re an obnoxious blowhard, who, as stated earlier, probably does have some borderline autistic qualities.
Right, and back in the day, the bulk of Ireland really wasn’t Irish land because, you know, English landlords and all. It was English land of course. And if the English landlords had sold it to Jews looking to set up their own state, why, the Irish would have had no grounds for complaint, right?
In a vain effort to get this thread back on track, I’d like to congratulate Finn Again for doing more for World Peace than Barry White did for thong wearing.
Not that I question your intellectual honesty spoke (of course), but please elaborate on exactly what you’re opposed to.
Is it the ability of people in general to own land, so any apartment I’ve ever lived in is my property? Or is it simply the ability for states to set land ownership policy such that some land is state-owned, so if I put up a tent in Yellowstone, that federal land would become mine? And as you’re undoubtedly intellectually honest and playing fair, would you also say that the Palestinians who privately owned land were doing wrong since the Ottoman land codes called for it, or was it just the Palestinians who didn’t own land who were being wronged but those who did were fine even if it was inhabited by other Palestinians who were their tenants?
And, likewise, as I’m sure you’re intellectually honest and factually knowledgeable, please identify the demographics and valid land owners (ignoring the actual laws if you’d wish) starting at any point at all during the last 1,000 years, from the Ottomans to the Mamluk kingdom and the Crusader kingdom before that, and the Fatimid kingdom before that. Please identify at which point their land rights were stripped. Thanks.
Demanding that your opponents perform the impossible does not make them wrong, it simply demonstrates that you are unreasonable. One must also note that you seem to have typed close to one hundred words without calling anyone a whore or a liar. This is a positive step, and must be noted.
Yes Lucy, demanding that my “opponent” prove his own claim is quite unreasonable of me. Good catch, you are so honest and trustworthy.
And good on you to point out that it’s wrong of me to ask that someone prove his own argument especially if, as you claim, providing such proof is impossible. It’s my fault if someone’s claims are impossible for them to prove, and I am a very bad person for pointing out such things. Again, good catch, you’re so not willing to whore out your very personal integrity for any chance to brutally gum my ankles.
Naturally, it’s also quite unreasonable to point out that spoke was being intellectually dishonest. Obviously, the only fair thing to do is accept an intellectually dishonest claim without factual support and to take it at face value. I am ashamed for doubting your honorable commitment to defend anybody at all, up to and including someone suggesting the genocide of every Israeli man, woman and child in the West Bank. I should stop all this pesky ‘fact checking’ and ‘epistemology’ and be guided by your irrational, hate-crazed desire to prostitute your intellect to any cause as long as it disagrees with me. Obviously, your desire to sell your own mind and discard all standards of honesty and integrity proves what kind of a (good!) person you are.
Just trying to see how far you’ll take that logic, Finn.
Do you mean to say people who live in the US but don’t own their homes don’t really have any stake in “the USA” as a concept?
Let’s imagine that day dawns (so gleefully prophesied by certain alarmists) when the great bulk of real estate in the US is owned by Chinese nationals. (I know, far-fetched, but work with me.)
One day, our Chinese landlords say, “Hey, surprise everybody, this isn’t the USA any more, it’s a Chinese province. Oh, and by the way, here are your eviction notices. Now shuffle off, would you? There’s a nice Chinese couple who would like to move in to your house. (I mean, it isn’t really your house anyway, right?) Perhaps Canada will take you in. Really why wouldn’t they? I mean you mostly share the same language, right? You can stay here I suppose, but look, we really are serious about bring in Chinese nationals by the boatload, so really, do you think you’ll feel at home?”
I mean, if the Chinese own the real estate, they’re within their rights, huh? Or is there maybe more to it?
So you won’t answer what your objection really is, whether it is to private land ownership or state land ownership or to Palestinians who themselves owned land.
Likewise, you won’t clear up your intellectual dishonesty, and clearly define what patterns of land ownership are acceptable to you, and what populace you feel should have had personal ownership of which land at which point.
You won’t even substantiate your own claim, but you will misstate what logic I’m using and try to change the subject from your own analogy by using an even more deceptive and inaccurate analogy.
I mean, there’s no way that I could’ve guessed that when called on your bullshit, you’d try to change the subject.
Surprising!
Yet again, in case you plan on being honest any time soon (let me know so I can buy a lottery ticket):
It says quite a bit, since it exposed British military weakness, diminished the Empire’s prestige, and helped make it impossible for the Brits to retake lost territory after the war.-
And the British continued to lust for Malayan tin and rubber after the war, which was a complicating factor.
Here you’re left with “not as bad as the other guys”. It’s progress that you’re finally admitting pragmatism was involved in the British getting out of the colonies business, and if you want to hold onto the “superior morality” claim so that you can get a proper quiver down your spine whenever they play “Land Of Hope And Glory”, far be it from me to deny you.
Uh no, the only relevance of your lamebrained twittery to the Middle East is to suggest that in the case of someone who can so severely distort the history of British imperialism, it might be worthwhile to closely examine their claims about the Middle East.
Sorry I hurt your feelings. Remember, you’ll always have Rockall (it must have been a stirring ceremony - “We claim this rock in the name of the Queen”).
It’s ethno-nationalism. Many nations have so called “right of return” laws - Israeli detractors consistently paint this as something unique to Israel, but that is not the case:
You are incorrect when you say that the necessary criterion is “being a member of the Jewish faith”. What is required is being of the Jewish ethnicity - it is the same as all of the other, numerous nations (see link) which have “right of return” laws.
Actually, you were the one smirking about others’ lack of substance, while at the same time churning out posts devoted to personal insult, defense of your conspiracy-mongering and and inane hypotheticals.
Please don’t feel distracted from your mission of getting out the truth about U.S. Mideast policy, so that we may continue to be vewy vewy careful about possible infiltration of Israeli agents in U.S. government and avoid future bridge collapses.
Your quoted burblings on the subject had to do with claims that a bunch of people affiliated with a think tank were Israeli spies infiltrating the government to bend foreign policy to their sinister ends. Not a guy who sold out his country for money back in the mid-80s.
Your kind of sweeping “they could be evahwhere, I’m not saying there’s a massive conspiracy but we can’t rule that out and we must be on our guard against them Dual Loyalty Joos” is the province of conspiracy wackos.
Whoa, big fella! Why wouldn’t we expect such, given that otherwise loyal Americans spied for the Soviets due to their unjustifiable loyalty to international Communism. Why would we refuse to contemplate such a loyalty on religious or ethnic grounds?
I consider myself a friend to Israel and largely sympathetic to her cause. At the same time, I find it reasonable to advance the notion that Israel has entirely too much influence on American policy, to an extent that is adverse to our interests.
Oh quit lying, would you? In the very post you linked (maybe you should have read it) I said this:
As I said before, my concern is not “infiltration,” so much as a concern that folks with Finn’s mindset (and yours, apparently) might have a tendency to conflate the interests of Israel with those of the US.
But hey, I know you would like to turn me into a wacky conspiracy theorist, the better to smear me (and the better to distract from the actual issues I’m raising). I know the drill. (By now, I guess Carter does too.)
