Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.
--Nietzsche
But, I agree with you on Israel’s right to exist. As my dad used to say, “That land was bought and paid for.”
“Have you seen the rainbow bridge of the superman?”
-Nietzsche.
Nebuli, I agree that agriculture is not a justification for eviction. I didn’t mean to imply that–witht he Death Valley reference I wasn’t considering the previous inhabitants (mostly because it never had any).
How about another example. An area of land, say in eastern Europe for example, has been occupied by several different ethnic groups over the past thousand years. War has been a way of life for that millennium, with one group rising up against another every few decades. The land remains undeveloped to any great extent because wars keep trashing things.
Then, eventually, amidst all the back and forth, one group ends up on top. Not unusual, except this time the group on top, instead of just trying to solidify its position and exterminate its enemies (as tradition would dictate), manages to create farms where there were none. Manages to employ people constructively, even its traditional enemies. Manages to stabilize trade and raise the standard of living for everyone.
It’s a pipe dream in Yugoslavia. But it can be argued to be the case in Israel. And that was kinda my point. And I think it was blessedwolf’s as well. I really didn’t interpret what he said about the kibbutz as attempted justification of anything, but I understand how you did.
-andros-
Well. I don’t like your example. So neener. Or better yet, let me change it around slightly.
You have an area of land where several ethnic groups are living more or less peacfully under imperialist rule. The imperialist government decides to favor one over the others and creates a country for it. They pump in tons of money, they support it, and they bring in a lot of alien people to help settle the land. This country is supprted by the imperialist government htat has kept your people oppressed. It represents everything you hate. It manages to stabalize trade and raise the standard of living for it’s own people. At the same time your people are condemned to poverty, it a few exceptions. What do you think the attitudes will be?
Andros- maybe I was reading too much into the remark in this, but it was because I’ve often heard remarks such as “the Arabs made it a desert, while we made the desert bloom” used as justification for taking the land.
As far as the example you proposed above- as I’ve already stated, if a people occupy a land and a new generation is raised there with no other home, I believe it would be unjust to try to evict them at that point (how efficiently they might be using the land is sort of besides the point).
oldscratch:
If you really think that this was anything like British behavior in the time leading up to the creation of the State of Israel, you’re nuts. Let’s break it down point by point here:
[ul][li]The imperialist government decides to favor one over the others and creates a country for it. The British Palestinian mandate included both the countries now known as Israel and Jordan. Britian sliced off 70% of that land and handed it over to the Arabs as a gift, the country of Transjordan (since renamed Jordan). Then, on the small piece of land remaining, they supported a plan to make half of it a Jewish state and half of it an Arab state.[/li][li]They pump in tons of money, they support it The British handed over all military resources they left behind in Palestine to the Arabs. Money for Zionist development did not come from the British government, although individual British civilians (Montefiore, Rothschild) certainly contributed greatly).[/li][li]**and they bring in a lot of alien people to help settle the land.**The British severely limited Jewish immigration to Palestine, even in the middle of the Holocaust. They routinely sank ships carrying Jewish refugees.[/ul][/li]
Yeah…Jews and democracy.
The standard of living of Arabs inside Israel and under Israeli occupation is light-years beyond that of Arabs in any Arabic country.
Well, from the propoganda you spouted, their attitudes would certainly be hostile. And considering that in the countries most Arabs live in, there’s no freedom of the press, that, and not reality, is what they hear.
Chaim Mattis Keller
Nebuli, oldscratch, please bear in mind that I am not arguing that my example is the case, but that it’s used as a sound argument by others.
Personally, I don’t see the need for Israel to justify its existence. It’s there, case closed, AFAIC. I think it has an obligation as a state to take care of its citizens, certainly, and there have been instances of eviction and squatting that I vehemently disagree with.
Nebuli, I’m a little confused by one thing. You said:
While I agree with that, it’s easily extrapolated into universal squatters’ rights. That is, by this reasoning, anu people that manages to occupy land for a generation owns it. Is that an accurate impression, or am I missing something?
And oldscratch:
I’m over it.
I would like to know why you don’t like it, though.
Andros said:
Yes, that is a correct view of my position. I realize that it seems to reward successful theft- and I’m not very comfortable with that. But I believe that any other position would lead to even worse results. If there is not a statute of limitations then just about every square inch of Earth’s surface is in dispute- many in overlapping dispute. If one accepts the need for a statute of limitations, when does it become effective? If we allow it to be any arbitrarily chosen point, then of course each party to a dispute will scream that it should whatever date is most favorable to its own claim, and will not accept any other.
The standard which seems best to me, because it would result in the shortest period of legitimate warfare and the fewest innocent victims, would be when the first generation wholely innocent of the original theft reaches maturity it is time to stop the struggle. Making them pay for the sins of their fathers would be no better than the original theft. Better that the resources which would go into armed struggle at that point go instead to intergrating the former inhabitants and their offspring into their new homes.
Of course they should also receive compensation from the people who took their former homes- as I believe Israel has offered to negotiate.
The fact that such situations cannot possibly be resolved in a manner really fair to all innocent parties if left to fester for more than a short time gives added impetus to the need to prevent such land grabs in the first place.
[And I certainly realize that getting this agreed to as an international standard is a pipe dream- I am merely stating what would be the best policy in my view.]
just passed over two pages of posting; sorry if i missed anything; bet it was extended by a bunch of crap rooted in I don’t like hebs.
On the morning of 9-11 I was on my way to work.
That morning I was working on some ammo storage racks on the way to Israel.
I worked harder than ever. Israel has been dealing with that crap for 50 years - I hope my work has helped to fight the terror that Israel has been dealing with every damn day!
Peace,
Steve