Understanding the Evacuation of Gaza Strip: An In-Depth Discussion

[Smurf]

Don't be too harsh TSM, you were new once too.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Don't be too harsh TSM, you were new once too.

You think I have changed or has the board changed with me?

 

[Smurf]

satirical smiley now properly added. we really shouldn't be so mean though

 

[Curious6]

The Smoking Man, your reply clearly demonstrates a frustrating sense of ignorance. I refuse to keep talking to a man who won't understand or expand his horizons to take a glimpse at the meaning involved in what I said. Keep creating straw men and hassle them, but until you take a valid shot at my arguments you don't have the leading edge in this discussion.

 

[Curious6]

Anyways, it seems pointless to talk to someone who can't even comprehend why 1492 was a turning point in the ethnic composition of the regions of the world.

 

[The Smoking Man]

The Smoking Man, your reply clearly demonstrates a frustrating sense of ignorance. I refuse to keep talking to a man who won't understand or expand his horizons to take a glimpse at the meaning involved in what I said. Keep creating straw men and hassle them, but until you take a valid shot at my arguments you don't have the leading edge in this discussion.

LOL ...

You are creating a reputation for yourself far worse than 'straw men'.

You are trying to explain a legal issue with bogus science.

Your feigned 'education' has nothing to do with land ownership. It is GENETICS not real estate law.

You do know the difference don't you?

Your frustration is with the fact that your science is an observation of nature and has no basis in LAW.

Your frustration stems from the fact that you can't actually attack my argument since your evidence is irrelevant and self contradictory.

You don't even know the facts about what degree I hold and you turn on your self-promoting device ... your mouth ... and refuse to look at the arguments against your whole approach which is based on the fact that you have an 'interest' and have read some books!?

Tell me before you go: What does genetics have to do with land ownership?

People, unlike animals who require habitat to support their existence can survive by changing their habitat in other locations ... and ... they have free will.

The people who you refer to LEFT the area in question 2,000 years ago. THEY DECIDED to abandon their homeland. (Like the Innuit of Canada)

Cripes, if I own a house in London and don't have anyone in it and some squatter moves in, HE gains the right to live there.

You are contending that people who have not even seen the place, who speak with a New York English accent, Russian, German and a host of other languages (and don't speak the local dialects) have the right to come into an area with an indiginous population where THEY were born, boot them off their land and set up their own nation and laws based on 2,000 year old dilluted freaking genes!?

Somebody should make you eat those textbooks of yours for all the good they are doing you.

Maybe the extra fibre will make you a tad less anal.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Anyways, it seems pointless to talk to someone who can't even comprehend why 1492 was a turning point in the ethnic composition of the regions of the world.

LOL ... 1492 merely brought North America into our perceived world.

The rest of the world was accessible by foot and ridiamentary boats.

Again, do some research into the ASEAN nations for the migration of cultures. Heck, read something by Thor Heyerdahl. They are always good for a laugh.

I actually watched a mildly interesting program on the National Geographic Channel the other night exploring the 'myth' of the Amazons and how this race of warrior women had moved through Europe.

It was surprising to see them take a sample from a burial site in western Europe in a female warrior grave and a genetic sample from a young blonde Mongolian girl in northern China and find that the two were genetically related. (This was supported by designs in cultural artifacts too so it wasn't a case of beong 'boffed' by a recent explorer).

So, does she have land rights in Europe or do Europeans have land rights in Mongolia?

Now if that is what you refer to as a 'straw man' then you are sadly mistaken.

It has the SAME academic validity as your claim with one exception: YOUR eyes do not see the word JEW in any of the evidence.

Now, if you want to test your theory ... This is your control experiment.

Argue this young girl's case as fervently as your current infatuation.

And remember she has actually had genetic samples taken where most of the people you talk about have a theoretical claim, a gun and a picket sign to prove their genetics.

 

[Curious6]

The Smoking Man, you can keep holding onto your obstinate thoughts as hard as you want to, but your posts (in case anybody else hadn't really noticed) are just a bunch of false accusations, an array of straw men arguments, and what's probably worse, a (futile) attempt to prove your superiority.

 

[Yonoz]

You told us you bought the lands from Palestinians, so why are you leaving them now?

First, let me clarify - some posters are rather chronologically and geographically erratic and it's hard to keep track of the actual subject. I was referring to the lands settled before Israel's independence - the Gaza Strip was conquered in the 6-day war in 1967. There were pre-independence settlements in the Gaza Strip but those were evacuated when Egyptian forces overran them, and the rebuilding of those was the beginning of the post-1967 settling of the the Gaza Strip. I'm not sure about the status of the lands the newer settlements were built on, but I can tell you most of them resided on vacant sand dunes, of no use to anyone until they were developed by the settlers. You can look at aerial photographs of the Gaza Strip, such as the ones on Google Earth, and see this for yourself.
I cannot speak for Israel - I'm not a spokesperson and we do not have a collective conscience. Israel's unilateral disengagement from the Gaza Strip is mainly the brainchild of Ariel Sharon. You can read his address to the nation (and other disengagement documents) and make up your own mind as to his reasons. As a left-wing Israeli I can say we have been waiting for this moment for a long time. It's not a happy action (it's actually sadder than I thought it would be), but a necessary one. From an Israeli standpoint, the primary argument in favour (and the one that Israelis who share my views have been trying to get other Israelis to understand) is that it's necessary for Israel's future. I won't go into the reasoning for this as it seems no one here really wants Israel to have a future. The other arguments in favour are quite obvious - it is a very valuable concession to be made, and hopefully it will strengthen Mahmoud Abbass' control over the territories and enable him to act more vigorously against terrorist organisations such as Hamas. This will pave the way for a stable peace process, and I am hoping nothing will get in the way. It is a very delicate time and there are many forces who are trying to harm the chances for peace. You can see that even as Israel is carrying out an unprecendented move, there are already attempts to diminish its significance and various leaders are already shouting out threats to keep attacking Israel until it withdraws from the last bit of what they consider Palestinian land.

And another question, sure enough Palestinians didn't sell Kods too. So what are you doing there?

Kods? Maybe you mean al-Quds - the Arabic name for Jerusalem. (do you speak Arabic?)
Israel held the Western part of Jerusalem since the War of Independence. According to the UN Partition Plan, Jerusalem was to be internationalized. Since war broke out, it would have been unacceptable for Israel to reliniquish its part of Jerusalem and leave the other in Jordanian hands. The rest of Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount, was taken in the 6-Day War and is actually managed and controlled by the Waqf as it was before Israel held it. The Temple Mount is the holiest site in Judaism (it is mentioned countless times in the Old Testament, but not even once in the Qur'an and nor is Jerusalem), and the fact that Israel has kept the Islamic control over it proves beyond a doubt it has no aims to rebuild any sort of Biblical Jewish empire. We just want to live peacefully and we have just uprooted several of our own communities for that purpose, and nothing else.
[Added:]Furthermore, when Jerusalem was taken no one was removed from their lands. Eastern Jerusalem is still predominantly Arab-populated.[/Added]

And you say we're in lands which we bought from Palestinians, I heard that you were going to stretch Israel. Even Egypt would be part of Israel. So are you going to buy all these lands even from Egypt?

I think I already answered that question. No sane Israeli wants to stretch Israel. If you'd like to direct me to whatever source gave you that idea I would be happy to comment on it.

 

[The Smoking Man]

The Smoking Man, you can keep holding onto your obstinate thoughts as hard as you want to, but your posts (in case anybody else hadn't really noticed) are just a bunch of false accusations, an array of straw men arguments, and what's probably worse, a (futile) attempt to prove your superiority.

And THAT was a pure ad hominem attack not addressing a single point brought up in my previous post.

You brought in Genetics to this argument and when I present you with a case where DNA was actually taken and processed, YOU accuse me of creating a 'straw man'.

I have attempted to debunk your 'genetics myth' about the right of people to own land and you constantly walk away from the controversy stating you have had superior knowledge because you 'read some books' and it is an 'interest of yours'.

You have yet to prove that genetics is a basis for land ownership and since that has been your only argument so far, you have failed in your task.

You have resorted to personal attacks and accusations of 'straw men' when you have been questioned as to how your theory would be applied.

Please for once and for all cite SOMETHING that states genetics is a basis for land ownership.

 

[Lisa!]

I won't go into the reasoning for this as it seems no one here really wants Israel to have a future.

It's strange that you think no one wants Israel to have a future. And if what you're thinking is right, so perhaps there's something wrong with Israel or with them.

Kods? Maybe you mean al-Quds - the Arabic name for Jerusalem. (do you speak Arabic?)

No, I don't speak Aabic.
Is that true that Israel attacked prayers while they were praying in Al-Quds?

I think I already answered that question. No sane Israeli wants to stretch Israel. If you'd like to direct me to whatever source gave you that idea I would be happy to comment on it.

I said I just heard it. If I was sure about it, I wouldn't ask you.

 

[Lisa!]

Yonoz, you are always talking about peace, so what do you want to tell us about what happened in Sabra and Shatila in 1982 by Ariel Sharon and lots of similar events?
I myself have no information about that and I just found it through web. Don't tell me, only Sharon is guilty about it.

 

[Yonoz]

Is that true that Israel attacked prayers while they were praying in Al-Quds?

I can't recall any such incident right now but if you can be a little more specific maybe I can find out.

Yonoz, you are always talking about peace, so what do you want to tell us about what happened in Sabra and Shatila in 1982 by Ariel Sharon and lots of similar events?
I myself have no information about that and I just found it through web. Don't tell me, only Sharon is guilty about it.

The Sabra and Shatila massacre was carried out in September 1982 by Lebanese Maronite Christian Militias. This was during the Lebanese Civil War, a complex conflict in itself. To understand this topic fully there's a lot of reading to do, but to make a long explanation short: the PLO and the Israeli-supported Maronite Phalange were fighting each other during this civil war. The IDF invaded Lebanon in 1982 and for a while held Beirut, where the Sabra and Shatila camps are located. It was during this time that the Phalanges entered the camps, in coordination with the IDF under the pretext of clearing out PLO fighters, and massacred the civilian population, consisting mainly of Palestinians and some South-Lebanese. This was one in a series of massacres by the Maronites and PLO during the Civil War and was sparked by the assasination of Bachir Gemayel, the pro-Maronite president elect of Lebanon.
Following the massacre, Israeli public opinion swayed strongly against the war and government. An unprecedented number of 300,000 Israelis demonstrated in Tel-Aviv against the war and for the withdrawal of the IDF in a rally organised by the "Peace Now" movement. An official inquiry into the massacre headed by the Chief of the Supreme Court, the Kahan Commission, found Israel indirectly responsible for the massacre and recommended the Defence Minister - Ariel Sharon, Chief of Staff - Rafael Eitan, and the Director of Military Intelligence be dismissed, as they were. Ariel Sharon was prohibited from ever again serving as the Defense Minister. Sharon and was said to have fooled and disinformed the government, headed by Menachem Begin, into entering the war. Following the massacre and outcome of the war, Begin despised and felt betrayed by Sharon. He was so distraught, he spent the remainder of his life in seclusion. In 1991 the Israeli newspaper Haaretz published a story which claimed Sharon deceived Begin, and was sued by Sharon, who lost the trial.

Personally I feel the massacre is a terrible tragedy and is a shameful chapter in Israel's history - along with the rest of the Lebanese campaign. I know many Israelis feel the same way. However, the massacre is too often portrayed as if it was carried out or orchestrated by Israel - which is completely false. This becomes much clearer if you research the Lebanese Civil War, but that is very difficult as there are many factions and they all formed and broke alliances and carried out massacres on each other many times during the war, and so many people just follow their hearts and think all these claims are entirely true. The odd thing is that the actual perpetrators and orchestrators of the massacre lived in Lebanon after the war and never got a fraction of the hatred and attention that Israel did. Other massacres during the Lebanese Civil War and in Lebanon and Syria in general are largely forgotten. With all due respect to the unfortunate victims, it seems this massacre is cynically used to discredit Israel by its opponents, and that justice is not really sought - which is a rather sad metaphor for the role of the Arab and Israeli nations in the Palestinian tragedy.

 

[Smurf]

the Defence Minister - Ariel Sharon, Chief of Staff - Rafael Eitan, and the Director of Military Intelligence be dismissed, as they were. Ariel Sharon was prohibited from ever again serving as the Defense Minister.

Huh, and now he's serving as PM of Israel.. Kind of like that guy responsible for the nanjing massacre and then served as PM of Japan!

 

[Lisa!]

Yonoz, thank to be patient with my quuestion. I know it takes a lot time to answer them.

I can't recall any such incident right now but if you can be a little more specific maybe I can find out.

You mean it's never happened? Another thing, have you ever misrespected Islam?(I'm just asking I have no particular event in my mind)

The Sabra and Shatila massacre was carried out in September 1982 by Lebanese Maronite Christian Militias. This was during the Lebanese Civil War, a complex conflict in itself. To understand this topic fully there's a lot of reading to do, but to make a long explanation short: the PLO and the Israeli-supported Maronite Phalange were fighting each other during this civil war. The IDF invaded Lebanon in 1982 and for a while held Beirut, where the Sabra and Shatila camps are located. It was during this time that the Phalanges entered the camps, in coordination with the IDF under the pretext of clearing out PLO fighters, and massacred the civilian population, consisting mainly of Palestinians and some South-Lebanese. This was one in a series of massacres by the Maronites and PLO during the Civil War and was sparked by the assasination of Bachir Gemayel, the pro-Maronite president elect of Lebanon.
Following the massacre, Israeli public opinion swayed strongly against the war and government. An unprecedented number of 300,000 Israelis demonstrated in Tel-Aviv against the war and for the withdrawal of the IDF in a rally organised by the "Peace Now" movement. An official inquiry into the massacre headed by the Chief of the Supreme Court, the Kahan Commission, found Israel indirectly responsible for the massacre and recommended the Defence Minister - Ariel Sharon, Chief of Staff - Rafael Eitan, and the Director of Military Intelligence be dismissed, as they were. Ariel Sharon was prohibited from ever again serving as the Defense Minister. Sharon and was said to have fooled and disinformed the government, headed by Menachem Begin, into entering the war. Following the massacre and outcome of the war, Begin despised and felt betrayed by Sharon. He was so distraught, he spent the remainder of his life in seclusion. In 1991 the Israeli newspaper Haaretz published a story which claimed Sharon deceived Begin, and was sued by Sharon, who lost the trial.

Personally I feel the massacre is a terrible tragedy and is a shameful chapter in Israel's history - along with the rest of the Lebanese campaign. I know many Israelis feel the same way. However, the massacre is too often portrayed as if it was carried out or orchestrated by Israel - which is completely false. This becomes much clearer if you research the Lebanese Civil War, but that is very difficult as there are many factions and they all formed and broke alliances and carried out massacres on each other many times during the war, and so many people just follow their hearts and think all these claims are entirely true. The odd thing is that the actual perpetrators and orchestrators of the massacre lived in Lebanon after the war and never got a fraction of the hatred and attention that Israel did. Other massacres during the Lebanese Civil War and in Lebanon and Syria in general are largely forgotten. With all due respect to the unfortunate victims, it seems this massacre is cynically used to discredit Israel by its opponents, and that justice is not really sought - which is a rather sad metaphor for the role of the Arab and Israeli nations in the Palestinian tragedy.

Well I don't know wht to say. I guess Palestinians can never forget what happened in 1982 and makes it difficult to get the peace btw 2 groups.
Now whta do you think of Sharon? You've already answered my question, but I want to know how did he get to be your prime minister?

 

[Yonoz]

Yonoz, thank to be patient with my quuestion. I know it takes a lot time to answer them.

No worries. It doesn't take long to answer them, I work long hours and have other things to do on my spare time.

You mean it's never happened?

I mean your description is very broad, and I cannot think of a particular event that meets it - maybe you can be more specific?

Another thing, have you ever misrespected Islam?(I'm just asking I have no particular event in my mind)

Again, that's a very broad statement. I don't think Israel as a State can ever misrespect Islam, there have been disrespectful actions by Israelis, but not as a state policy.

Well I don't know wht to say. I guess Palestinians can never forget what happened in 1982 and makes it difficult to get the peace btw 2 groups.

Each side has its own reasons to keep fighting - but that won't get us anywhere. The disengagement is a step towards peace - hopefully the Palestinians can put their anger aside and take meaningful positive action.

Now whta do you think of Sharon?

On a personal level, I do not like Sharon. I think he's corrupt and an opportunist. However, I cannot deny the disengagement is a brave move that requires great leadership. Very few Israelis thought that he would carry it out. We were very sceptical of his motives and thought it would be reduced or canceled due to the pressures from within his own party. It was carried out, and it was carried out well and on time. It was not an easy goal but he managed to achieve it, and that is something everyone should be thankful for (everyone but the settlers).

You've already answered my question, but I want to know how did he get to be your prime minister?

Sharon was elected to be Prime Minister in February 2001, following the fall of Ehud Barak's Labour government. The elections came at a time Israeli public opinion was very much fed up with Palestinian inaction to stop terrorists and repetitive rejection of Israeli offers at negotiations. Israelis felt betrayed by the Palestinian violence that followed what Israelis believe to be genuinely generous offers by the Labour government.
Israel is a parliamentary democracy - we vote for parties, not individuals. Ariel Sharon headed the center-right Likkud party. Since his party had the largest vote count, and thereby won the most seats in the Knesset, Sharon was given the task of forming the new government.

Huh, and now he's serving as PM of Israel.. Kind of like that guy responsible for the nanjing massacre and then served as PM of Japan!

It's a sad state, but unavoidable. Ariel Sharon could not have been prohibited from serving as Prime Minister, and this paradox is something that was often brought up during the elections and the start of his term.
It should be viewed as a sign of the state of distress of the Israeli society following the failure of the peace process. Simply because we don't send out suicide bombers and purposefully fire at civilians does not mean we are not disapproving of the current state of the peace process.

 

[Lisa!]

I mean your description is very broad, and I cannot think of a particular event that meets it - maybe you can be more specific?
Again, that's a very broad statement. I don't think Israel as a State can ever misrespect Islam, there have been disrespectful actions by Israelis, but not as a state policy.

Well I have no particular event in my mind, but I think if it's ever happened, no excuse would be accepted.

Sharon was elected to be Prime Minister in February 2001, following the fall of Ehud Barak's Labour government. The elections came at a time Israeli public opinion was very much fed up with Palestinian inaction to stop terrorists and repetitive rejection of Israeli offers at negotiations. Israelis felt betrayed by the Palestinian violence that followed what Israelis believe to be genuinely generous offers by the Labour government.

Don't you think that Sharon could cause people feel bad about Israel since Palestinians claim that he's a war criminal?

 

[Yonoz]

Well I have no particular event in my mind, but I think if it's ever happened, no excuse would be accepted.

Why would it happen then?

Don't you think that Sharon could cause people feel bad about Israel since Palestinians claim that he's a war criminal?

Maybe so but who's got the right to tell Israelis who to elect?

 

[arildno]

Maybe so but who's got the right to tell Israelis who to elect?

I'm sure you're happy with the Austrians electing Kurt Waldheim as president..

 

[Yonoz]

I'm sure you're happy with the Austrians electing Kurt Waldheim as president..

I'd love to answer that question but every time I bring up the holocaust I'm greeted by a bunch of eye-rolling "stop trying to win sympathy" comments.

 

[arildno]

I'd love to answer that question but every time I bring up the holocaust I'm greeted by a bunch of eye-rolling "stop trying to win sympathy" comments.

Since, in fact, the holocaust is utterly irrelevant as to the moral judgments to be made in regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, such eye-rolling will often be justified.

 

[vanesch]

Unfortunately there are 1.4 million Palestinians who would then be homeless compared to less than 8000 jews. Maybe not so fair.

That's why one should NOT evacuate them before nuking :-)

 

[Yonoz]

Since, in fact, the holocaust is utterly irrelevant as to the moral judgments to be made in regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, such eye-rolling will often be justified.

So you may bring up the subject but any anwer on my behalf will be discarded as irrlevant...
BTW considering your previous ethnic cleansing comments I would be very doubtful of any "moral judgment" by yourself.

 

[arildno]

To say that holocaust in any way is mitigating for the ways Israelis have treated Palestinians is about the same as saying:
"Aaw! I had such an awful childhood! Hence, I have the right to become a serial killer!"

 

[Lisa!]

well Yonoz, I think my question is almost finished now. Thank you to spend time to answer them.

Why would it happen then?

I don't know why I thought I heard of that.

Maybe so but who's got the right to tell Israelis who to elect?

No one, but you know when people elect a criminal war, well it causes others feel bad about these people too and think they may support him in doing his crimes.

 

[vanesch]

You are contending that people who have not even seen the place, who speak with a New York English accent, Russian, German and a host of other languages (and don't speak the local dialects) have the right to come into an area with an indiginous population where THEY were born, boot them off their land and set up their own nation and laws based on 2,000 year old dilluted freaking genes!?

I think they have that right, for the following reason. There are 3 ways to gain legal land ownership:
- go to unoccupied land and claim it (given the finite size of the Earth, that's finished now)
- make a deal with the previous occupier (he gives it to you, you buy it, it's an agreement for any other reason, with mutual consent)
- have bigger guns (or friends with bigger guns) and oust the previous occupier. Often, in this case, tell a story about the reason why this was justified morally. The last point is an option, you don't have to; what counts is the size of the gun.

Israel is based upon a mixture of the 3: the Brits were the previous occupiers, there was unoccupied desert land and all the rest they took with bigger guns. There's nothing wrong with that, this is how land has changed owners since early history. The gene story is part of the option.

 

[Yonoz]

well Yonoz, I think my question is almost finished now. Thank you to spend time to answer them.

You're welcome.

I don't know why I thought I heard of that.

Yeah there's a lot of stuff like that going around - sometimes half-truths, sometimes blatant rewritings of history. Just remember there's 2 sides to every coin, and try and understand not everyone has interest in peace.

No one, but you know when people elect a criminal war, well it causes others feel bad about these people too and think they may support him in doing his crimes.

Maybe, but try and see what brought a large part of a nation to elect this person you allege is a war criminal. Additionaly, so far he's carried out a very brave and difficult concession that others before him could not. Maybe it wasn't such a bad choice?

 

[Smurf]

There's nothing wrong with that, this is how land has changed owners since early history. The gene story is part of the option.

Notice that in modern times we're trying to move away from this and use more humane, more moral methods of interacting in the world. Everyone thought slavery was okay 100 years ago too, you wouldn't justify slavery with the same argument.

"It's always been this way" is not a justification.

 

[Lisa!]

Maybe, but try and see what brought a large part of a nation to elect this person you allege is a war criminal. Additionaly, so far he's carried out a very brave and difficult concession that others before him could not. Maybe it wasn't such a bad choice?

Well perhaps you're right. But I don't know if it would make getting the peace btw 2 sides more difficult. He reminds Palestinians of what happened in 1982.

 

[vanesch]

Notice that in modern times we're trying to move away from this and use more humane, more moral methods of interacting in the world. Everyone thought slavery was okay 100 years ago too, you wouldn't justify slavery with the same argument.

"It's always been this way" is not a justification.

You should look upon things in a more historical perspective
The 20th century will maybe be remembered as that strange epoch when slavery was considered "bad" and when power was not thought to come out of the barrel of a gun. Just a short pause in the natural course of things.

Edit: also, also... all our wealth, current "legal" situation and so on is simply the result of historical "powerful guns". So it is easy to say that others shouldn't act that way, while you're still profiting from those acts by your ancestors.

 

[Smurf]

You should look upon things in a more historical perspective
The 20th century will maybe be remembered as that strange epoch when slavery was considered "bad" and when power was not thought to come out of the barrel of a gun. Just a short pause in the natural course of things.

Well, now that we've established that the future is going to be exactly like the past and the current is just a temporary retrieval from it, we should all just give up trying to be nice and slaughter each other in the search for glory and power.

Edit: also, also... all our wealth, current "legal" situation and so on is simply the result of historical "powerful guns". So it is easy to say that others shouldn't act that way, while you're still profiting from those acts by your ancestors.

What is this? Some sort of guilt argument? You might be able to make this argument for someone from France or Britain or especially the US, but I think you'll be hard pressed to show Canada's 'big guns' bringing it any wealth at all, let alone showing myself being a direct beneficiary of it.

But that is all pointless anyways as this is an ad hominem argument.

 

[arildno]

hmm..there weren't any Englishmen or Frenchmen in what became Canada??

Can't see vanesch's point, though.

 

[Smurf]

Also Vanesch, slavery first started being abolished in the 18th century.

 

[Smurf]

hmm..there weren't any Englishmen or Frenchmen in what became Canada??

Well if we're going to trace it back beyond borders you mine as well state that we all originate from prehistoric hunter gatherer tribes in which case none of us have not gained from the belligerent acts of our ancestors, so we're all guilty. Therfor, by logical extension we're all equally credible, just because our ancestors did better than yours doesn't make yours any more credible. Blah blah blah.

Can't see vanesch's point, though.

Yes, that's because there obviously isn't any point to it or anything that has come of it, as I have hopefully just demonstrated.

 

[vanesch]

Well, now that we've established that the future is going to be exactly like the past and the current is just a temporary retrieval from it, we should all just give up trying to be nice and slaughter each other in the search for glory and power.

Because the current is not "slaughter each other in the search for glory and power" ? I think the argument "be nice now" is often just used to negociate status quo. By the one who has advantages in keeping status quo.

What is this? Some sort of guilt argument? You might be able to make this argument for someone from France or Britain or especially the US, but I think you'll be hard pressed to show Canada's 'big guns' bringing it any wealth at all, let alone showing myself being a direct beneficiary of it.

But that is all pointless anyways as this is an ad hominem argument.

I don't see how this is "ad hominem" ?? I only wanted to argue that "legal possessions" are, in many cases, just a historical artifact. There's nothing wrong with that, but there is no deep moral justification for "ownership", especially for "ownership of land". You just happen to own it and the other one doesn't, and we've set up an entire system (legal system) which uses force just to keep it that way because it seems tidy. By what fundamental ethical standards do some people possesses fortunes and others die of hunger ? Did they start out in the same conditions and one had "merit" and the other one "blew it" ? No, we've just instored a kind of game, in which certain people, for historical reasons, "possess" stuff, and others don't and when someone doesn't agree with that, he gets to deal with a lot of violence. However, if he WINS the violent conflict, then he now has gained the new possessions he was fighting over. Some play according to those rules, and increase their havings, creating more possessions for their kin. Again, there's nothing WRONG with that, but it hasn't gotten any fundamental moral basis.
So there is no "fundamental right" for people calling themselves Jews to claim a part of the ME, except that they WON it through conflict, in the same way the colonists in northern America WON the land from the native people over there, or made agreements with them or whatever, and won it from their parent nations (like the Brits).

The only right Israel (like any nation) has to exist, is that it exists, and is strong enough (both military, and with alliances) to defy any other pretenders who don't have any right either to claim the land. The day they loose that strength, and, say, the palestians win, oust the Jews, and make an own state, well that Palestinian nation will then have the right to exist and we won't be talking anymore about Israel. The only difference between the current situation and the historical situation is that now, the power game is not only locally played with guns, but also with alliances negociated in the corridors of international organisations.