4321lynx
Veteran Member
^ ^
That's what I said, with different examples a few pages back.
That's what I said, with different examples a few pages back.
-
Features
Why do Zionost Jews have a right to have the state of Israel in its present form?
- Thread starter Will Wiley
- Start date
Will Wiley
Veteran Member
Naive and unjust ideas like yours are what keep us in trouble.
Wouldn't it be far better for the Israeli's to say..."something wrong happened, let's try to find a fair solution.
Your solution just prolongs the problem rather than dealing with it
Jayjay
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,173
- Location
- Finland
- Basic Beliefs
- An accurate worldview or philosophy
Sure, it would be better for Israel as well as anyone else (Palestinians, the surrounding Arab nations, and international community at large) to find a fair solution to the refugee problem. Close-minded insistence that land transfer is the only solution is what prolongs the problem. Also it is not productive to blame one side for everything that has happened since the original wrong.
Crazy Eddie
Veteran Member
The ability to kill someone is not an indicator of social, political, economic or military power. A horse can stomp a man to death, but it can't lobby the Knesset for animal rights.
No, I said the absence of power is absolute. It would be one thing if this was a border dispute between two rival countries with a disparity in military power and political influence at the United Nations, where one country had the capacity to impose -- at great cost -- its will on the other.
But that isn't the case here. Israel is an occupying force on territory it does not own; its military, courts and police forces operate with impunity in Palestinian territories and the Palestinians lack even a valid legal framework in which to protest this situation. In short, it isn't two governments with a disparity of power, but a SINGLE government ruling over two different groups of people, one of whom is not granted any actual power.
Because it's not about finding a solution, it's about chipping away at Israel.
The ability to kill is power. If you have no power you can't kill.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 40,341
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Perhaps what is needed is a modern edict in international law which, like the 1275 Statute of Westminster, establishes a starting date before which all claims are void.
Between 1275 and 1832, in English Law, a person who could establish the existence of any right (including but not limited to the right of ownership of land) since the reign of Richard I (6 July 1189), did not have to further justify his claim; And any claims of theft, misappropriation, or abrogation of land or other rights, that occurred prior to that date, were dismissed as 'before memory'.
The selection of the date of 6 July 1189 was in part intended to disestablish claims of title or right granted by earlier (perhaps disputed) monarchs and their aristocrats; But it is also notable that the date chosen was 86 years prior to the date of the act - no living person could have recalled personally taking advantage of a right that became void under the act (few lived to 85 years in 13th century England, and none to the 100 years necessary to have exercised rights as an adult in the 1180s, and to recount the experience to a court in 1275).
Perhaps an International Court of Human Rights ruling that no disputes or claims prior to (say) the 11 November 1918 will be considered, would help to resolve things; If you can prove you (or your ancestors) were illegally dispossessed since that date, then your claim might be considered; but prior to that date, you are out of luck.
Of course, the advantage that England had in 1275 was that the King was an absolute dictator and owned both the land (and in a very real sense, many of the people) as his private property; So there was little quibbling about which date to choose.
Today, picking a date would be as big a shit-fight as the issue that this is trying to resolve.
Perhaps if we can get a full century of relative peace under our belts, then some time in the 2050s or 2060s a ruling could be made that eliminates claims for actions prior to the end of the Vietnam War in 1975; or in the 2080s or 2090s we could rule everything prior to the collapse of the USSR to be void.
"He took my land!" is a claim that needs to be considered, and if proven, redressed.
"His dad took my dad's land!" probably is too.
"His granddad took my granddad's land!" probably isn't practically repairable, unless excellent records exist. Compensation might be better and easier than trying to reverse the original crime.
"His great-granddad took my great-granddad's land!" is a rousing call to arms for people who hold a grudge; but it's not the sort of claim that it is practical to try to redress, other than through financial compensation - and if enough time has elapsed, today's beneficiaries of the crime may be impossible to identify, so it's probably best to use taxation to collect the money for compensation payments - particularly for thefts on the grand scale, such as the establishment of whole new countries.
In all of this, Israel is a bit-part player; The US, Canada, Australia, and most of Sub-Saharan Africa are the main areas where this sort of thing needs to be applied; The relatively tiny scrap of territory that is modern Israel is of little importance, other than to people who have religious reasons for caring about stuff that really isn't their business. An evangelical loon in Ohio whose support for Israel is based on the desire to bring about Armageddon; or a Pakistani nutter who wants to see Al-Aqsa cleansed of infidels, really shouldn't be taken notice of - even if he has millions of like-minded comrades backing his crazy rants.
Between 1275 and 1832, in English Law, a person who could establish the existence of any right (including but not limited to the right of ownership of land) since the reign of Richard I (6 July 1189), did not have to further justify his claim; And any claims of theft, misappropriation, or abrogation of land or other rights, that occurred prior to that date, were dismissed as 'before memory'.
The selection of the date of 6 July 1189 was in part intended to disestablish claims of title or right granted by earlier (perhaps disputed) monarchs and their aristocrats; But it is also notable that the date chosen was 86 years prior to the date of the act - no living person could have recalled personally taking advantage of a right that became void under the act (few lived to 85 years in 13th century England, and none to the 100 years necessary to have exercised rights as an adult in the 1180s, and to recount the experience to a court in 1275).
Perhaps an International Court of Human Rights ruling that no disputes or claims prior to (say) the 11 November 1918 will be considered, would help to resolve things; If you can prove you (or your ancestors) were illegally dispossessed since that date, then your claim might be considered; but prior to that date, you are out of luck.
Of course, the advantage that England had in 1275 was that the King was an absolute dictator and owned both the land (and in a very real sense, many of the people) as his private property; So there was little quibbling about which date to choose.
Today, picking a date would be as big a shit-fight as the issue that this is trying to resolve.
Perhaps if we can get a full century of relative peace under our belts, then some time in the 2050s or 2060s a ruling could be made that eliminates claims for actions prior to the end of the Vietnam War in 1975; or in the 2080s or 2090s we could rule everything prior to the collapse of the USSR to be void.
"He took my land!" is a claim that needs to be considered, and if proven, redressed.
"His dad took my dad's land!" probably is too.
"His granddad took my granddad's land!" probably isn't practically repairable, unless excellent records exist. Compensation might be better and easier than trying to reverse the original crime.
"His great-granddad took my great-granddad's land!" is a rousing call to arms for people who hold a grudge; but it's not the sort of claim that it is practical to try to redress, other than through financial compensation - and if enough time has elapsed, today's beneficiaries of the crime may be impossible to identify, so it's probably best to use taxation to collect the money for compensation payments - particularly for thefts on the grand scale, such as the establishment of whole new countries.
In all of this, Israel is a bit-part player; The US, Canada, Australia, and most of Sub-Saharan Africa are the main areas where this sort of thing needs to be applied; The relatively tiny scrap of territory that is modern Israel is of little importance, other than to people who have religious reasons for caring about stuff that really isn't their business. An evangelical loon in Ohio whose support for Israel is based on the desire to bring about Armageddon; or a Pakistani nutter who wants to see Al-Aqsa cleansed of infidels, really shouldn't be taken notice of - even if he has millions of like-minded comrades backing his crazy rants.
Crazy Eddie
Veteran Member
That's a good point.
Crazy Eddie
Veteran Member
No, the ability to kill is a function of existence. Even a bacterium can kill a person.
But we were discussing "power" in the context of two competing states with incompatible land claims and political interests. A bacterium has no more power in this context than a Palestinian has.