Post Reply
Page 1 of 5  •  1 2 3 4 5 Next
Switch to Forum Live View The Israeli-Palestinian Peace Thread
2 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 8:34AM #1
Lilwabbit
Posts: 2,845
History aside, why can't Israel be justifiably concerned that they're surrounded by nations that continue to question its very existence?

History aside, why can't Palestinians be justifiably concerned that their rightful lands are still being forcefully grabbed from them?

Can anyone offer objective evidence as to why one or the other concern is illegitimate or based on fiction?

Kind regards,

LilWabbit   
"All things have I willed for you, and you too, for your own sake."
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 9:26AM #2
JAstor
Posts: 3,957

Apr 5, 2012 -- 8:34AM, Lilwabbit wrote:

History aside, why can't Palestinians be justifiably concerned that their rightful lands are still being forcefully grabbed from them? 



Some questions to help answer you question:


- Please define "rightful." What makes it rightful?


- Please define Palestinians. Who are the Palestinians?


- Is it possible to distinguish between the rights of individuals and the group you refer to when you Palestinians? In other words, just because some individuals have rights does that mean that the group has the same rights, if any rights at all?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 9:31AM #3
rocketjsquirell
Posts: 15,354

Apr 5, 2012 -- 8:34AM, Lilwabbit wrote:

History aside, why can't Israel be justifiably concerned that they're surrounded by nations that continue to question its very existence?

History aside, why can't Palestinians be justifiably concerned that their rightful lands are still being forcefully grabbed from them?

Can anyone offer objective evidence as to why one or the other concern is illegitimate or based on fiction?

Kind regards,

LilWabbit   



Lilwabbit


You start from false assumptions and will end up with false conclusions.


1. Israel is and always has been concerned that it is surrounded by countries which question its very existence (It is also concerned that there are many other countries around the world which for a variety of unsavory reasons question its existence) It has and is taking steps to address that problem.


2. There are NO "rightful" "Palestinian" lands and not a single square inch of land has ever been grabbed from the "Palestinians"  In fact, the "Palestinains have grabbed more than 70% of the Jewish national homeland.


3. The remarkable thing is that Israel is prepared to give even more of its land to the "Palestinians" in the hope that at long last their voracious appetite might be sated and that the "Palestinians" and the rest of the Arab Muslim world will finally accept the legitimacy of the Jewish State. 


4. The sad thing is that the "Palestinians" and the rest of the Arabs still insist on taking every last square inch of Israel away from the Israelis. (the newest re-tread in the steal Israel/destroy Israel plan is the so called one state solution)

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 9:39AM #4
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

Apr 5, 2012 -- 9:26AM, JAstor wrote:


- Is it possible to distinguish between the rights of individuals and the group you refer to when you Palestinians? In other words, just because some individuals have rights does that mean that the group has the same rights, if any rights at all?



That also speaks to the "Jewish" adjective in the notion "Jewish state".


Should groups have special status beyond being a sum of individuals?


If so, is there any reason to assume a difference between the group of Arabs living in the area, and the group of Jews living in the area, concerning "rightfulness"? If so, which and why?

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 9:53AM #5
JAstor
Posts: 3,957

Apr 5, 2012 -- 9:39AM, CharikIeia wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 9:26AM, JAstor wrote:


- Is it possible to distinguish between the rights of individuals and the group you refer to when you Palestinians? In other words, just because some individuals have rights does that mean that the group has the same rights, if any rights at all?



That also speaks to the "Jewish" adjective in the notion "Jewish state".


Should groups have special status beyond being a sum of individuals?


If so, is there any reason to assume a difference between the group of Arabs living in the area, and the group of Jews living in the area, concerning "rightfulness"? If so, which and why?




You make a fair point, in my opinion. But if neither side has group rights, then I think all you have left is Ken's mantra that might makes right. 

Moderated by Miraj on Apr 05, 2012 - 12:09PM
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 10:24AM #6
Lilwabbit
Posts: 2,845

Apr 5, 2012 -- 9:53AM, JAstor wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 9:39AM, CharikIeia wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 9:26AM, JAstor wrote:


- Is it possible to distinguish between the rights of individuals and the group you refer to when you Palestinians? In other words, just because some individuals have rights does that mean that the group has the same rights, if any rights at all?



That also speaks to the "Jewish" adjective in the notion "Jewish state".


Should groups have special status beyond being a sum of individuals?


If so, is there any reason to assume a difference between the group of Arabs living in the area, and the group of Jews living in the area, concerning "rightfulness"? If so, which and why?




You make a fair point, in my opinion. But if neither side has group rights, then I think all you have left is Ken's mantra that might makes right. 




By rightful I meant international law. Despite its evident flaws, it's the closest thing we have to an impartial legal ruling. Can someone claim that a unilateral ruling by Israel or the PA is more impartial? If not, then we can rightfully appeal to the next best thing: A multilateral ruling.

Moderated by Miraj on Apr 05, 2012 - 12:10PM
"All things have I willed for you, and you too, for your own sake."
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 10:50AM #7
JAstor
Posts: 3,957

Apr 5, 2012 -- 10:24AM, Lilwabbit wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 9:53AM, JAstor wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 9:39AM, CharikIeia wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 9:26AM, JAstor wrote:


- Is it possible to distinguish between the rights of individuals and the group you refer to when you Palestinians? In other words, just because some individuals have rights does that mean that the group has the same rights, if any rights at all?



That also speaks to the "Jewish" adjective in the notion "Jewish state".


Should groups have special status beyond being a sum of individuals?


If so, is there any reason to assume a difference between the group of Arabs living in the area, and the group of Jews living in the area, concerning "rightfulness"? If so, which and why?




You make a fair point, in my opinion. But if neither side has group rights, then I think all you have left is Ken's mantra that might makes right. 




By rightful I meant international law. Despite its evident flaws, it's the closest thing we have to an impartial legal ruling. Can someone claim that a unilateral ruling by Israel or the PA is more impartial? If not, then we can rightfully appeal to the next best thing: A multilateral ruling.



Imo, international law has proven itself to be more than flawed, but at times outright manipulative, and especially when it comes to Israel and International bodies such as the United Nations. Impartial is impartial, whether it's from the Israelis, the Arabs or the international bodies such as man-made entities like the United Nations and its "international law." 


E.g. international law calls Jerusalem "occupied" since 1967. Yet, before 1967, when Jordan held on to it via war and unilateral annexation it was not considered occupied or criticized for it. And there are so many other examples of this that it would take tomes to fill. International law is a fickle cow.


That's my real opinion.


Now, can it have its uses? Yes. And if I were leader of Israel I'd of course do my best to be diplomatic about the situation, sending delegates to discuss and maybe even shape international law, etc.


But I would not -- not for a half of a fraction of a nano-quark of a second -- put the lives of my people in the hands of others. 


Moderated by Miraj on Apr 05, 2012 - 12:11PM
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 1:35PM #8
Lilwabbit
Posts: 2,845

Apr 5, 2012 -- 10:50AM, JAstor wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 10:24AM, Lilwabbit wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 9:53AM, JAstor wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 9:39AM, CharikIeia wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 9:26AM, JAstor wrote:


- Is it possible to distinguish between the rights of individuals and the group you refer to when you Palestinians? In other words, just because some individuals have rights does that mean that the group has the same rights, if any rights at all?



That also speaks to the "Jewish" adjective in the notion "Jewish state".


Should groups have special status beyond being a sum of individuals?


If so, is there any reason to assume a difference between the group of Arabs living in the area, and the group of Jews living in the area, concerning "rightfulness"? If so, which and why?




You make a fair point, in my opinion. But if neither side has group rights, then I think all you have left is Ken's mantra that might makes right. 




By rightful I meant international law. Despite its evident flaws, it's the closest thing we have to an impartial legal ruling. Can someone claim that a unilateral ruling by Israel or the PA is more impartial? If not, then we can rightfully appeal to the next best thing: A multilateral ruling.



Imo, international law has proven itself to be more than flawed, but at times outright manipulative, and especially when it comes to Israel and International bodies such as the United Nations. Impartial is impartial, whether it's from the Israelis, the Arabs or the international bodies such as man-made entities like the United Nations and its "international law." 


E.g. international law calls Jerusalem "occupied" since 1967. Yet, before 1967, when Jordan held on to it via war and unilateral annexation it was not considered occupied or criticized for it. And there are so many other examples of this that it would take tomes to fill. International law is a fickle cow.


That's my real opinion.



Your opinion is both personal and unilateral and international law is neither. Neither is international law perfectly impartial. But it is more impartial than you. You haven't offered any objective evidence for international law being more partial than the unilateral view of the Israelis and the Palestinians. Neither have you offered any objective evidence for the Jews to have any more rights to the land than the Palestinians. Hence, since both groups have been living in the same land, both can claim to have a right to live there. Hence, a unilateral building of settlements without the other party having any say on the matter is a legitimate concern on the Palestinian side. Prove to me that it's not by appeal to objective evidence or reasonable moral principle? 


 

"All things have I willed for you, and you too, for your own sake."
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 2:08PM #9
JAstor
Posts: 3,957

Apr 5, 2012 -- 1:35PM, Lilwabbit wrote:


Your opinion is both personal and unilateral and international law is neither.



We disagree about this. (The latter; I don't deny that my opinion is... well... my opinion....)


Apr 5, 2012 -- 1:35PM, Lilwabbit wrote:


Neither is international law perfectly impartial.



Which is another way of saying it's not impartial. Not impartial is not impartial. In part or in whole. (You've got to be impressed with the usage of alliteration there, no?) 


Apr 5, 2012 -- 1:35PM, Lilwabbit wrote:


But it is more impartial than you.



How do you know? But it doesn't matter how partial or impartial I am. It's not relevant to the conversatin. Not impartial is not impartial. Whether from me or the human beings and opinions that construct international law -- and certainly the human beings who sit on a court and try to interpret/apply it. 


Apr 5, 2012 -- 1:35PM, Lilwabbit wrote:


You haven't offered any objective evidence for international law being more partial than the unilateral view of the Israelis and the Palestinians.



It may not be. But not impartial is not impartial.


Apr 5, 2012 -- 1:35PM, Lilwabbit wrote:


Neither have you offered any objective evidence for the Jews to have any more rights to the land than the Palestinians.



I haven't, from a secular point of view.


Apr 5, 2012 -- 1:35PM, Lilwabbit wrote:


Hence, since both groups have been living in the same land, both can claim to have a right to live there.



From a secular point of view, it can just as easily be said that neither side can claim to have a right to live there.


Apr 5, 2012 -- 1:35PM, Lilwabbit wrote:


Hence, a unilateral building of settlements without the other party having any say on the matter is a legitimate concern on the Palestinian side. Prove to me that it's not by appeal to objective evidence or reasonable moral principle?



I agree with you. It's not. By the same token, by what right does the Arab side have to stop them? Or build settlements of their own there?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 2:22PM #10
Lilwabbit
Posts: 2,845

Apr 5, 2012 -- 2:08PM, JAstor wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 1:35PM, Lilwabbit wrote:


Your opinion is both personal and unilateral and international law is neither.



We disagree about this. (The latter; I don't deny that my opinion is... well... my opinion....)



You disagree that international law is multilateral and impersonal? That's simply a false claim. You can claim it is not perfectly impartial, but you cannot prove it is unilateral and personal. Smile

"All things have I willed for you, and you too, for your own sake."
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 5  •  1 2 3 4 5 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook