Subject:
|
Re: Response to Misinformation (Some other perspectives on the tragedy)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 15 Sep 2001 16:16:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
889 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dan Boger writes:
> Bill Farkas wrote:
> > somebody else (but someone trimmed the attribution) wrote:
> > > If possession of land is respected in law, and U.S. law at least tends to
> > > favor use, then how is that any group (the U.N.) can give land to third
> > > group (Zionists) that was already resided upon by the Palestinians? Really
> > > you are just justifying U.N. hooliganism here...
> >
> > I didn't justify their actions. Just stated them as the catalyst.
>
> let me add to this then - there has _always_ been a jewish settlement
> in Israel. Way before 1948. And since the late the 1880s, there has
> been a secular-jewish settlemens in Israel as well.
Didn't those folks actually go in and buy land from people who they
sincerely and with good foundation believed to be the rightful owners at the
time (1) rather than settle lands from which the previous owners had been
evicted, which is the more traditional manner?
I think the beef that many (including myself) have with Israel about the
*current* settlements is that they are being (or at least appear to be
being) settled on land that was owned by someone else who was forcibly
evicted. Israel ought to stop that practice immediately.
Military force may well change who the government is, but it ought not to
change who the property owners are... they have a new government but still
ought to own the property, if they legitimately owned it before. To do
otherwise is to be a government not bound by rule of law. And Israel prides
itself on that, so ought to look long and hard at complying with that principle.
I think there is an interesting larger question here...
How do governments get legitimacy?
If the zionists who came in during the last century peacefully bought up the
land, and became the majority, did they have the right to constitute a new
government? Or is the only way to get a new government to have a revolution?
Is there no peaceful way to change? Or do you have to have a revolution to
throw out a dictator, THEN vote to change things and perhaps partition?
So was the partition of Palestine legitimate? If so, why? If not, why not?
Libertarian dogma says there ought to be, if the citizens of Maine for
example vote to secede, they ought to be able to do so rather than being
retained by force. But this, of course is the real world. The US tends to
support separatist movements, but with a lot of exceptions including in its
own case.
1 - yaay for them, in case you couldn't tell... that's the only just way to
do it.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
66 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
