Subject:
|
Re: Israel and Palestine
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 Oct 2001 12:42:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
603 times
|
| |
|
|
Daniel Jassim wrote:
> > This is still hypothetical... but if
> > the pre 1948 Jewish (and other) immigrants just came in and shoved people
> > off their land instead of buying their way in, that HAS to be fixed.
>
> Zionists always dispute the fact of land theft by saying that they "fairly"
> purchased the land from the British. This is a piss poor argument because
> the British themselves were invaders and they eventually left. To say that
> such transactions were legitimate is to say I can steal your car and sell it
> to someone else making it legally theirs. I don't believe in that sort of BS.
One of the issues I have raised is at what point do we accept the acts
of conquest. No one can document that they own their land free and clear
of ANY conquest. Conquests of territory started before the invention of
writing. So at some point, we have to accept the status quo. The
question is where do we draw the line, and what rules do we use to
evaluate competing claims.
> > Further I support the notion of trying (within limits, as Frank said) to find
> > and correct past injustices to the extent practical. That may well mean
> > unwinding a *lot* of land transactions in the US for example... I'd rather
> > do that and get closure, than continue to grant a blank check of guilt about
> > it to the chattering classes...
>
> True. I get the feeling Frank views the Israel/Palestine situation as
> parallel with our dealings with Native Americans. However, there is a big
> difference here, namely that much less time has passed in the Middle East
> and the Palestinians overwhelmingly outnumber the Israelis.
I certainly do see parallels between Israel/Palestine and the USA/Native
Americans. One reason I am making this parallel is that it is helpful to
look at other situations to see if the "rules" used to make an analysis
in one place hold up in another. You point out two significant
differences though, so to address them:
- time frame: 50 yrs vs 100-225 yrs
Is it reasonable to draw a line at 50 years or so? I guess one reason is
that with a 50 year line, one can actually draw the line as "previous
title holder is still living"
- number of people:
Does the fact that we almost wiped out the Native Americans eliminate
their claim?
There's a third difference you didn't mention
- documentation of ownership
For Israel/Palestine you are talking about honoring deeds which exist on
paper (possibly with supporting witnesses). The Native Americans concept
of property was significantly different and had no paper documents. On
the other hand, we also have treaties which both parties signed which
have been ignored by the USA.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Israel and Palestine
|
| (...) Sure. I have no doubt that property deeds in Palestine changed hands just the same as property in Anytown, U.S.A. People there moved and sold their homes and farms just like anyone else. (...) No, I'm not saying that and neither are the (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
117 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
