next »

[pyshnov]

zharkov,
I am talking about different thing, about what happens after they have "done their share of butchering each other". And that makes all the difference, makes reconciliation possible. Don't you agree that the war in the Middle East, even though for some periods of time seeming to go slow and pointless, does not have an end in sight?

[solly]

pyshnov,zharkov.

I have often argued that Christianity's major contribution to Human Thought is the concept of forgiveness being an act that blesses the forgiver in equal or larger measure than the forgivee.

A lack of compassion/forbearance seems to be the major obstacle when we discuss resolution to the ME conflict. In other words, solution to the problem is relatively easy, the question is, will the parties let go of the mountain of hostility that has accumulated over the past 60 years.

I am no apologist for Christianity but I did applaud the previous Pope's action in visiting and forgiving his would-be assassin and I did see merit in the Tutu Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

One possible "middle way" for moderate Palestinians and Israelis might be the establishment of a bi-partisan organization given the weight of U.S. sponsorship - a flag under which the moderates of both sides could gather and exert pressure on the hard-liners.

It's Christmas. Maybe the season of goodwill is softening my thinking!!

Happy Christmas to you and all Chronicle supporters. Let us all hope for a momentous 2007 in which some of these conflicts will be resolved.

[zharkov]

zharkov,
I am talking about different thing, about what happens after they have "done their share of butchering each other". And that makes all the difference, makes reconciliation possible. Don't you agree that the war in the Middle East, even though for some periods of time seeming to go slow and pointless, does not have an end in sight?

Peace is possible, IMHO, if there are people of good will on both sides willing to work for peace.

The Camp David Accords come to mind, the peaceful inclusion of Blacks in the S. Africa power structure, the IRA decommissioning its weapons.

 

[hanan]

Professor Wolfe argues that a private entity that refuses to provide a platform for the expression of arguably anti-semitic rhetoric engages in “censorship.”  Nonsense.

History is replete with the skillful dissemination of false propaganda which ultimately led to the suffering and death of millions.  Words are not harmless. 
 
Tony Judt holds that the Jews, a nation whose origin is over 3,000 years old, are not entitled to a state of their own.  Curiously, Judt makes no such argument for any other nation in the world.  He is certainly entitled to express his misguided opinions.  No one, however, has an obligation to provide him with a means to do so.

[depauluniversit]

Let us ask some basic questions. Does Israel have a right
to exist ? Is Israel a historically valid territory and nation?
 What would happen if Israel decided to withdraw to the
original borders of 1947? Why do we not question the arbitrary
establishment of other countries, especially those set up by The
Treaty of Versailles? Why were Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Iraq
and Jordan, to name just a few, more valid as nations than Israel?
Before the establishment of the state of Israel the Grand Mufti of
Jerusalem called for the elimination of Jews and allied himself with
Hitler. Before the 1967 war and the occupation, Arab leaders were
calling for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people.

[pyshnov]

And here are the basic (based on law) answers to depauluniversit:

Does Israel have a right to exist ?

No, not in these borders.

Is Israel a historically valid territory and nation?

The territory is valid, but not as a property of Jews. A valid nation? Of course, yes, whenever Jews want to call themselves Israel.

What would happen if Israel decided to withdraw to the
original borders of 1947?

If it had decided to do this soon after 6-day war as Golda Meir promised, the result would be nothing extraordinary. If now - it may be that Arabs will demand more, like 1947 borders or even say Jews can't live there after all that happened.

Why do we not question the arbitrary establishment of other countries, especially those set up by The Treaty of Versailles?

Because we are now talking about Israel. There are specifics here, like banditism continuing for half a century.

Why were Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Iraq
and Jordan, to name just a few, more valid as nations than Israel?

They were not a bit more valid, they just did not have the specifics referred to by me above.

Before the establishment of the state of Israel the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem called for the elimination of Jews and allied himself with
Hitler. Before the 1967 war and the occupation, Arab leaders were
calling for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people.

Well, Israel allied itself with US, stole there 200 kilos of uranium-235 and became "the Goliath in the Middle East" as Pres. Reagan said after he was badly deceived by Israel in the Iran-Contra affair and found this out.

[pyshnov]

Sorry, in the previous my post I took 1947 border as 1968 border. I apologize and make correction; it should read:
Arabs now might say Israel has no place there after all that happened. But, the withdrawal must be done. The reparations must be paid, remorse shown and the process similar to de-nazification that took place in Germany after the war must take place in Israel. A nation of Jews, valid to other nations not only historically, but by its present behaviour, must be established. South Africa is the right example.

[depauluniversit]

In reply to pyshnov, according to you every nation has a
right to exist except Israel. Regardless how these nations came to be, either by theft of lands, invasions, massacres, or artificially created, it is Israel which is the only bandit nation. This is the reason Jews are super sensitive about criticism of Israel. Even those,
such as myself who abhor many of her actions, begin to suspect a tinge of anti-semitism because it seems that only the Jewish people have no legitimate rights anywhere on earth.

[pyshnov]

depauluniversit:

In reply to pyshnov, according to you every nation has a
right to exist except Israel.

No, I did not say this.

Regardless how these nations came to be, either by theft of lands, invasions, massacres, or artificially created, it is Israel which is the only bandit nation.

Regardless of how many states came to existance by atrocities and
other illegal means, Israel stole land, invaded its neighbors, massacred people, and, indeed, is a state (mind you, state, not nation) artificially created.
You are playing game with the word "nation"; there is difference between state and nation. If Jews want to call themselves Israel, they are still a nation, not state. There was, of course, the nation of Israel in the past.
What I am talking about is that Israel is an illegitimate state that could have earned legitimacy if it behaved differently. But this does not make the Jewish nation an illegitimate nation, I never said such absurdity.

This is the reason Jews are super sensitive about criticism of Israel.

As I understand it, Jews are supersensitive for many reasons, part of them - politically created hysterics spread in the community by dishonest nationalists.

Even those, such as myself who abhor many of her actions, begin to suspect a tinge of anti-semitism because it seems that only the Jewish people have no legitimate rights anywhere on earth.

If you abhor..., talk about this. Say where you really stand.

"...a tinge of anti-semitism..."? You did the litmus test? And it showed some red spot instead of cahol-lavan (blue-white, an Israeli flag) all over?

"...it seems that only the Jewish people have no legitimate rights anywhere on earth." If you could avoid the wild hysterical exaggerrations like this, I think, you would be left with approximately the same conclusions as mine.

[zharkov]

What I am talking about is that Israel is an illegitimate state that could have earned legitimacy if it behaved differently. But this does not make the Jewish nation an illegitimate nation, I never said such absurdity.

I'll admit I'm totally lost here.....

How does a state become illegitimate?  What does it mean for a state to be illegitimate?  Who gets to decide? What other states are illegitimate?

I would figure that a state recognized by the UN, like Israel, would be considered legitimate.

[mikesrollingrock]

I have no problem in finding the heart to talk about Isreal. Isreal is a beacon of hope in the Middle East. It is the only solid democracy that shares common yet different values with the United States. Ironically from what I understand in listening to much older and wiser family members of mine, Isreal holds the keys to promise and disaster depending on how she decides to navigate in their internal affairs and of coarse this comes from a man who's past German brothers fought and slain each other as American freedom fighters and SS Nazis a like along the shore sides of Normandy. Isreal must do what is in the best interests to their national security bordered by hostile Islamic extremists. On the contrary their are numerous virtuous loyal Isreali muslims too. I agree that Isreal is a tolerant bi-religious state and Isreal will only reeact aggressively when struck and threatened out of due survival instinct. Jews have been persacuted through out millenia and only until the brink of their complete anialation by Stalin and Hitler (Stalin killed more Jews than Hitler) have they learned to take such threats to a high degree of seriousness and rapid retaliation follows automatically out of sheer survival instinct. I can't blame them. Hamas, Islamic Gihad and scores of other radical elements must be held accountable for their actions and true intentions of spreading forcefully the rule of Islam globally. Iran who funds such radical elements should be dealt with soon. The Iranian people are not the problem, however their current leadership is. Isreal is surrounded by enemies who want to commit genecide upon their people and will the first time Isreal presents any weaknesses. I am not Jewish, however I can sympothise with the Jews and their current state of affairs. Arabs who support Al Queda, Hamas, Islamic Gihad, Hezbolah and several other "great Satin" organizations must be terminated and will be by a new World united front that is currently being organized in the underground to punish found terrorists by terminating their family members as punishment towards their affiliation to such extreme organizations. Queer delusional terrorists have no problem in terminating themselves for a warped cause, however they might think twice when the IRA picks off all of their family members for their affiliations and mortal sins. This front is well funded and growing impatient with ignorant French, German and Belgian led influences of ignorance. This organization which has over 15 billion dollars raised is only waiting to see if the United States can pull off humane discipline in quaranteening the problem. Should the United States fail then the 6th response Crusade will commense with 100% brutality and resoluteness. Bin Laden maybe correct that the United States is a bunch of pussy f*** quitters, but what Bin Laden failed to realize is that approximately 2 billion people out of 6 billion in population will not tolerate forcefull Islamic expansionism and we have completely recognized many years ago of what their true intensions are and we will wield the sword to stop it. 2 billion supporters with 15 billion US capital and no care of what the BBC or Communist Network News (CNN) thinks. Islam should find and abolish the radical movement because the Crusade movement that I have heard about is very much so real and present. History seems to always repeat itself and no one seems to learn.

[pyshnov]

zharkov:

How does a state become illegitimate?  What does it mean for a state to be illegitimate?  Who gets to decide? What other states are illegitimate?

I would figure that a state recognized by the UN, like Israel, would be considered legitimate.

I hope it is clear that an international body can not create a new state for some people on a territory that belongs to another people and despite their protest. By creating Israel, the UN  exceeded its jurisdiction quite brutally. UN decision was not based on any law. It was contrary to the principles of justice. No court can make such decision. Therefore, the state created in such manner is illegitimate.

UN transferred the land to the new state and it handed the fate of the population to the new Jewish Government. Moreover, it did this when it knew damn well that Jews were committing terrorist acts on this land since the 20's. In one instance they blew up King David Hotel in Jerusalem where 100 Britons died. UN also knew that Israel will accept masses of Jewish immigrants from other countries: the new state was created not for the people who lived there, but for the people who will come there! I don't think there is a need here to list the circumstances, extremely complicated, involved in the creation of Israel, but, whatever they were, the fact remains that the Arab interests, their property rights and simply their right to survive were totally  ignored. This act of UN was justified by the terrible results of war in Europe, but it started the war in the Middle East. One of the first acts of this war was this: Israeli ordered all inhabitants of the village DerJasin to come out of the houses and shot them all.

Indeed, as you ask, who gets to decide? Well, whatever the decision could be, it could not have been such a legal absurdity as it was. No one at the time could guess how it will affect the rest of the world; civilized world celebrated a solution of Jewish problem, but now, Arabs know this decision as the start of their Holocaust. And the rest of the world hasn't seen yet all the consequences of this UN decision.

The State of Israel, having set foot on the land, provoked Arab reaction and, using the reaction as an excuse, expanded its borders and began in earnest fulfilling Biblical prophecies, occasionally threatening the world with annihilation. It fully proved that the UN decision was illegitimate.

I previously noted that Israel could have earned legitimacy. We should remember that before 6-day war Jews had better people than those who were running Israel. This war, I mean - the victory, was the end of civility in Jewish community.

[zharkov]

zharkov:

How does a state become illegitimate?  What does it mean for a state to be illegitimate?  Who gets to decide? What other states are illegitimate?

I would figure that a state recognized by the UN, like Israel, would be considered legitimate.

.....

Indeed, as you ask, who gets to decide? .....


I previously noted that Israel could have earned legitimacy. .....

Thanks for your response, but you really haven't answered my questions.

I really don't know what you mean by legitimacy.  Forget Israel for the moment, and please explain, in general:  (1)  Who gets to decide whether a state is legitimate.  and (2) How a state earns legitimacy.

It would be helpful to give a couple of example of legitimate and illegitimate states, again not mentioning Israel.  And what distinguishes their categorization.

 

[pyshnov]

zharkov, I will try to answer your questions.

I really don't know what you mean by legitimacy.

Legitimacy, I mean, is being in agreement with the law. Or, in the absence of relevant law, the word can mean "in agreement with principles of justice". In the particular application it can mean "in agreement with principles of democracy", although I myself think the use of this meaning can be biased.

Now, I missed in the previous posts to say what aspect of the "state" in question I consider illegitimate. I said that I (obviously) do not consider territory or population illegitimate, but I missed to say that "illegitimate" refers to state as a unit of administrative organization and jurisdiction (I hate to look in a dictionary, they would say it better).

(1)  Who gets to decide whether a state is legitimate.

Everybody who wants to get his voice heard. Others may disagree. One country can say: legitimate! but another says: illegitimate! The same international body might say: legitimate! today but might say: illegitimate! next year. In international affairs there is no one who "gets to decide" because there is no upper body or office who has unconditional jurisdiction to approve/disapprove the decision, or has unconditional jurisdiction to enforce it. The status of countries within international bodies is only membership. When US disagreed with some UN positions, it said UN won't dictate us and threatened to stop paying its dues to UN.

(2) How a state earns legitimacy.

Well, this is very simple. Of course this issue can arise only in the case when other countries previously had refused to recognize the legitimacy of a certain state. And then, if these countries, particularly the neighbours are important, change their opinion, establish diplomatic relationships with the state in question, then it obviously earned its legitimacy (well, I actually wouldn't know how it earned it, may be just bribed others, or the leaders of others, or even the central broadcasting in respective places, I don't need to go into this).

It would be helpful to give a couple of example of legitimate and illegitimate states, again not mentioning Israel.  And what distinguishes their categorization.

Here, I can not give you examples since my knowledge of particular situations is unsatisfactory. But instead I can offer some hypothetical situation where I would not be obliged to give much detail, and I would guess that similar situations not only possible, but probably already happened and more than once.

Let's suppose that a part of Great Britain containing considerable Irish population separates into a new state. I believe the first thing we will hear would be the words "illegitimate state". Britain might say a lot of things and conclude that the new state has no right to exist, and the people who organized it had no right to declare it. Then, a few years pass and the opinion changes: Britain no longer says that the organizers were a gang that ignored the will of the population. There were elections and they showed satisfaction with the new division in the countries involved, etc., etc. At this point it would be reasonable to say that the new state earned its legitimacy, wouldn't it?

In fact, we are witnessing many attempts to establish new states in different places. I don't think that questioning the legitimacy of a state is unusual.

[alqahiri]

Anti Semitic baiting is the main reason few are willing to candidly discuss the Zionist Occupation Force of Palestine. Jews are a sacred cow in American society thanks to the influence of the Zionist lobby.If you oppose the Zionist Occupation Force, you're labeled an anti-Semite, people want to run away from such labels and therefore refrain from discussing it.

The Holocaust is the same thing, few are willing to take a critical look at the role of Zionists in aiding Hitler, at why Jews were so hated in Europe or even consider the fact that many rich Jews turned poor Jews over to the Nazis to save their own skins, or how wealthy Jews helped capture communists. Jewish collaboration with the Nazis is a no no as well.

Instead, American academia focuses on calling anyone who questions such issues, loony, ignorant, controversial and other euphemisms for persona non grata.

Lesson number 1, don't rock the boat.
Lesson number 2, a post modern approach which says nothing but claims to say everything is your safest bet if you want to be seen as a part of the in crowd.