babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Return Israel-Palestine to the Greeks!

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Return Israel-Palestine to the Greeks!
Rgaiason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5752

posted 31 March 2006 04:28 PM      Profile for Rgaiason   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Let's see now...

The "Israelis" seized a bunch of land from which attacks had been launched against them, by force. Those lands should be returned to the people who controlled it before it was seized by force.

Prior to that, "Zionists" forcibly ejected existing inhabitants from lands in Israel-Palestine and occupied them. Those lands should be returned to the people who controlled it before it was seized by force.

But the British controlled those lands before ceding them to the Zionists, so they "belong to" the United Kingdom.

But the British seized those lands by force from the Turks, so they "belong to" Turkey.

But the Turks seized those lands from the Marmalukes, so they "belong to" Iraq.

But the predecessors of the Marmalukes, the Abbasids, seized those land from the Ummayads, so they "belong to" Syria.

But the Ummayads seized those lands from the Romans, so they "belong to" Italy.

But the Romans seized those lands from the Maccabees, so they "belong to" "the Jews".

But the Maccabees seized those lands from Alexander the Great's successors, the Ptolemies of Egypt and the Seleucids of Syria, so they "belong to" the Greeks.

But Alexander seized those lands from the Persians, so they "belong to" Iran.

But the Persians seized those lands from the Babylonians, so they "belong to" Iraq.

But the Babylonians seized those lands from the Assyrians, so they "belong to" a tribal configuration with no modern equivalent.

But the Assyrians seized those lands from the original Israelis, so they "belong to" "the Jews".

But the original Israelis seized those lands from the Philistines - who were Aegeans - so they "belong to" the Greeks! And the Philistines were given those lands by the earliest recorded political rulers of those lands, The Egyptians.

The only occupancy of those lands not initiated by violence is that of the Philistines. Therefore, those lands "belong to" Greece.


From: edmonton | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 31 March 2006 04:43 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, you have very successfully encapsulated the completely reidiculous notion of land claims that exist outside of actualy occupancy, and undercut the whole Zionist polemic. The fact is that it did not matter that Hadrian evicted the last of the Jewish population from Egypt and Judea in the second century, what is relevant is that when Ben Gurion showed up in Palestine their were people living there whose individual rights were violated.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rgaiason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5752

posted 31 March 2006 04:55 PM      Profile for Rgaiason   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Yes, you have very successfully encapsulated the completely reidiculous notion of land claims that exist outside of actualy occupancy, and undercut the whole Zionist polemic.

Now, now, Cueball...naughty of you to attempt to 'spin' this absurdist exercise...

You know very well that it undercuts the "Palestinian" polemic as well. Occupancy means this minute, right here & now or it means nothing at all.

Robin


From: edmonton | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 31 March 2006 08:16 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No you are wrong. There are old men in wheel chairs holding title deeds to property that Israel will not allow them to return too. It is called theft.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rgaiason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5752

posted 31 March 2006 08:47 PM      Profile for Rgaiason   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
No you are wrong. There are old men in wheel chairs holding title deeds to property that Israel will not allow them to return too. It is called theft.

But Cueball, you yourself said:"...the completely reidiculous notion of land claims that exist outside of actualy occupancy..."

By your own words, if those old men aren't occupying the property - right now - then the notion of their claim to the land is "ridiculous".

Do you only profess that to be true, if professing it furthers some other agenda or ideology that you hold? Or what?

Robin


From: edmonton | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238

posted 31 March 2006 09:09 PM      Profile for obscurantist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I understood Cueball's point to be that it matters whether a land claim based on occupancy is relatively recent -- is it something that someone is in a position to do something about now, or not?

I've heard the reductio ad absurdum applied to aboriginal land claims in North America as well -- "well, they came over from Asia on the Bering Land Bridge thousands of years ago, so they're not REALLY indigineous peoples of North America", or "So, should the Normans pay reparations for the invasion of 1066, then?"

The problem with the reductio ad absurdum in this case, as in the case of Palestine and Israel, is that it's being used to excuse an injustice that is occurring in the present tense. The dispossession of North American first nations from their traditional lands and resources is an ongoing fact, as is the dispossession of Palestinians from the land they occupied up until partway through the last century.

Full compensation for this dispossession might be impossible, or at least impractical, but that's no excuse for the current level of intransigence -- there's still a lot more that practically could be done.

[ 31 March 2006: Message edited by: Yossarian ]


From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Rgaiason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5752

posted 31 March 2006 09:49 PM      Profile for Rgaiason   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Yossarian:

Full compensation for this dispossession might be impossible, or at least impractical, but that's no excuse for the current level of intransigence -- there's still a lot more that practically could be done.

[ 31 March 2006: Message edited by: Yossarian ]


I absolutely agree with you! Nor am I insensitive to the plight of dispossessed persons anywhere on the globe. Nevertheless, the practical reality is: arguments about ownership based on historical occupancy are a form of living in the past. They are as absurd and meaningless as the apocolyptic argument for building more and more settlements.

In my opinion, nothing constructive can begin until there is a active willingness to live in the present moment. That means accepting the realities as they are right now, renouncing violence as a means of settling dispute and accepting outside arbitration of disagreement if necessary.

I don't see any of this as being a viable possibility at the moment. There are too many outside influences on both parties, attempting to use both the Palestinians and Israelis as proxies for irrational attempts to turn the clock back to imagined past glories or to irrationally race toward some imagined future glory.

Robin


From: edmonton | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 01 April 2006 12:26 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rgaiason:

I absolutely agree with you! Nor am I insensitive to the plight of dispossessed persons anywhere on the globe. Nevertheless, the practical reality is: arguments about ownership based on historical occupancy are a form of living in the past. They are as absurd and meaningless as the apocolyptic argument for building more and more settlements.


When can I come over and get your stuff. Once its gone I hope you are mature enough to not live in the past.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 01 April 2006 01:31 AM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rgaiason:
I absolutely agree with you! Nor am I insensitive to the plight of dispossessed persons anywhere on the globe. Nevertheless, the practical reality is: arguments about ownership based on historical occupancy are a form of living in the past. They are as absurd and meaningless as the apocolyptic argument for building more and more settlements.

In my opinion, nothing constructive can begin until there is a active willingness to live in the present moment. That means accepting the realities as they are right now, renouncing violence as a means of settling dispute and accepting outside arbitration of disagreement if necessary.

I don't see any of this as being a viable possibility at the moment. There are too many outside influences on both parties, attempting to use both the Palestinians and Israelis as proxies for irrational attempts to turn the clock back to imagined past glories or to irrationally race toward some imagined future glory.


The biggest problem is likely not even that the State of Israel exists, but rather, the ingrained Zionist-Racist Policies of the State of Israel which seeks "Racial Purity" and the expulsion of everything non-Jewish. If the Palestinians were allowed to live as citizens of Israel on the land they have owned for centuries, side by side with the Jewish newcomers, there probably would be a fair chance for peace. But instead the Israelis chose a path of extremism and expulsion, denying the Palestinians their right to their lands, citizenship, and work, and condemning generations to live in refugee camps in neighbouring countries. But the initial fault for the situation lies with the British who beat the Turks. But instead of liberating the Palestinians from Turkish rule, they disowned them of their own lands and took away their lands, and gave them to another group of people who hadn't lived in the Near East for nearly two millenia. The rest is history, and Palestinians are still embroiled in a struggle to gain back their homeland with the means available to them in the face of such overwhelming firepower.


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 01 April 2006 07:00 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rgaiason:
[QB] Nevertheless, the practical reality is: arguments about ownership based on historical occupancy are a form of living in the past. They are as absurd and meaningless as the apocolyptic argument for building more and more settlements.

So it would be acceptable for me to occupy your house while you are out and call it my own? I mean, the past is the past, even if it is just a couple of minutes, right? You're gonna be real Zen about the whole thing, right? Nice. I could use some new digs. BTW, does the same apply to articles besides real estate? For instance, if someone puts their coat on the hook at a party and I like it, can I take it since they aren't occupying it in the present moment?

quote:
In my opinion, nothing constructive can begin until there is a active willingness to live in the present moment. That means accepting the realities as they are right now, renouncing violence as a means of settling dispute and accepting outside arbitration of disagreement if necessary.

That's a nice spiritual/philosophical idea, but how do you arbitrate a solution to a disagreement without some history or a projected future (because the future is even more illusory than the past) of the disagreement/solution? Without temporal context (past, present and future) there is nothing but the status quo, and there is no basis for changing it if the past and future are inadmissable. In other words, without some sense that there has been a "wrong" or "right" committed (notice the past tense) how can their even be adjudicants?

Nihilism by any other name.

The question isn't about doing away with the past altogether, but deciding what is relevent history.
To my mind, ethnic and/or religious affiliation to someone who may have existed a thousand years ago is a heck of a lot different than being a living, breathing individual who has been wronged.

Actually, the real question is why I'm even bothering to respond to your drivel...

[ 01 April 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 01 April 2006 07:36 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Because it was the only way to make your eyes uncross?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rgaiason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5752

posted 02 April 2006 01:03 AM      Profile for Rgaiason   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:

Actually, the real question is why I'm even bothering to respond to your drivel...

[ 01 April 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


I'd have to agree, there's no point in trying to discuss the hogwash you've inferred from my very simple statements.

The point is: if complete resolution of what has been or what is to be are preconditions to disavowing violence then there is unlikely to ever be a genuine peace. Perhaps you disagree, perhaps you'd like to see violence continue until every last greivance has been resolved.

Sorry, but I'd choose Ghandi over Arafat any day of the week.

Robin


From: edmonton | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 April 2006 01:11 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Palestinian violence in no way negates Israel's obligation to compensate Palestinians for stolen property or return them to it. Nor does the violence of some Palestinians in anyway abrogate the rights of others as property rights are individual rights not collective ones.

You are not responsible for the crimes of Jewish white people in Israel, just by the fact of your whiteness (assuming you are white,) thus Arabs are not allowed to deny you your individual rights (move into your house because Israelis have taken theirs) just because you are white like the majority of Israelis. Likewise, individual Palestinian rights to their family property is not abrogated by the fact that other Palestinians have been violent.

You would have us believe that British exploitation of all Hindu people of India was justified on the basis that not all Hindus of India played nice nice with the British (killed them and so forth,) like Gandhi.

It is called callective punishment.

Try some scholarship or something. Get a book on "rights" collective and individual. And while you are at it check the spelling you are using for your hero Gandhi, who you purport to know os so much about.

[ 02 April 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rgaiason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5752

posted 02 April 2006 01:38 AM      Profile for Rgaiason   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

You would have us believe that British exploitation of all Hindu people of India was justified on the basis that not all Hindus of India played nice nice with the British (killed them and so forth,) like Gandhi.

I didn't say anything even remotely connected to your little fantasy there.

I also haven't said that there shouldn't be full resolution of greivances, in fact I did say there should be - with third party arbitration mechanisms of some kind if necessary. What I said was, acceptance of the current reality (i.e., no preconditions) seems necessary to a genuine peace.

quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

Try some scholarship or something. Get a book on "rights" collective and individual. And while you are at it check the spelling you are using for your hero Gandhi, who you purport to know os so much about.

[ 02 April 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


Ok. But first, you have to learn to spell "collective" and "so".

Boy, you're really offended about that "not serious scholarship" thing, eh? Geez. Look, how about if I say that memorization of religious traditions is the greatest acheivement of mankind, and that every Hamas party member is a genius in comparison to anyone who has ever served in our parliament. Happy now?

How old did you say you were?

Robin


From: edmonton | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 April 2006 01:42 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Old enough to stay off the how old are you gag.

No. I am begining to become offended at your smugly arrogant attitude. How nice of you to sit in Edmonton in your snug little home and talk about Arabs as if their leadership are all idiots, and their feelings about their property rights merely a matter of having the right "tude."

Moron. Go snow boarding.

PS: There is a difference between making typos, and lecturing us about your profound belief in someone whose name you can not spell.

[ 02 April 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rgaiason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5752

posted 02 April 2006 01:56 AM      Profile for Rgaiason   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

No. I am begining to become offended at your smugly arrogant attitude. How nice of you to sit in Edmonton in your snug little home and talk about Arabs as if their leadership are all idiots, and their feelings about their property rights merely a matter of having the right "tude."

[ 02 April 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


Speaking of sitting snug in your home - with all your devotion to "the cause" - why are you still here? Why aren't you in Gaza or the West Bank putting your mouth where your devotion to dogma is?

Robin


From: edmonton | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 02 April 2006 04:12 AM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
One of the things ignored by rgaiason is that while it is true there were many who laid claim to the land of Palestine, that didn't change the status of those who lived there.

They still owned the land on which they lived, just as domination by the Spanish, and then the English didn't change the status of North American aboriginals, except as they stole the land and forcibly moved the inhabitants.

Here in Canada we are dealing today with the legacy of crimes against humanity committed by the Europeans who ethnically cleansed the countryside. I believe it is commonly accepted that some level of recompense, or return of land, must be made in order to redress those crimes.

Those who ethnically cleansed Palestine have the same duty to those from whom they stole the land. At the very least, there must be a right of return for those pushed off their land.

To do less is to accept a montrous crime, and to reinforce the concept that might makes right.

In the end, there will be no peace until Palestine is a single country. All efforts to divide people along ethnic lines have failed, usually with a lot of death and destruction in the process.

I realize the idea of a united Palestine is probably a forlorn hope, but in the end it is the answer.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 02 April 2006 08:28 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:
Actually, the real question is why I'm even bothering to respond to your drivel...

Hey, listen. This is completely unnecessary. Gratuitous attacks like this out of the blue are the reason these threads go off the rails, so cut it out.

Actually, reading further, I see it's just degenerated into sniping anyhow (gosh, what a shock) so I'm closing it. Start a new thread without personal attacks if you want to discuss the issue.

[ 02 April 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca