Dialogue in action
Today, about 200 Palestinians visited a Jewish settlement on the West Bank to have "an interfaith dialogue" with their Jewish brethren. YNet News has the uplifting story.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4080406,00.html
Of course, there is an eminent solution to all this. Come September, the next University of California Olive Tree Initiative will arrive on the West Bank, where students will "dialogue" with all concerned. They will be given tours, lectures, wonderful luncheons and dinners. Hopefully, nobody will be kidnapped, raped or killed by the gracious hosts.
"Let's rap."
Hopefully, someone involved in the Olive Tree Initiative or the University of California Risk Management section will come to their senses and realize that they are sending American college kids into harm's way. You know what that means, don't you? Somebody could get hurt.
It sounds like a morally justified operation. Whether is was a wise move is debatable. There are a minority of Jews sufficiently arrogant to think they can move onto any piece of land they want, anywhere west of the Jordan River, and thumb their noses at anyone who objects. This variant of Jew is the greatest danger to Israel ever being accepted by its neighbors. Israel should lock them up before Palestinians feel a need to drive them away themselves.
ReplyDeleteWhat would your average Second Amendment American citizen do if he or she found a band of pious religoius fanatics encamped on said citizen's private property?
If you are talking about a Palestinians private property, I am with you. The West Bank is disputed territory not occupied territory.
ReplyDeleteGary, that is sophistry worthy of Joseph Goebbels. First of all, most of the land in the West Bank is the PRIVATE property of some person(s) or family(ies), no matter WHAT government has sovereignty.
ReplyDeleteSecond, the same UN resolution that partitioned the former British Mandate of Palestine into Jewish and non-Jewish areas, which is what the Jewish agencies sought, did set aside some of the land for the non-Jewish residents. There is some question as to exactly which acres.
The West Bank was not under Israeli jurisdiction prior to 1967, and was militarily seized and occupied at that time. Israel might have summarily annexed it then, but that is out of the question now.
If you look again, the 200 or so people who came to burn down the tents and chase away trespassers were people who had, or whose neighbors had, a PRIVATE claim to the land in question. The Jewish settlers claimed the same rights that gold miners claimed when they invaded the Black Hills in the late 19th century (in violation of an explicit treaty). The fact that the Seventh Cavalry backed up the gold miners does not make it a wholesome precedent for Israel to follow.
Private property is different than sovereignty over property. I own my own home as private property but the U.S. has sovereignty over it.
ReplyDeleteIf an arab lives on land or even if he has legal title to it the sovereignty over the land is an entirely different matter.
Sovereignty, as I have explained a number of times here before, comes about in a number of possible ways. They are by (right of ) conquest with too many examples to list; by purchase from another sovereign, such as Alaska or the Louisiana Purchase; by Treaty with another sovereign such as those treaties with Mexico, Spain, etc.
Primarily, those living in a defined area have to have enough commonality among themselves that they can distinguish themselves from others with a common cause and they are willing and able to take and defend the land from all others... such as what happened in the American Revolution and when Israel declaring its own state in 1948.
Now it seems that what is allowed and acknowledged as sovereignty in all other countries in the world (who have their own histories of other people occupying the land before them as well as border disputes), that sovereignty that they all enjoy as a matter of undeniable right and historic precedent, is denied to the Jewish state.
Not allowing to Jews what is allowed to all other people is the essence of anti-Semitism.
.
Miggie, as usual, you lecture at great length on what is commonly understood, and prove your opponent's point, all the while too oblivious to even notice.
ReplyDeleteThe distinction between sovereignty and private property is precisely the distinction I pointed out. Gary tried to evade that obvious fact that the private owners of property, and their immediate neighbors, were acting to repulse the acts of private individuals who were trespassing on that property.
Gary tried to insinuate, which may be your intention also, that any question as to sovereignty instantly trumps the claim to private ownership. Properly applied it could, but the government of Israel did not exercise eminent domain by right of conquest. It winked and looked the other way as individual fanatics tried to trespass, claiming to be acting in The Name of The Jewish People.
Nowhere in the world can private individuals do that, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, not even the Amish.
Your islamonazi friends gave up all rights to any part of Israel the last three times they invaded Israel and attempted to "push the Jews into the sea". Considering the fact almost a million Jews have been ethnically cleansed from Muslim states in the Mid-East and N. Africa
ReplyDelete(often with little or no compensation for properties left behind) I don't really have any tears for the Islamonazis in the W. Bank or Gaza.