perfectidius

Good question. My solution: pull all support from either side in any wars over there and worry about our own problems.

Daniel

perfectidius

Ah yes. While all this information is conceivably available on, say, wikipedia or the local library, it is nice to have somebody give it rather than talking about weird "social darwinistic rights inherit in English law."

I think the religions and ethnic groups associated with these areas are dangerous and exhausting. I distrust the entire fiasco.

Daniel

perfectidius

You are saying that the nobles had "the right" to flog peasants, that this was NOT unjust, and even right, and that this right of the nobles to flog peasants is equal in nature to the Jewish right to Palestine?




So its not illegal to conquer part of the world? Interesting. How big can this part of the world be? Can it be legally right for me to conquer my neighbors newspaper. If not, then tell me neighbors this!

You say my argument is a strawman (what argument?), then you say that might does make right because "their laws would be mighter than the governemnt that would try to conquer whatever they want." I have no clue what this means.

Its touching that you put the justness of conquering parts of the world in the domain of mere "opinion."

What you said in context was something about England having the right to give Palestine to the Jews. By this you apparently meant something about "legal" right, but why did you bring up Darwinism (later modified to social darwinism, arguebly something different entirely)?


Yes, if you speak of "power" and leave the term "right," I understand you. Apparently whoever "gave" Palestine to the Jews did have the power to do so, since apparently they "own" it.


Don't flower me with sweetness, you make me blush.


The story of the Exodus? Hmm. I will keep an eye to see if what you said has any truth to it.

Yes.


You will greatly impress me if you ignore whatever else I say.

[/QUOTE]
You are talking about "sides" "losing". Sides of what? And how does somebody win or lost at the game of social darwinism? I suppose everybody who died in the great world wars "lost" and everybody who survived "won"?

Solitary Man

No, I'm saying the exact opposite. I'm saying that the nobles had "the right", but that it certainly cannot be seen by 21st century standards as "right" or "just".

If no one could stop you, then of course you would have the right. Tell me, who said it was illegal for Britain to conquer the world? Remember, the United Nations wasn't around yet.

Precisely that the ultimate power has all the rights. So if no one could stop the British government from taking over, say, Palestine, then they have all the right to do so, from the British perspective. Can you stop them? No. However, if they could be stopped by their own laws, which they can now, but not then, then they don't have the right to. In other words, he who has the gold makes the rules. It's been a simple fact of life for millennia, and is the rule in kingdom Animalia.

Helps to be a moral relativist.

I brought up Darwinism as the basis for the might is right fact of life. You seem to confuse and conflate everything together.

Yep.

Try to stay a bit focused, then? I still have no clue at all where you got "forgiveness".

About the Exodus story? Not too hard.

Yep.

A careful reading of what I wrote would inform you that nothing I said contradicted what J-D said. I was over-simplifying things, and he brought in the technical details, but essentially, the shipt is the same. Israel was created legally by those who had the power.

Solitary Man

I think you'll find that that creates a lot more problems than it solves. Besides, I and many other Americans with me consider it immoral to leave the plight of the poor to the butchers with big guns and machetes.

perfectidius

I admit I find it difficult to talk to you, solitary man, and perhaps the fault is mine.

Let me paraphrase what you've told me and you tell me if I understand:

The Jews have rights to the land because 1) they were there first, and 2)England gave it to them.

That's fine, if you mean the complicated "giving" that the other poster mentioned.

But you said some other things that are not related to this topic, per se, which confuse me.

You seem to claim to believe in 1)social darwinism, 2)moral relativism, and yet 3)our moral obligation of the country of America to defend "the poor" isreali government.


You might be right that leaving the isreali government to defend themselves without our funds or armies, but with their own resources and any other allies they have, might cause us and or the world more problems than it will solve. Whatever the case, it is a complicated question that I do not know the answers to, but only have suspicions that what you call "moral" seems like a costly trap of America. But I have mere suspicions at the time and not enough information to debate you on it about.

So what I am writing about, for the sake of curiosity, is how you reconcile 1), 2), and 3) in of the ethical views you seem to believe in.

I am in fact more interested in ethics and values than getting historical details right, since I have no memory for specific facts.

Daniel

J-D

I'm not sure what problem you think that's a solution to. I think of the problems as being people killing each other, violence, conflict, injury, devastation, fear and terror, that sort of thing. Your so-called solution won't solve any of those problems. Your 'solution' might count as a solution to somebody who thought the 'problem' was Americans feeling awkward about US involvement, but somehow I can't see that as being of much significance as a problem compared to the other things I mentioned.

perfectidius

What perspective are you looking at. The middle east seems to be a place of continual unrest, wars, difficulties, some of which America has been a part of. I have no solution as to how we can "have peace in the middle east." But I do not see how this is directly America's problem. people kill each other, inujure each other, etc, all the time in all places. I have no solution for that.

I am not aware of "awkwardness" as being the problem I am concerned with, but, in a word, being imbroiled in a gordian knot.

It seems to me that the Middle East has been a location of intense and zealous fighting since recorded history. I do not pretend to know a "solution" to this "problem."

Daniel

J-D

Strictly speaking there may be no contradiction, but I think your presentation unnecessarily left scope for misinterpretation. Legally, the creation of the State of Israel was authorised by the preceding actions of the United Nations, but the United Nations had no power to make its decision stick. The people who had the power to make Israel exist in fact and not just in name, and who did so, were the Jewish community of Palestine. And the role played by the UK, both as a matter of law and as a matter of power politics, was only to withdraw from the field.

J-D

I didn't say that you did think that 'awkwardness' was the problem. That was a speculative remark. I'm sorry if I gave an unfair impression of your position. I was genuinely unclear about what problem you were talking about. I still am. I don't see clearly how being 'embroiled' is a problem, or how there would be any less of a problem if the US were not 'embroiled'.