perfectidius

Problem for whom? The Middle East appears to be "cursed." The land of Jerusalem is sometimes called holy or sacred, but I'm not seeing it. It seems to have been a place of war and seizure by many different peoples in many different contexts. Maybe its not even a problem at all, but the contextual reality of the area--something that always will be.

I am speaking of the problem of the rest of the civilized world protecting the "rights" of the peoples involved; that is, at our expense of money and blood.

I do not think there will be peace there anytime soon, but I do see it as causing world reaching problems. My "solution" is not to cause peace there, but to isolate the area of contention.

If we look at the country of China, and its form of communism, and then look at how much we fought in vietnam war also to fight communism, it seems we didn't take on China nor do we wranlge with them for practical reasons.

I'm saying that yes there is A problem in the middle east, but it is not MY problem.

How can I own a problem that relates to my life in no way, is in no way caused by me, in no way relates to me except that we send life and dollar over there for no return?

Incidentally, this attitude I am presenting mirrors my view on world affairs in general.

My "ideal" solution would be to establish some form of world government under which warfare would be illegal. but even this cannot make angry people be nice to each other.

Daniel

Solitary Man

No, not both. Sometimes not either. They have the right to the land because those with the power allow them to live there. If you take original land political theory (sorry, I know the terminology isn't correct on that one), then the Jews were there before the Islamo-Palestinians makes sense. It all depends on which direction you take, which side you choose. If you think that only Muslims should have rights over lands, then of course the Jews would have no rights to the land. I think in this day and age most people go by the what the UN sanctions, and therefore they have the rights to the land by the mandate of the UN (held prior under the protectorate of the British).

Yep. For you see, relativism alone defines my belief system. Therefore, my side is always right, unless you can convince me otherwise. That is, unless you can present a convincing argument to me against it, I will hold that it is immoral to not help the poor, broadly speaking. Actually, the ultimate goal is the betterment of humankind and less suffering all around. This position is subjective - it's mine, and I created it for myself. There isn't anything objective in the universe which mandates it must be this way. Social Darwinism has to come into play because we'll never have a better society if we don't weed out the weakest. But in the end, I want a full perfection of homo sapiens sapiens, and therefore I see no qualm with social darwinism and socio-communism.

I hope that answers some of your questions. If you think I there is further problems, please let me know. My philosophy is always being refined.

J-D

This exchange began when I responded to a remark of yours, this one: 'I still think "giving" the "Jews" "their" land "back" has caused more problems than it was supposed to solve.' I am still unclear about what problems you were talking about at that point. Were you referring then to problems for the USA? or problems for the world in general? or problems for people in the Middle East? or what?

Now you say: 'I am speaking of the problem of the rest of the civilized world protecting the "rights" of the peoples involved; that is, at our expense of money and blood.' Once again, your meaning is unclear to me. How is 'the rest of the civilised world' now expending money and blood to protect the rights of the peoples involved?

On the other hand, your view that the USA should not involve itself in international affairs (if that's what you're saying; perhaps I've misunderstood you) is one that stands or falls on its own merits independently of whether it was a good idea for Israel to be established in the first place, so it's irrelevant to the point with which we began. If you don't want to involve yourself, expressing a view on the establishment of Israel is a peculiar way to show your non-involvement.

perfectidius

The problems with giving the Jews land in Palestine include--

1) funding the establishment of Israel
2) funding for a defense and defending Israel
3) the displacement or antagonism of the incumbant residents of Palestine
4) the attitude of the world towards those who previously inhabited Palestine
5) the attitude of those Palestinians to the world
6) the attitude of the Islamic world towards the "West," the Jews, Christianity, and America
7) the terrorist acts of Muslims, Jews, and anybody else
8) the acts of war by Muslims, Jews, and anybody else
9) the costs and rationale and implications of America choosing Israel as an alli

While intially I was questioning the choice of "giving" Palestine to the Jews, and the problems that it has caused, my solution was not intended to solve any of the problems there except 9) which may or may not partially solve 1)-8).

When I challenged the right of the Jews to Palestine, I did so with the intent of freeing America from the supposed moral duty of being their ally.

I recall Clinton, when she was running for office, saying something to the effect that "if Iran attacks Israel, we will respond with nuclear weapons," or some such. Is see this general attitude as dangerous and wrongheaded.

Daniel

J-D

If you are talking about problems for the US (and if you are, you should say so explicitly: remember, this is an international forum, not a US one), then number (1) on your list reflects a misapprehension: the US did not fund the establishment of Israel. Number (3) on your list also reflects a misapprehension: the UN resolution on partition of Palestine (and the US support for it) did not direct or authorise the displacement of anybody from where they resided. Number (9) reflects a misapprehension: neither the UN resolution on partition of Palestine nor US support for it in any way obligated the US to become an ally of Israel (note that the USSR voted for the resolution in just the same way as the US).

You may feel that subsequent US policy decisions have been misguided, but that doesn't imply anything about Israel being established in the first place.

Again, if you're talking about problems for the US, then it makes no sense to start off by saying, as you did: 'I still think "giving" the "Jews" "their" land "back" has caused more problems than it was supposed to solve.' The original decision wasn't supposed to solve problems for the US. If you talk about the decision being supposed to solve problems, then you have to think about what those problems were supposed to be, and I think that problems for the Jews (not for the US) must have been at the forefront there. Did the partition resolution cause more problems for the Jews than it solved? That's not so easy to say.

It really seems to me that your main point is that you think US policy is misguided and should be changed, but you're mixing it up with other issues in a way that confuses things. If the discussion is about US policy, the history of 60 years ago is not the core of the matter.

perfectidius

Are you deliberately trying to misunderstand me? I clearly said the overall problems of giving the land to the Jews were seperate than America's problems with the decision, which is clear in 4) and 5). Therefore, your remarks that my views are "misguided" are themselves based on your seemingly presumptuous attempt to misunderstand me. What is your motive for questioning what I mean here?

I distrust the facts you are presenting based on your style of interpreting me.

The Jews were given Palestine, you claim, to solve their problem of being victims of war crimes? That was no longer a problem. I do not see why they were given anything. They could have been given asylum anywhere. I see the decision of them to live in Palestine as causing tension and difficulty for the world in general, for the Jews specifically, and also for America. Therefore I do not see the "solution" of establishing the nation of Israel as benifitting anybody, in the long run.

For that I have no solution.

My "solution" referred to American foreign policy.

You say that I have a misapprehension about why America became an ally of Israel, meaning, if I understand you, that though we supported them becoming a state, we did not have to defend them. Do you believe this? If so, why? Do you know the reason why America chose Israel of an ally? If so, do you agree with these reasons?

Daniel

perfectidius

I'm sorry, I shouldn't question your motives simply because I am getting frustrated.

For some reason I did think this was an American forum.

I was always amazed you guys kept responding at 3am in the morning. (I am a night owl sometimes).

Daniel

J-D

No. Why would I want to do that?You may have said that, but you didn't say it clearly, because I can't see where you said it (before now).I didn't say your views were misguided. I said you were under a misapprehension on a number of points. I was basing that on my interpretation of particular statements I made. If I misinterpreted those statements, I'm sorry, but then can you please tell me what the correct interpretations of those particular statements were?I question what you mean because I don't know what you mean. Questions are the best way of finding things out.Please, don't take my word on the historical facts. Look them up for yourself in any reliable source.No, I didn't say that. I think somebody else said that.The historical evidence suggests that it wasn't always easy for them to find asylum anywhere (on this point you might like to look up, for example, the Evian Conference and the SS St Louis): this was one argument that was offered in favour of the establishment of a Jewish state.Don't you think that the people who fled persecution in other countries and found a refuge in Israel might consider that a benefit?Yes.Because other countries which supported the UN partition resolution and recognised the State of Israel when it was established (such as the Soviet Union) did not become allies of Israel.No.

J-D

No sweat. I've been trying to direct my remarks at the subject matter, not at the particpants, but if I failed, I apologise.

storytime

In reading Ezekiel 16:1-3, this might possibly answer your question as to who the Jews are and where they came from.

"Again the word of the Lord came unto me, saying,

Son of man, cause Jerusalem[Jews?] to know her abominations,

And say, Thus saith the Lord God unto Jerusalem: Thy birth and thy nativity are of the land of Canaan; thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother, an Hittite."

"Israel" doesn't seem to be the land, but identity of the people in sons of Jacob who later changed his name to Israel. The land was called "Canaan".

The Israelites conquered portions of Canaan but could never conquer all. Possession of land was conditional upon their ability to hold it. They lost most of it to other peoples in wars.

I look at the situation this way. As long as there is just one Jew in the world, he/she is constituted as "Israel", the body of people, not the land.