11-01-2002 23:35									#151
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui ...Wrapped around religion. Milosevic used the Orthodox Church very well. His belief that the Muslims weren't true Serbs, like Hitler said Jews weren't true Germans.

But there is basis for both claims. The difference is that it's not a viable justification for going around murdering people.

Take for example the fact that these days many muslems and western countries see themseles as more part of the ummah and go "serve" in afghanistan, chechnia and the middle east, giving up their cosy houses in the west.

That's way over religion and goes into the field of culture and nation. There is an Islamic nation. It's just that not everyone who is Islamic is a participant.

And if your defenition doesn't allow religious groups to be called nations, it's time to update it!

	12-01-2002 00:33									#152
	Full PM-box? Change here!

No, Siro, there IS no Islamic nation. There is no Ummah. Just like there IS no Jewish nation. There are a bunch of Jews that share similar ethnic backgrounds. However, a Jew from Ethiopia and a Jew that just converted in the US have NO common nationhood, and the religion doesn't count. Now, if you are simply talking about those born into Judaism for centuries upon centuries (ie, Hebrew origins), then I can see it. But most people refer to the mythical 'Jewish nation' as including converts who have no ethnic (or really even cultural for that matter) ties to other Jews.

Just like a Muslim in Iraq and a Muslim in Pakistan who go and fight for Osama have no common 'nation' links, just religious links. Yet there is no way you can get me to call them of the same nation. They are simply waaaay too different.

	12-01-2002 01:34									#153
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui No, Siro, there IS no Islamic nation. There is no Ummah. Just like there IS no Jewish nation. There are a bunch of Jews that share similar ethnic backgrounds. However, a Jew from Ethiopia and a Jew that just converted in the US have NO common nationhood, and the religion doesn't count. Now, if you are simply talking about those born into Judaism for centuries upon centuries (ie, Hebrew origins), then I can see it. But most people refer to the mythical 'Jewish nation' as including converts who have no ethnic (or really even cultural for that matter) ties to other Jews.

Obviously, there will be a few people who we define as Jewish who don't know that much about what it means to be such. That will happen with any nation though; a German from Romania or Russia might speak worse German then say, myself or Sirotnikov, and might have little in common with those in Germany, but still be a German.

quote: Just like a Muslim in Iraq and a Muslim in Pakistan who go and fight for Osama have no common 'nation' links, just religious links. Yet there is no way you can get me to call them of the same nation. They are simply waaaay too different.

I think that's open to a measure of debate, albeit, less so than whether Jews are an ethnicity. If the Muslim from Pakistan speaks Arabic and truly behaves simply as a Muslim and not a Pakistani, and the Iraqi does the same, their claim to be part of a common nation might not be so laughable.

Chegitz:

quote: Right and that's why all those Russian Jews I know look like Russians and not like Palestinians.

Funny, the Russian Jews I know look like Palestinians, and the Palestinians/Arabs I know look like Russian Jews. Most Jews could pass for Palestinians if you dressed 'em up and taught them Arabic; and many (I don't have a big enough sample size to say for sure how many) Palestinians could pass for Ashkenazi Jews if you did the reverse.

Berzerker:

quote: If you and your neighbor create a "state" and then claim either my land as part of your state or claim "jurisdiction" over my existence and my land, that is theft.

Your problem here seems to be with states in general, not Israel.

quote: Britain had veto power over UN decisions and the US would have backed them.

Definitely false on the first count since resolution 181 was a General Assembly resolution, not a Security Council one, and probably wrong on the second too, since Truman had domestic and personal reasons for supporting Israel, and besides, the US would stare Britain down a decade later on the Suez, suggesting to me that we were not cowed by British desires.

quote: Maybe I mis-read his posts, but I got the impression the Arab legion held outposts that were unsuccessfully attacked by Jews, not that they went in to conquer Israel. Holding those outposts may have enabled the Jordanians a buffer, but that wouldn't mean the Arab legion was an active participant in a war to rid the ME of Jews.

The main thing they achieved was to hold onto the West Bank. They also tried, however, to close the road to Jerusalem, to cut off and destroy the 100,000 or so Jews there. What they would have done with the troops had they succeeded in taking Jerusalem cannot be known to 100% certaintity, but their destruction of Holy Sites and ethnic cleansing in the territories they did take suggests that ridding the ME of Jews was a goal.

	12-01-2002 03:31									#154
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Am I the only person confused by the assertion that an ethnicity and/or religion can be a nation?

Is "nation" intended to mean "nationality?"

If so, I disagree. The only criterion to determine if an ethnic/religious group is a nationality is if for all people, there exists a state such that belonging to it is logically equivalent to belonging to that group.

Obviously, this is not the case particularly for ethnicities such as Jews and Bengalis, where English makes a distinction between ethnicity and nationality.

	12-01-2002 03:33									#155
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Right and that's why all those Russian Jews I know look like Russians and not like Palestinians.

Seriously, Eli. While there is undeniable evidence that there is at least some common genetic inheritance between most of the Jews in this world, the Jews of each region tend to have manifested phenotypes which have a lot more in common with their neighbours than they do with their co-religionists half a world away. This is almost certainly caused in part by genetic mixing.

Even if there were no intermarriages whatsoever, I'll ask you to remember that as a rule of thumb 10% of all children born are not actually the children of the supposed father. Maybe gentiles simply got in through the back door...

I'm sure you can find what were originally Semitic genes spread through Eastern Europe.

	12-01-2002 06:32									#156
	Remove this text

Natan -

quote: Your problem here seems to be with states in general, not Israel.

You ignored the rest of my comments about "states". I did not express opposition to states, only opposition to the formation of states that result in the taking of property belonging to people not voluntarily ceding sovereignty to a state created by others. Yes, I don't believe "states" are more valid than individuals when the states are infringing upon the rights of those individuals.

quote: Definitely false on the first count since resolution 181 was a General Assembly resolution, not a Security Council one

As the colonial power in charge of that area, and as a member of the security council, Britain had veto power. But according to chegitz, the British wanted the UN to take charge. If Britain did not want that and instead wanted to side with the Arabs in opposition to Israel, they would have done so.

quote: and probably wrong on the second too, since Truman had domestic and personal reasons for supporting Israel, and besides, the US would stare Britain down a decade later on the Suez, suggesting to me that we were not cowed by British desires.

"Stared" Britain down? America was not so pro-Israel to stick it's neck out angering both the British and the Arabs in control of the oil.

quote: The main thing they achieved was to hold onto the West Bank. They also tried, however, to close the road to Jerusalem, to cut off and destroy the 100,000 or so Jews there.

Were they attacking Jerusalem or the Jordanians? Not allowing foreign troops to march through your jurisdiction to alleviate preesure from someone else is not the same as trying to rid the ME of Jews.

quote: What they would have done with the troops had they succeeded in taking Jerusalem cannot be known to 100% certaintity, but their destruction of Holy Sites and ethnic cleansing in the territories they did take suggests that ridding the ME of Jews was a goal.

Then maybe I did mis-read chegitz posts, I got the impression the Arab legion was more concerned with holding onto the lands within their jurisdiction than conquering Israel.

	12-01-2002 07:39									#157
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Ramo Am I the only person confused by the assertion that an ethnicity and/or religion can be a nation? Is "nation" intended to mean "nationality?" If so, I disagree. The only criterion to determine if an ethnic/religious group is a nationality is if for all people, there exists a state such that belonging to it is logically equivalent to belonging to that group. Obviously, this is not the case particularly for ethnicities such as Jews and Bengalis, where English makes a distinction between ethnicity and nationality.

I don't seem to understand you that well, but correct me if I'm wrong,

are you saying there are no catalonyans or basques because they have no existing state?

	12-01-2002 07:58									#158
	Suffering from ads?

Baque and Catalonian are ethnicities, not nationalities. Their nationality is generally Spanish.

Just like Natan's or my nationality is American.

	12-01-2002 08:51									#159
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Oy, part of me can't believe I'm participating in this ...

1. Nation / culture / religion / civilization ... The founding of the modern "Jewish State" was a land grab, hardly unique (he wrote with wry and severe sarcasm) in the history of the world; the impetus -- a place where Jews (however defined) couldn't be subject to pogroms etc. -- perfectly reasonable. A war was fought; the Arab Palestinians lost. Morality of conquest aside, any realistic basis for discourse on political geography begins there. And, technically, as the Israeli state is ruling a subject people, I am happy to point out, with no small degree of irony, that this qualifies modern Israel as an empire.

2. The essayist Thomas Friedman (author of "From Beirut To Jerusalem") succinctly sums up the essential dilemma of modern Israel: Israel can only be TWO of (1) a Jewish Israel (2) a Greater Israel (3) a democratic Israel. (That is, without resorting to an "ethnic cleansing" of Arabs.) Viewing Israeli factionalism and policy through this paradigm explains a lot of what would otherwise be pure (as opposed to political) insanity.

3. Israelis themselves are split about the definition of "a Jew". MANY secular Israelis consider their living in Israel a complete qualification for the distinction (while enjoying "white steak" -- pork -- on the Sabbath) whereas the Orthodox etc. of course disagree. For immigration purposes, the definition is exceedingly broad; AFAIK, the ONLY Jew ever denied the Law Of Return was the infamous American gangster Meyer Lansky. The heart of Israeli secularism is Tel Aviv; for the very religious, of course Jerusalem. These two groups are often intensely divided over Sabbath observance; military service; details of the welfare state; murdering Prime Ministers; etc. One wonders how that internecine struggle, with divides both of viewpoint and geography, might evolve without a shared enemy -- an Israeli civil war scenario, anyone?

4. As Civilization is essentially about cultures -- i.e., deeply held and shared beliefs, and by no means necessarily religious! (presumably, a "historical" Russian Civ "progresses" from Polytheism to Monotheism to Communism) -- there certainly is a continuity of belief and tradition from Abraham on. However, given the scope of Civilization, it really is the two heresies of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, which would seem to warrant attention within the game, if one is to take religion into account (that wonderful, all-embracing "Monotheism" -- not evening mentioning Ba'hai and the many divergent sects of both Christianity and Islam over which oceans of blood have been and are still shed). And inserting an Israeli Civ between Egypt and Babylon and hoping for simple survival -- let alone survival into the 20th century, in game turns, would be miraculous.

I close with a second quote on top of my usual tag-line -- Grace Slick summing up much of 6,000 years of human history in a couplet:

"In loyalty to their kind, they cannot tolerate our rise \
In loyalty to our kind, we cannot tolerate their obstruction ..."

Leaves very little room for "objective" moralizing, hm?

Now, might we turn this thread towards Israel-as-a-Civ-within-the-game, if it can be done and, if so, how so ... ?

Peace to all,

Oz

	13-01-2002 02:15									#160
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ramo Basque and Catalonian are ethnicities, not nationalities. Their nationality is generally Spanish.

Im' sure they would disagree, given they are eager to have thier own states and hate to be considered Spanish.

	13-01-2002 02:20									#161
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Basque and Catalonian are ethnicities, not nationalities. Their nationality is generally Spanish.

And what about the Palestinians?
They cannot even be called an ethnic group, since they are Arabs, Arabs, Arabs, whether they like it or not.

	13-01-2002 02:29									#162
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: And, technically, as the Israeli state is ruling a subject people, I am happy to point out, with no small degree of irony, that this qualifies modern Israel as an empire.

Never thought of us as such.

Anyway, Israel has no ambitions to rule the palestinians.

True, if they one day went away and we could keep the territory would be very sweet, for some, but that won't happen.

So the question is - how will the arabs get the lands back.

Israel is prepared to give it back in exchange for signing about a peace deal promising the end of the conflict.

It's clear to Israel, that Arafat doesn't plan to end the conflict, but simply wants to get the land. That's what makes him irrelevant to Israel.

quote: the essential dilemma of modern Israel: Israel can only be TWO of (1) a Jewish Israel (2) a Greater Israel (3) a democratic Israel. (That is, without resorting to an "ethnic cleansing" of Arabs.) Viewing Israeli factionalism and policy through this paradigm explains a lot of what would otherwise be pure (as opposed to political) insanity.

Israel is indeed struggling with the lot of ideas. However for the forseeable future Israel strives to remain Jewish, and Democratic.

quote: 3. Israelis themselves are split about the definition of "a Jew". [...]One wonders how that internecine struggle, with divides both of viewpoint and geography, might evolve without a shared enemy -- an Israeli civil war scenario, anyone?

All you gotta do is look in previous history.

Like a saying from the bible goes, "there's no news under the sun".

Remember one Israeli Kingdom? Remember why they've split?

quote: 4. As Civilization is essentially about cultures -- i.e., deeply held and shared beliefs, and by no means necessarily religious! [...] And inserting an Israeli Civ between Egypt and Babylon and hoping for simple survival -- let alone survival into the 20th century, in game turns, would be miraculous. Indeed. And we were indeed sacked, many times by many different civs. [q]I close with a second quote on top of my usual tag-line -- Grace Slick summing up much of 6,000 years of human history in a couplet: "In loyalty to their kind, they cannot tolerate our rise \ In loyalty to our kind, we cannot tolerate their obstruction ..." Leaves very little room for "objective" moralizing, hm? Now, might we turn this thread towards Israel-as-a-Civ-within-the-game, if it can be done and, if so, how so ... ?

Interesting .

	13-01-2002 03:40									#163
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Baque and Catalonian are ethnicities, not nationalities. Their nationality is generally Spanish.

Actually Ramo, major disagreement here. Basques are definetly a seperate nation from Spanish. I don't know enough about Catalonians to make a similar claim on their account.

	13-01-2002 04:11									#164
	Support Apolyton

quote: Im' sure they would disagree, given they are eager to have thier own states and hate to be considered Spanish.

I don't wanted to be controlled by the tyrants in Washington (or Austin, for that matter). Does that make me no longer an American?

quote: And what about the Palestinians?

They have no nation, ergo they're not a nationality.

quote: They cannot even be called an ethnic group, since they are Arabs, Arabs, Arabs, whether they like it or not.

I suppose you've run a genetic comparison showing them as similar to Yemenese as each other.

quote: Actually Ramo, major disagreement here. Basques are definetly a seperate nation from Spanish. I don't know enough about Catalonians to make a similar claim on their account.

Neither peoples have autonomy, so they aren't nationalities.

	13-01-2002 04:13									#165
	Suffering from ads?

Catalonians are a nationality and want to be sovereign just as the basques. Infact I admire them more since they don't use terror, but rather have a beautiful culture to back it up.

The sad part is that world networks don't cover nationalities who don't do terror

And then you wonder where do they get the ideas?

	13-01-2002 04:14									#166
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Neither peoples have autonomy, so they aren't nationalities.

What the Hell does autonomy matter?

Do they have a seperate ethnicity, with their own culture and language and traditions? Then they are a nation. The Basques, I know for sure, are a nation seperate from all others.

	13-01-2002 04:24									#167
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I don't know about your fancy poli. sci. definitions, but I've always associated nations with states. It sounds to me that you're trying to say an ethnicity is equivalent to a nationality.

The Basques might be extraordinarily ethnically distinct from other Spaniards (and French), even to the point of having a non-Indo-European language, but that doesn't make them a nation.

quote: Catalonians are a nationality and want to be sovereign just as the basques.

I want to be sovereign from Washington. Does that make me a nation?

	13-01-2002 04:36									#168
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Ramo I don't wanted to be controlled by the tyrants in Washington (or Austin, for that matter). Does that make me no longer an American?

It depends whether you want a different government for the same country, or you want a whole different country in place.

If you want a whole different country (say, great zimbabwe ) then you're not an american, but a zimbabwean.

quote: They have no nation, ergo they're not a nationality.

Ok, I'll remember to use it

quote: I suppose you've run a genetic comparison showing them as similar to Yemenese as each other.

Yes. I know yemenese. They're the same.

quote: Neither peoples have autonomy, so they aren't nationalities.

Yes they are. They're not nations, but they are nationalities.

	13-01-2002 04:39									#169
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Ramo I don't know about your fancy poli. sci. definitions, but I've always associated nations with states.

They are two different terms as there are nations that currently have no State of thier own, The Palestinians and Basques being chief among them.

	13-01-2002 05:08									#170
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Natan - You ignored the rest of my comments about "states". I did not express opposition to states, only opposition to the formation of states that result in the taking of property belonging to people not voluntarily ceding sovereignty to a state created by others.

No, you were opposed to extension of soveriegnty over anyone who didn't want it, regardless of what happened to their property.

quote: Yes, I don't believe "states" are more valid than individuals when the states are infringing upon the rights of those individuals.

I believe that whatever ensures more justice/fairness/good stuff is more valid.

quote: As the colonial power in charge of that area, and as a member of the security council, Britain had veto power.

NOT IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY VOTES! This is why the US could not prevent the "Zionism is Racism" resolution or various other General Assembly resolutions critical of the US and its allies. There is no party with a veto on the General Asembly.

quote: But according to chegitz, the British wanted the UN to take charge. If Britain did not want that and instead wanted to side with the Arabs in opposition to Israel, they would have done so.

And indeed they would have, except that the Irgun and other Jewish guerilla/terrorist movements were making life for the British in Mandatory Palestine pure hell. You might as well say that the US wanted South Vietnam to be Communist.

quote: "Stared" Britain down?

We certainly did make them back down on Suez. Now addmitadly, in 1956 we were taking a pro-Arab stand and they the pro-Israel one, but that just shows how quickly things can change in the ME. Once Britain had lost its hegemony over Egypt to Nasser, it resorted to military means and alliance with Israel.

quote: America was not so pro-Israel to stick it's neck out angering both the British and the Arabs in control of the oil.

By 1956, the US was much more aware of the need to compete with the USSR for control of the Middle East. I think this is a matter which could be disputed either way; but still, it would have been rather costly for the British to insist on absolute Arab control of the area against the will of the other superpowers.

quote: Were they attacking Jerusalem or the Jordanians? Not allowing foreign troops to march through your jurisdiction to alleviate preesure from someone else is not the same as trying to rid the ME of Jews.

The Jordanians were fighting the Jews in Jerusalem and trying to get rid of them (as they succeeded in doing in East Jerusalem) so the Haganah fought its way through the Jordanian lines to relieve the Jews in Jerusalem. It seems indisputable to me that if the Jordanians had won in Jerusalem, they would have moved on to attack the rest of the Jewish-held areas; certainly, the combined Arab battle plan would have obligated them to do so. It should also be noted that this territory was not Jordanian, since it was part of the British mandate which had been allocated for an independent Arab state.

quote: Then maybe I did mis-read chegitz posts, I got the impression the Arab legion was more concerned with holding onto the lands within their jurisdiction than conquering Israel.

I think it would be more correct to say that the military circumstances (Israel's concern with breaking the siege of Jerusalem) thrust them into a defensive posture. And again, these lands were not meant to be in their jurisdiction, and would only be declared such by the Jordanian government after the war.

Krazyhorse: Of course there was some mixing of the gene pools, the question is how much. Not that race matters though.

Ozymandias:
1. If it makes you happy to think of Israel as an empire, be my guest, but actually, analysts endow the Israeli presence in the West Bank with far more signifigance than its worth, and expect it to be governed by Rules of History as predictable as any mathematical formula. They have naturally been dissappointed.

2. Thomas Friedman is a moron and blowhard.

Apart from that though, the model he presents is not really helpful in describing the political situation in Israel. Likud is far more attached to Democracy than say, Shas or Yahadut Hatorah (UTJ), and Likud's support for the idea of Israel as a Jewish state is unquestionable, yet it is far more interested in the West Bank and Gaza than the two afformentioned religious parties. I think it is much better to view Israel as divided on two separate issues which usually do not intersect: The security issues of peace, war, and the West Bank on the one hand, and the domestic issues of religious vs. secular, with a few ethnic divisions (in Friedman's book, these would have been simply Ashkenazi-Sephardi since the Russians weren't aroudn yet, making another axis) added in for flavoring. Friedman's model ignores the importance of issues of religion and ethnicity, which have been driving Israeli politics in the last ten years. In fact, about half the parties of Knesset were founded for religious or ethnic reasons, and many do not even have a position at all on security issues.

3. Actually, many people have been turned down. There was a Christian clergyman of some sort who was of Jewish background who the (secular) Israeli Supreme Court turned down on the grounds that his conversion excluded him from the Jewish people; a few more criminals, and a bunch of people who were not in any way shape or form Jewish but whose relatives by marriage (or blood relatives who had converted) were Jewish.

Ramo: The debate has become a bit semantic, but my original point was that Jews have a connection to each other (nationality, ethnicity, whatever you call it) which runs deeper than say, the connection between Christians or between Buddhists.

	13-01-2002 05:19									#171
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: I don't know about your fancy poli. sci. definitions, but I've always associated nations with states. It sounds to me that you're trying to say an ethnicity is equivalent to a nationality.

So you think we should accept your opinion rather than political science definition over an area of political science?

States are not nations and nations are not states. For example, the German nation involves Germany, Austria, parts of Poland, Czech Republic, Denmark.

	13-01-2002 05:34									#172
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I looked it up. Turns out both definitions are valid, according to dictionary.com.

quote: na·tion (nshn) n. 1. a. A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country. b. The territory occupied by such a group of people: All across the nation, people are voting their representatives out. 2. The government of a sovereign state. 3. A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality: “Historically the Ukrainians are an ancient nation which has persisted and survived through terrible calamity” (Robert Conquest). 4. a. A federation or tribe, especially one composed of Native Americans. b. The territory occupied by such a federation or tribe.

Edit:

On second thought, I don't think Jews can be called a nation, since Yiddish is even not a Semitic language, but a Germanic langauge.

	13-01-2002 05:50									#173
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Ramo On second thought, I don't think Jews can be called a nation, since Yiddish is even not a Semitic language, but a Germanic langauge.

Dictionary.com doesn't make language a requirement to nationhood.

	13-01-2002 05:54									#174
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Natan Dictionary.com doesn't make language a requirement to nationhood.

LOL

I have no idea what this thread is about but

ethnicity: having common traits with other people

nationality: feeling you belong somewhere

citizenship: what it writes in your ID

	13-01-2002 06:13									#175
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Dictionary.com doesn't make language a requirement to nationhood.

True... But it seems odd to bring such disseparate langauges under one national category.

	13-01-2002 06:55									#176
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Ramo True... But it seems odd to bring such disseparate langauges under one national category.

Odd indeed, although there are a few precedents, like Iran, (Azerbaijanis and Persians) Afghanistan, and Canada.
The fact that Jews have developed retained languages like Yiddish and Ladino for centuries long after their neighbors ceased using them also suggests to me that they are more than just a religion. If you threw five million Christians or Muslims from four or five different continents, speakers of half a dozen languages (and I'm just talking the main ones now) together in a new country built from scratch, I don't think they'd be able to create the sort of country and society Israel has.

	13-01-2002 07:39									#177
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

The truly remarkable thing is that the religion of the Jewish people has enabled them to survive the diaspora as an entity over two millenia. During this time period numerous other cultures died out. Anyone here know any Vandals, Goths, or Jutes. The experience of the Jews demonstrates the power of a literate culture to endure and thrive.

	13-01-2002 11:22									#178
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Natan -

quote: No, you were opposed to extension of soveriegnty over anyone who didn't want it, regardless of what happened to their property.

Where did I say this? Have I failed to clearly express my opposition to the taking of private property to form a "state" or thru border changes? And there is no meaningful difference between sovereignty and private property - one cannot seize either without attacking the other. We began by talking about the taking of private property and ventured into the taking of sovereignty which is related to the first.

quote: I believe that whatever ensures more justice/fairness/good stuff is more valid.

Stealing from people is moral? Then the Arabs have the moral authority to rid the ME of Jews if they decide doing so fits their definition of morality, true? Or are you leaving only yourself in the position of deciding which thefts are "moral"? What you said was no different than what Ann Coulter said when trying to justfy the taking of Indian lands.

Oh, and the UN General Assembly is irrelevant, all they can do is express opinions, not take actions in violation of the Security Council's will.

	13-01-2002 20:36									#179
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Natan - Where did I say this?

quote: If you and your neighbor create a "state" and then claim either my land as part of your state or claim "jurisdiction" over my existence and my land, that is theft. Even when Indians were allowed to keep their land - and lets remember this is a big country and Indians only occupied a very small percentage - they were still subject, to a lesser degree than other citizens, to the new government's jurisdiction, a taking of sovereignty. If I was "in charge" back then, I would not have allowed these takings. Europeans could have moved in and occupied unclaimed lands or bought lands from the rightful owners. Any "state" created through voluntary associations would include only those peoples who agreed.

(emphasis added)

quote: Have I failed to clearly express my opposition to the taking of private property to form a "state" or thru border changes? And there is no meaningful difference between sovereignty and private property - one cannot seize either without attacking the other. We began by talking about the taking of private property and ventured into the taking of sovereignty which is related to the first.

There is no purpose in having a dicussion of private property when your real objection is to states, not their actions.

quote: Stealing from people is moral? Then the Arabs have the moral authority to rid the ME of Jews if they decide doing so fits their definition of morality, true? Or are you leaving only yourself in the position of deciding which thefts are "moral"? What you said was no different than what Ann Coulter said when trying to justfy the taking of Indian lands.

No, what I'm saying is that the reason I support Israel and consider its cause to be just and the reason I consider Israel to be the just side in its wars is that Israel has always treated those under its administration better than any other contestant for control of the area.

quote: Oh, and the UN General Assembly is irrelevant, all they can do is express opinions, not take actions in violation of the Security Council's will.

Right, and 181 was a General Assembly resolution and no Security Council resolution had been made on the question of Israel at this time, nor could the British have made one, since the USSR supported the creation of Israel as a means of destabilizing the region.

	13-01-2002 22:46									#180
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove Anyone here know any Vandals, Goths, or Jutes. The experience of the Jews demonstrates the power of a literate culture to endure and thrive.

I know a couple vandals and a some really cute goths.