If you think there will ever be peace in the Middle East then read this:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090802/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians_2
This is sad and this conflict will never end if this kind of thing happens. The folks losing their homes will certainly side with the more violent and reactive groups of their friends.
Is there a way out of this?
Is there something Israel can do to un-do the damage?
Can Israel exist and continue doing these types of things?
The only answer is No to all the above.
Both sides are in the wrong concerning this conflict.
'It is difficult to imagine any normal person wishing to meet Marx for a third time.' - Alexander Gray, The Socialist Tradition
Rarely is only one side at fault in an argument, some Native Americans and some Tibetans would argue differently, but that still does not in any way absolve the government of Israel of theft. In fact it makes the other side all the more angry. In this case the property is going to settlers? What is the land claim of these settlers other than what some court dreamed up? I wish that Yahoo would have done more homework on this and exposed who is making the claim to this property and under what grounds the claim is valid.
The core of this issue is one of property rights. Clearly there are Palestinians, more than a few, who feel that the court is Israel is not legitimate. So its judgements are simple theft. Until the government of Israel does something about outright theft there will never be peace.
The Palestinians on the other hand lose their incentive for peace on each of these confiscations. They think their claim is legitimate and are probably more convinced than ever that to get justice they will have to destroy Israel.
Bogart:The Palestinians on the other hand lose their incentive for peace on each of these confiscations. They think their claim is legitimate and are probably more convinced than ever that to get justice they will have to destroy Israel.
And Israel loses incentive for peace with each rocket launched. Really, to take sides in this matter is a no-win situation. Both are destined to continue this cycle of violence until a mighty change comes and the past is washed away.
Anarchist Cain: Both sides are in the wrong concerning this conflict.
No. Only the Colonizers are wrong.
All governments do this kind of things to the population under whatever pretext necessary. This gets attention because of the ethnical component.
By the way, Palestinian government seized property of and forced to flee thousands of Christians (Arafat even turning the church into his personal residence) but you don't hear much about it, do you?
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
Natalie: All governments do this kind of things to the population under whatever pretext necessary. This gets attention because of the ethnical component. By the way, Palestinian government seized property of and forced to flee thousands of Christians (Arafat even turning the church into his personal residence) but you don't hear much about it, do you?
Well, Palestinian Authority is a State, even Natanyahu aknowleged this.
But what about the notion that even if Palestininas had no State, the Radical muslim would ignore property rights and murder land-sellers as "infidels"?
"We are nothing. Mankind is all. By the grace of our brothers are we allowed our lives. We exist through, by and for our brothers who are the State. Amen."
JonBostwick:No. Only the Colonizers are wrong.
Each people colonized the area so thank you for agreeing with me
Jonatan K: But what about the notion that even if Palestininas had no State, the Radical muslim would ignore property rights and murder land-sellers as "infidels"?
The "Radical" muslim or any muslim cannot ignore property rights and must respect it- heavy respect for property rights are in the Quran afterall. Of course many of the radicals you speak of are illiterate and would never know that anyway. I wouldn't call them radical muslims- its like saying that there are "radical" libertarians and that they would ignore property rights as well. Once you ignore property rights you cease to be Muslim or libertarian don't you think?
auctionguy10: Jonatan K: But what about the notion that even if Palestininas had no State, the Radical muslim would ignore property rights and murder land-sellers as "infidels"? The "Radical" muslim or any muslim cannot ignore property rights and must respect it- heavy respect for property rights are in the Quran afterall. Of course many of the radicals you speak of are illiterate and would never know that anyway. I wouldn't call them radical muslims- its like saying that there are "radical" libertarians and that they would ignore property rights as well. Once you ignore property rights you cease to be Muslim or libertarian don't you think?
You atribute too much rational to people who reject it. Any given System of Enslavement aknowledge property right of Owners and Reject those rights of slaves. So, Slaves of whatever Deity can be denied whatever right the priest of given Deity seem fit.
Laughing Man: JonBostwick:No. Only the Colonizers are wrong. Each people colonized the area so thank you for agreeing with me
Not true.
Just because some people in Palestine are Muslim does not mean they immigrated, its called conversion. The first Christians were converts from Judaism, as well. So to say that Jews who's ancestors are Europeans have a better claim to the holy land than Christians and Muslims who's ancestors were Hebrews is simply asinine. Not to mention the fact that Hebrews only got the land from killing its previous occupants. A fact Jews seem rather proud of.
As I often point out, there were native Muslims, Christians, and Jews all living together peacefully in Jerusalem for centuries. This current trouble was imposed on the region by European outsiders, both foreign powers and colonists.
The religious component is entirely a red herring. The only issue here is expropriation.
JonBostwick:So to say that Jews who's ancestors are Europeans have a better claim to the holy land than Christians and Muslims who's ancestors were Hebrews is simply asinine. Not to mention the fact that Hebrews only got the land from killing its previous occupants. A fact Jews seem rather proud of.
I would promote the reacquiring of land that was unjustly taken, everything else is homesteading. This tenet should be applied to both sides.
Laughing Man: JonBostwick:So to say that Jews who's ancestors are Europeans have a better claim to the holy land than Christians and Muslims who's ancestors were Hebrews is simply asinine. Not to mention the fact that Hebrews only got the land from killing its previous occupants. A fact Jews seem rather proud of. I would promote the reacquiring of land that was unjustly taken, everything else is homesteading. This tenet should be applied to both sides.
None of the current Palestinians stole the land, so they are the just possessors absent the appearance of the rightful owner. Which the Israelis definitely are not.
It was the Romans who "dispersed" the Jews, after all. Maybe the Jews should be colonizing in Rome.
Laughing Man: I would promote the reacquiring of land that was unjustly taken, everything else is homesteading. This tenet should be applied to both sides.
And once again, no can do, due to religious reasons from both sides. How's that incorporated into libertarian view?
JonBostwick: None of the current Palestinians stole the land, so they are the just possessors absent the appearance of the rightful owner. Which the Israelis definitely are not
None of the current Palestinians stole the land, so they are the just possessors absent the appearance of the rightful owner. Which the Israelis definitely are not
You don't know that.
JonBostwick:It was the Romans who "dispersed" the Jews, after all. Maybe the Jews should be colonizing in Rome.
Hey if a Jewish person can substanciate a claim to property that was unjustly taken as far back as the Romans, then they should retain that property.
Jonatan K:And once again, no can do, due to religious reasons from both sides. How's that incorporated into libertarian view?
How is religion incorporated in libertarian views? Simple, the NAP.
Laughing Man: Jonatan K:And once again, no can do, due to religious reasons from both sides. How's that incorporated into libertarian view? How is religion incorporated in libertarian views? Simple, the NAP.
Explain please for us , the newbies.
Jonatan K: Explain please for us , the newbies.
The NAP or the Non-Aggression Principle is a basic tenet of libertarianism. It states that an individual has no right to initiate violence or the threat of violence against another individual. One has only the right to defend themselves.
I got downvoted when I point this out on other sites' comments, but there is no solution to this conflict. In order to even begin explaining a remotely plausible solution, you have to preface it with a paragraph of 10 years of what ifs before reconciliation begins. It's disappointing, partly because we're so anxious to blame governments for making simple situations more complicated, but after 50 years of war, I think it's healthy for anyone not involved to just move on.
After all, anyone who was really concerned with peace in the middle east would have moved to, say, anywhere else, to enjoy peace.
Laughing Man: Jonatan K: Explain please for us , the newbies. The NAP or the Non-Aggression Principle is a basic tenet of libertarianism. It states that an individual has no right to initiate violence or the threat of violence against another individual. One has only the right to defend themselves.
Won't work for anybody but budhists. Most world religions state a set of "just" violence. Like if your wife is emailing some other man....
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap