A sad day in the Holy Land.

[ChrisT]

It will be interesting to see what, if anything, the Palestinians make of the land.

[j_b]

Don't the aggressors forfeit certain rights when they engage in war with a neighboring country?

 

no they don't. some of their rights (i.e. political) may be temporarily curtailed until the offensive behavior is fixed but rights are inalienable by definition.

[Fairweather]

As I recall, the surrounding Arab countries with the support of Palestinians (who were under Jordanian jurisdiction) attacked Israel in the Yom Kippur War.

Because Israel had launched a surprise attack in the 7 Day war 6 years earlier that they wished to reclaim. Israel is quite large compared with Vatican City, San Marino, Monaco, Lichtenstein or Andorra.

 

I love the historical myopia of Middle East arguments.

 

Historical myopia? You must mean the Six Day War.

 

While Israel did attack Egypt and took the Sinai and Gaza, they were clearly provoked. If a foreign army was massing on your border, blocked your ports, would you just wait and see what their intent was?? Israel begged Jordan and Syria to stay out of the conflict, but both attacked.

 

Israel later returned the Sinai...and now Gaza. But, in my view, they are under no obligation to ever return the west bank.

[j_b]

It will be interesting to see what, if anything, the Palestinians make of the land.

 

well since it's a sandbox without any water, agriculture, and resources to speak of ... it's basically a huge refugee camp.

[foraker]

while i don't think Israel has always done the intelligent thing (which country has?), kicking Egypt's ass when they'd amassed a big army on their borders and were beginning preparations to invade is one of them.

 

while we might wish it to be otherwise, inalienable rights are often only those which you have the means to acquire and defend.

Edited August 17, 2005 by foraker

[cj001f]

Historical myopia? You must mean the Six Day War.

Forgive my fat fingers Fairweather

[j_b]

while we might wish it to be otherwise, inalienable rights are often only those which you have the means to acquire and defend.

 

i am surprised you said the above. i think that was effectively (not morally) true before there was a community of nations, but "might is right" as a governing principle is over with even if it may take a long while for the rule of law to be enforced. apartheid is a good example of that.

[foraker]

well, don't read too much into it. i'm not some raving right wing loonie. i just theorized what might have happened to the rights we take for granted if we did not have the means to acquire and defend them. certainly, i agree we NOW have the concept of 'inalienable rights of man' but it wasn't always that way. i doubt very much that the chinese or the north koreans power elite agree much with the idea.

[bunglehead]

Everybody's making some excellent points.

I just think it sucks for everybody involved.

Palestinian, Israeli, Israeli Arab, Druse, all of them.

Sharon and particularly Netanyahu on the Israeli side of things shoulder a large portion of the burden for the current completely fucked up situation. Arafat too.

The people that are getting the short end of the stick on this (in my opinion) are not the Israeli "settlers", who are getting between 120-400K to relocate, but the Palsetinians. Again. Both sides are guilty of atrocities, and both sides have a lot to be angry about. I just feel bad for all of those motherfuckers.

that being said, I don't feel sorry for the resisters(sp?) that have come in recently to gum up the withdrawal.

Even the settlers have told them to knock it off.

Throwing ammonia into a policeman's face? Bad form.

[Alpinfox]

 

There has been a lot of interesting grafitti showing up on the wall separating palestinian and israeli neighborhoods in the West Bank.

 

Take this one for example:

 

More Grafitti

[archenemy]

i just theorized what might have happened to the rights we take for granted if we did not have the means to acquire and defend them. certainly, i agree we NOW have the concept of 'inalienable rights of man' but it wasn't always that way.

 

I totally agree with this. No one just "gives" rights to anyone. People do have to fight for them. And no, might is not always right. And people have other methods of fighting for their rights--not just by force (negotiation, voting, money, whatever).

And we still have a problem seeing the "inalienable rights of man"--we still argue over this constantly. And we do take our rights for granted.

[Dru]

There has been a lot of interesting grafitti showing up on the wall separating palestinian and israeli neighborhoods in the West Bank.

 

Take this one for example:

 

More Grafitti

 

shuksan!

[Alpinfox]

 

DING DING DING!

 

[j_b]

No one just "gives" rights to anyone.

 

true but the converse is also true, no one just "takes" rights away from anyone. rights just are. this is why they inalienable. this is entirely beyond our or anyone else's control. i.e. israel has been found in violation of international law a few dozen times, and in due time they'll have to do something about it if they want to fully integrate the community of nations.

[archenemy]

No one just "gives" rights to anyone.

 

true but the converse is also true, no one just "takes" rights away from anyone. rights just are. this is why they inalienable. this is entirely beyond our or anyone else's control. i.e. israel has been found in violation of international law a few dozen times, and in due time they'll have to do something about it if they want to fully integrate the community of nations.

People take others' rights away all the time--hence the problem.

Our country uses the adjective inalienable, thus defining our concept of rights. Why do we do this? Because rights don't exist outside of ourselves. Can't see em. Can't smell em. Can't taste em. They are a concept that we control completely.

Oh, same thing applies to law. And love.

But not to pollution.

[Squid]

smell the love

[archenemy]

That's pollution sweetie.

[Squid]

tomato, to-mah-to

[archenemy]

I saw a great t shirt at Ozzfest last week:

 

You say tomato

I say fuck you.

[j_b]

People take others' rights away all the time--hence the problem.

 

no, they prevent others from exercising their rights but they can't take away such rights. anyhow, it'd be quite a tour de force to take away what you can't give

 

Our country uses the adjective inalienable, thus defining our concept of rights. Why do we do this? Because rights don't exist outside of ourselves. Can't see em. Can't smell em. Can't taste em. They are a concept that we control completely.

Oh, same thing applies to law. And love.

But not to pollution.

 

the concept of inalienable rights is much older than our nation.

[Squid]

I saw a great t shirt at Ozzfest last week:

 

You say tomato

I say fuck you.

 

 

 

I'm going to go pitch a tent in Enumclaw.

 

If you're lucky I'll let you watch.

[olyclimber]

I never thought I'd see genuine affection on this board until now. Precious.

[archenemy]

anyhow, it'd be quite a tour de force to take away what you can't give

Like virginity? You aren't that innocent.

 

and tell me a little about the history of "Inalienable rights". I have not come across this in the history I have read--but I have not really looked for this particular concept so I could have missed it. (I am not being facetious with this)

[j_b]

Like virginity? You aren't that innocent.

 

i am aware that someone can take life or virginity away (for example) but these actions are sanctionned by society not by the individual. take someone's virginity away against their will and human society will rule that act as unlawful. their right to being a virgin has thus been affirmed even though you may have denied it to them.

 

and tell me a little about the history of "Inalienable rights". I have not come across this in the history I have read--but I have not really looked for this particular concept so I could have missed it. (I am not being facetious with this)

 

i'd be quite incapable of giving you a succint/concise history of rights development (that you couldn't otherwise find out in a few minutes on the internet anyway) but modern unalienable rights have their roots in the philosophy of the enlightment (locke, rousseau, etc ...) and are based on the social contract or alternatively on god's will (depending on your political leanings). i also seem to remember that in antiquity, emperors were thought to have unalienable rights.

[Camilo]

agebottom: