Posted on 10/02/2003 1:42:50 AM PDT by Mark Felton
What would you propose they do differently?Giving up all US aid as well? That would be the price of that.1. Ignore the State Department and swear off all forms of political correctness.
2. Liberate all Palestinian land.Define "liberate". In the sense that rioters "liberate" consumer electronics? Are you advocating evicting the Palestinians from the land they live on?
3. Try and execute Arafat and his buddies for war crimes."Try and execute". If that is your approach, what is the point of a trial? >:)
Protect the rights of freedom-loving citizens (be they Jews or Arabs), but punish those who violate the rights of others.Hard to disagree with this one in theory. Are you proposing that Arabs and Jews have equal rights and equal privileges in the West Bank? That would actually be an improvement as currently Israeli settlers have a de facto supercitizenship there.
-Eric
Giving up State Department aid. Private citizens and corporations can still contribute, and I'm sure they will.
I have always opposed all kinds of foreign aid paid from forcibly collected tax dollars. It should all be privatized; let citizens decide whom they give their money, and how much of it. Of course, African dictators would be getting pretty little that way, and Israel's aid wouldn't be subject to State Department conditions--that's why the PC establishment prefers to make our choices for us.
Define "liberate". In the sense that rioters "liberate" consumer electronics?
In the sense that the U.S. liberated Iraq.
Are you advocating evicting the Palestinians from the land they live on?
As for those "Palestinians" who are terrorists, or support terrorism, I advocate killing them. As for those who aspire to live in freedom and are ready to pay due respect for the rights of their fellow individuals, I advocate admitting them as citizens.
As you might know, there are already a number of civilized, freedom-loving Arabs living in Israel. Not very many, but there are a few.
"Try and execute". If that is your approach, what is the point of a trial? >:)
LOL Fair enough. Let me rephrase this as "Bring them to court, produce the evidence against them, and if they are found guilty of war crimes, execute them."
Are you proposing that Arabs and Jews have equal rights and equal privileges in the West Bank?
Equal rights for those, and those only, who respect the rights of others.
What about the demographic problem? If you give all the Arabs in the territories full citizenship, at some point in the future their vote will outnumber Jews. Even just building the fence along the route now proposed by Sharon will incorporate an additional 60k Arabs into Israel. Seems like a prescription for disaster, if you ask me.
When did I say all Arabs? I said those Arabs who are willing to live in a civilized manner. Both of them. ;-)
And if their sons become terrorists, they (the terrorists) should be treated as terrorists.
No, the rights of the new owners supercede the rights of the displaced. The displaced may never acknowledge the right of the new owners to possess the land, but ubless they have allies that concur and would seek to challenge the new owners then the displaced will only remain bitter and displaced.
PS: There is no such thing as international law. Such "laws" are merely treaties among states, who may choose to abide by those laws or not as they wish.
Thus, the problem of the Palestinians. Their claim to ownership is entirely dependent upon the benevolent moods of a semi-impotent organization (UN). Since they are vastly overpowered by the Israeli's a normal course of action would be for them to surrender entirely and rebuild their society within a new pacified government structure.
As long as the UN and the US keep Israel on a leash favoring the Palestinians then there will not be peace. The Palestinians must be denied all hope of eliminating Israel or having their way with Israel.
There's no such thing as Palistinian land because there's no such thing as a Palestinian. They are unwanted Jordanians and other Arabs, who don't have the good sense to produce rather than whine and destroy.
So if I steal your car, you will recognize me as its rightful owner? Where do you keep it? ;-)
Israeli individuals are the rightful owners of their land, not because they expelled the previous owners and some "law" of the jungle grants it to them, but because, in most cases, they were the first ones to claim ownership of the land, which had been barren and uninhabited before. The Muslims had not cared much about the land until the Israelis came and turned it into a prosperous place.
PS: There is no such thing as international law. Such "laws" are merely treaties among states, who may choose to abide by those laws or not as they wish.
The inalienable rights of each individual to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness are universal law. The Founders held these truths self-evident. These inalienable rights may be--and all too often are--violated, which prevents the individual from enjoying them, but does not take the rights away.
For example, your car may be stolen, which prevents you from enjoying your right to own it, but does not stop you from being the car's rightful owner. You do not commit a crime when you take your car back from the thief.
No. As I said previously. I may never recognize your right to own it. But unless I have allies (police, neighbors, government) that agree with me and will act accordingly you will indeed own that car and be recognized as the owner by everyone else.So if I steal your car, you will recognize me as its rightful owner? Where do you keep it? ;-)
When the thief is all powerful they will not be challenged, their power establishes their ownership.
Example: The US government regularly steals cars and money from people who may have been involved in drug related activity. If the owner loaned his car to a friend who used it to haul drugs that owner will lose his car forever. The cars and cash are taken without due process. No trial, no jury, no charges, no proof of guilt. No protection of rights. Might makes law.
Israeli individuals are the rightful owners of their land, not because they expelled the previous owners and some "law" of the jungle grants it to them, but because, in most cases, they were the first ones to claim ownership of the land, which had been barren and uninhabited before.
"First possession" is a thoroughly discredited and naive concept. All property today has been acquired through war. The rights of the precedent owners (Indians, English, Mexicans etc) have been replaced by the rights of the conquerers (American citizens)..
The inalienable rights of each individual to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness are universal law. The Founders held these truths
self-evident. These inalienable rights may be--and all too often are--violated, which prevents the individual from enjoying them, but does not take the rights away.
No. Inalienable rights are not universal law. Laws are things enforced by a government of people. Rights supercede laws. However those rights can be protected by law or they can be completely trampled by law. Saddam Hussein had laws but few believe they protected the universal rights of the people.
Guns do not make rights, but guns do make law.
In the US everday someone's universal right to own property is denied when the big guns (government) apply the laws of eminent domain, for instance.
For example, your car may be stolen, which prevents you from enjoying your right to own it, but does not stop you from being the car's rightful owner. You do not commit a crime when you take your car back from the thief.
If you take your car back by force from the police agency which confiscated it without due process you will have committed a crime, and go to jail.
It must be made clear that we cannot confuse "rights" with "law".
God gives us rights, but man makes laws.
That the US founders acknowledged this fact and attempts to align their Constitution accordingly is probably the single greatest attribute of the US Constitution.
So now the fundamental question: Is there a such thing as a God-given right to own property?
I don't think so. Thus, the "right to own property" is a fallacy. There are certainly "laws allowing ownership of property, under certain conditions", but laws are defined by men with the biggest guns.
So I come full circle back to my original point, the Israeli/Palestinian crisis is in an unnatural and unending state because of the ability of semi-impotent organizations (UN) and US to appeal for restraint. Both the US and UN deny Israel the "right" to establish law by force while at the same time refusing to establish law in the Palestinian territory. Unless the UN or US would conquer either of the warring parties and set down the law, then they have no business preventing the conflict from coming to a natural resolution, so that long term peace may ensue.
Conquerers establish peace. Not the weak.
Depends on which dictionary you look up "law" in. Sometimes it is defined as "a body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community."
Anyway, I like your definition, so I'm willing to go along with it.
If you take your car back by force from the police agency which confiscated it without due process you will have committed a crime, and go to jail.
You have committed a crime as defined by some unjust law, but you haven't really committed a crime. Or, using your distinction between rights and law above, you have broken a law but haven't violated anyone's rights. You may be guilty in the eyes of a corrupt government, but you are innocent in the eyes of God.
Is there a such thing as a God-given right to own property?
Of course there is. It is implied in the right to life. How could you live by right if you didn't rightfully own your body, and the wealth you create? Anyone could come and rightfully take possession of your teeth or your tongue or your stomach--even your whole body. Whenever you manage to obtain some food, anyone could come and rightfully take it away from you!
"First possession" is a thoroughly discredited and naive concept. All property today has been acquired through war. The rights of the precedent owners (Indians, English, Mexicans etc) have been replaced by the rights of the conquerers (American citizens).
The area of the United States is so vast that it could hardly have been covered by Indian landowners in its entirety. In fact, the Indians were nomadic people who simply didn't have the concept of property. Texas seceded from Mexico in a war of independence, fought against a tyrannical power which did not respect individual rights, and later joined the United States voluntarily.
It is fashionable in certain circles to think of the acquisition of American land as a brutal and unjust conquest that evicted civilized landowners like you and me from their property. Need I say which political agenda these "circles" subscribe to? Don't be fooled by them. You don't "own" your land because you inherited it from a thief; you own it because you inherited (or bought) it from someone who acquired it as a well-earned result of his toil and his spirit of enterprise.
It is fashionable in certain circles to think of the acquisition of American land as a brutal and unjust conquest that evicted civilized landowners like you and me from their property. Need I say which political agenda these "circles" subscribe to? Don't be fooled by them. You don't "own" your land because you inherited it from a thief; you own it because you inherited (or bought) it from someone who acquired it as a well-earned result of his toil and his spirit of enterprise.
You presume that I believe all wars are unjust. I do not.
I believe the civilization of America by force was a just enterprise in general.
I believe the Revolutionary war was just.
My ancestors were pioneers and tamed wild lands and fought with Indians. Their cause was just.
They also fought tyrannical powers in Washington who sought to force them to fight in the Civil War. [Missouri was to remain neutral. They fought against Lincoln in the Missouri Brigades.] Their cause was just.
They have fought in every major war since.
That is why it is important that we never enter a conflict unless it is just. That is why it is important that when we do enter a conflict we plan to win completely and conquer the enemy, and completely deprive him of the opportunity to regain strength and strike back.
That is why it was a mistake to engage Saddam Hussein without conquering him in 1991.
"When you strike a king kill him".
The terrorists must learn this lesson, be they Al Queda or Hamas.
I didn't go as far as to think that. I just reacted to your comment about how American land was obtained which, it appeared to me, had been influenced by the liberal notion of the "unjust conquest of Indian land." Glad to hear it isn't so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.