|
Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Sheikh Inal Ovar
Joined: 04 Dec 2005
Posts: 1208
Location: Melo Drama School
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 2:08 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| tvik wrote: |
| eventually, living side by side with the arabs, the israelis will become as lazy and incompetant as them while the smart ones realize that europe was a much better place to live after all, then whatever is left of israel will look much like it did before the whole thing began. |
Hey tvik you're behind the times ... the formerly sleepy Arabs are on the march ...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
tvik
Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 371
Location: here
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 2:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The right to exist is based upon the ability to defend oneself against outside pressure.
there are a multitude of different terms for these groups of people:
nation, empire, principality, emirates, dutchy, and on and on and on.
what do the Hizbullah call themselves?
Is Iraq really a country?
Is afganistan really a country?
just because they have lines on the map that hangs on the walls of western classes can we call these places countries with "rights"??
israel exists because they want to exist. they don't ask for the "right" to exist.
until the U.N. has a fair and forceful mandate that is universally applied then: MİGHT MAKES RİGHT
(unless you're from canada)
Last edited by tvik on Thu Dec 21, 2006 2:24 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tvik
Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 371
Location: here
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Arabs wearing P.J.s to work reminds me of what prince Philip said to the president of Nigeria dressed in ceremonial robes: "you look like you're ready for bed"
better than that was:
Speaking to a driving instructor in Scotland, he asked: "How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to get them through the test?".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1848553.stm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
furiousmilksheikali
Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 1660
Location: In a coffee shop, splitting a 30,000 yen tab with Sekiguchi.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cleopatra
Joined: 28 Jun 2003
Posts: 3657
Location: Tuamago Archipelago
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 4:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The right to exist is based upon the ability to defend oneself against outside pressure. |
Did you make up that 'definition' just now? Well, I guess it's as good a definition for a non-existant right as one could expect.
| Quote: |
israel exists because they want to exist. they don't ask for the "right" to exist. |
You clearly haven't seen too many Israeli propagandists at work. That's understandable, given how tedious and irritating they are, especially given that their propaganda lines haven't been updated in several decades. Anyway, what you say is plain wrong. Apart from the fact that Israel most certainly does demand that other nations acknowledge its non-existent 'right to exist', merely 'wanting' to exist as a nation state not in any way oblige other nations to recognise your existance as a nation state. How many countries recognise North Cyprus' 'right to exist', for example, or that of the Republic of Abkhazia?
| Quote: |
| A few viewpoints on the "Israel's right to exist" debate: |
That discussion seemed more focussed on whether or not Israel should exist as a nation. I don't think it touched on what we are discussing: whether or not that very 'right' is itself a spurious one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
furiousmilksheikali
Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 1660
Location: In a coffee shop, splitting a 30,000 yen tab with Sekiguchi.
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kofi Annan's comments suggest that there exists such a right:
| Quote: |
| Israel has a right, enshrined in numerous United Nations resolutions, to exist in safety within internationally recognised borders... What we need is movement towards an agreement that responds both to the legitimate desire of the Palestinians for national independence, and to the legitimate claims of the Israelis to recognition and security. |
You have pointed out that Israel's borders are unclear, but if you are debating the existence of the "right to exist" then it is irrelevant to the discussion. If you are debating the authority of the UN then you could say that there is no such thing a "right to exist".
I was interested in your distinction between inherent rights and "contextual rights" (i.e regarding the UN Charter or the Non-Proliferation Treaty). How are these rights any different to those of human rights?
You stated categorically that citizens have rights but nation states do not, so what legitimacy do citizens' rights have that don't exist in the case of nation states?
tvik's formulation of the rights of nation states is probably the most honest, if unpalatable argument. But this could be applied to citizens rights also.
The Ayn Rand mouthpiece also came up with something of a definition of the right to exist, something that is easy to disagree with but still a discussion on a nation states right to exist.
| Quote: |
"As to the rightful owners of particular pieces of property, Israel's founders -- like the homesteaders in the American West -- earned ownership to the land by developing it. They arrived in a desolate, sparsely populated region and drained the swamps, irrigated the desert, grew crops and built cities. They introduced industry, libraries, hospitals, art galleries, universities -- and the concept of individual rights.
Only Israel has a moral right to establish a government in the area [presumably Israel-Palestine] -- on the grounds, not of some ethnic or religious heritage, but of a secular, rational principle. Only a state based on political and economic freedom has moral legitimacy."
|
Also, I think that tvik and Cleopatra are actually in agreement on one point here. The state of Israel does not ask for its "right to exist" to be recognized. It demands it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cleopatra
Joined: 28 Jun 2003
Posts: 3657
Location: Tuamago Archipelago
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Actually, Annan's statements make no reference to Isreal's (or any other country's) 'right to exist' as a nation state.
| Quote: |
You have pointed out that Israel's borders are unclear, |
No - I have said that these borders are non-existant. It takes a bit of a nerve to demand that others recognise your country's 'right to exist' when you repeatedly refuse to say exactly where your country should 'exist'.
| Quote: |
| How are these rights any different to those of human rights? |
They are different in the sense that countries do not themselves have any 'rights', they are merely vehicles to administer those rights to their citizens.
BTW I'm not sure what you intended by posting an extreme right-wing organisation's regurgitation of that old propaganda fabrication - the 'making the desert bloom' lie. Even if it were true that Palestine were unpopulated prior to the arrival of European Zionists (and this thesis has long been abandoned by all serious historialns) and that those same Europeans were more advanced than the natives (possibly some truth there, but this would make Zionism no different from any other instance of European colonialism), so what??? Nazi Germany was in many ways more advanced than, say, Poland or the USSR. I guess in the eyes of Rand, that gave the Nazis a 'moral right' to occupy and/or annex and colonise other people's countries? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
furiousmilksheikali
Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 1660
Location: In a coffee shop, splitting a 30,000 yen tab with Sekiguchi.
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Cleopatra wrote: |
| BTW I'm not sure what you intended by posting an extreme right-wing organisation's regurgitation of that old propaganda fabrication - the 'making the desert bloom' lie. Even if it were true that Palestine were unpopulated prior to the arrival of European Zionists (and this thesis has long been abandoned by all serious historialns) and that those same Europeans were more advanced than the natives (possibly some truth there, but this would make Zionism no different from any other instance of European colonialism), so what??? Nazi Germany was in many ways more advanced than, say, Poland or the USSR. I guess in the eyes of Rand, that gave the Nazis a 'moral right' to occupy and/or annex and colonise other people's countries? |
That may be her view, I don't know. I think you know full well that neither her views on such things nor the comments that I posted from her organization are shared by me. I wouldn't refer to them as from the "Ayn Rand mouthpiece" and say that they are "easy to disagree with" if I did share those views.
I posted it because it was part of a discussion on what constitutes a "right of a nation to exist". A definition we both disagree with but nonetheless part of the discussion.
| Cleopatra wrote: |
Actually, Annan's statements make no reference to Isreal's (or any other country's) 'right to exist' as a nation state.
|
I'm baffled by this. He is saying Israel has a right to exist enshrined in United Nations resolutions, but you say not as a nation state. I'll post the quote again so that maybe you can tell me what he really meant.
| Quote: |
| Israel has a right, enshrined in numerous United Nations resolutions, to exist in safety within internationally recognised borders. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cleopatra
Joined: 28 Jun 2003
Posts: 3657
Location: Tuamago Archipelago
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was pretty sure you would not share the views of Rand, which is why I was surprised at you quoting them. I don't think their views, based as they are on racism and a laughably poor grasp of Middle Eastern history, add anything to the debate.
As for the Annan quote, what he is saying (as I interpret it) is that the people of Israel have a right to live in safety within internationaly recognised borders . He is not, as far as I can see, suggesting that a state called Israel has a right to exist as such, always and forever. What would be the implications of his so doing? Let's say that the people of Israel (however that undefined state be understood) decided to split their country into two parts, each a soverign statte, and agreed to do so peacefully and with mutual agreement. Would that be a crime under international law, being as it would violate Israel's supposed 'right to exist'? And, as I've said before, what would the implications be for other former nations such as the Soviet Union or the DDR? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
furiousmilksheikali
Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 1660
Location: In a coffee shop, splitting a 30,000 yen tab with Sekiguchi.
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Cleopatra wrote: |
| As for the Annan quote, what he is saying (as I interpret it) is that the people of Israel have a right to live in safety within internationaly recognised borders . He is not, as far as I can see, suggesting that a state called Israel has a right to exist as such, always and forever. What would be the implications of his so doing? Let's say that the people of Israel (however that undefined state be understood) decided to split their country into two parts, each a soverign statte, and agreed to do so peacefully and with mutual agreement. Would that be a crime under international law, being as it would violate Israel's supposed 'right to exist'? And, as I've said before, what would the implications be for other former nations such as the Soviet Union or the DDR? |
Yes, I am in agreement with you on that. In which case Annan's comment was badly worded. He would have been better off saying "the people of Israel" rather than simply "Israel" as it is open to misinterpretation. I think we all know too well what happens when such misinterpretations occur. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cleopatra
Joined: 28 Jun 2003
Posts: 3657
Location: Tuamago Archipelago
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think we'd all do well not to regard Annan as a reliable source for, well, anything really.
We are talking about the man who had the courage to say that the invasion of Iraq was illegal... about a year after it happened. He would never have dared express his opinion when it might actually have made some difference. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tvik
Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 371
Location: here
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
I also said that a states "right" to exist could only be effectively moderated by some kind of superstructer. the EU is slowely becoming such a thing. the UN, as the americans are so fond of saying, is not effective, although the ideals are noble.
israel's right to exist is based mainly on the bribe money they get from the former colonies and the nucular technology that they will use to blow iran "back to the stone age" (they're not too far anyways)
honestly i found iran to be too much for me. very strange place, i ran back to turkey and felt like i was in the west. still, i believe however strange they are, they still have a right to exist in my books, as does the zionist entity that is shrinking in palestine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cleopatra
Joined: 28 Jun 2003
Posts: 3657
Location: Tuamago Archipelago
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Though it doesn't address the question over whether or not Israel (or any other nation state) has a 'right to exist' at all, this article gives a very good analysis of just what is being asked of the Palestinians when they are required to 'recognise Israel'.
| Quote: |
| "Recognizing Israel's existence" is not a logical nonsense and appears on first impression to involve a relatively straightforward acknowledgement of a fact of life -- like death and taxes. Yet there are serious practical problems with this formulation. What Israel, within what borders, is involved? |
The article also makes a very good point which I omitted - namely that only nation states can recognise other nation states (recognition, of course, being distinct from any 'right to exist'). Since no nation on earth recognises Palestine's 'right to exist', neither Hamas nor any other "authority" in the Palestinian Territories can formally recognise the State of Israel (even if they were happy to do so), and should certainly not be required to do so.
| Quote: |
| "Recognizing Israel" or any other state is a formal legal/diplomatic act by a state with respect to another state. It is inappropriate -- indeed, nonsensical -- to talk about a political party or movement, even one in a sovereign state, extending diplomatic recognition to a state. To talk of Hamas "recognizing Israel" is simply sloppy, confusing and deceptive shorthand for the real demand being made. |
http://www.counterpunch.org/whitbeck12212006.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
furiousmilksheikali
Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 1660
Location: In a coffee shop, splitting a 30,000 yen tab with Sekiguchi.
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I like Counterpunch, but why does Tariq Ali insist on giving us book covers that are so stupid?
Yes, that is a halo of all bloody things above the head of Fidel Castro!
Ha ha ha! Very funny Tariq! But how is one to take his books seriously if this is what he puts on his front covers? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Henry_Cowell
Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 3352
Location: Berkeley
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Authors usually have no control (or even approval) of the cover designs that their publishers create. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
