You say this over and over. Frankly, if I don't see, its because there is some hidden code behind your words that only you know.
No its that you take what I say and extend it to mean something different then what I say. I'm not using a hidden code or even complex difficult words.
Tim, I don't know what to tell you. You tell me I am misunderstanding your point of view and then go on to further explain your point which ends up reconfirming what I read in the first place. Really.........I am not playing with you.
Saying that Israel could refuse to give land to the Palestinians is not saying that doing so is right or that might makes right any more then saying that China was able to conquer Tibet with little difficulty and no severe consequences means that China's invasion was right.
That does not change the fact that Israel refuses to give back the land to the Palestinians because it can. If Israel was not so powerful, she would have to be more reasonable. However, because she is a major power, she can be unreasonable and so she is.
The "law of the jungle' means there is no law. Its the survival of the fittest and the laws of man become irrelevant.
Do you understand the difference between a situation where you have only "the law of the jungle" and one where you have "to and extent" have "the law of the jungle"?
No. In this particular case, its very black and white. You either have laws, or you have anarchy and survival of the fittest. Rarely, can their be a partial "law of the jungle".
BTW I am assuming that you meant "to an extent" and not "to and extent' up above.
There is no real law in international relations but their are agreements, treaties and international bodies that result in a situation somewhere between real law and the law of the jungle.
That's not true.......there a number of treatise like the Geneva Convention that outline the behavior for nations in almost every situation.
However, in the case of Israel, there is just some very basic rules of fair play that Israel is ignoring. You should talk to some Israelis who have emigrated to the States. One of the reasons they left Israel is because that society plays their victim status to the nth degree. Its over 50 years since the Holocaust and yet, they throw it up in someone's face whenever there is an opportunity to do so.
Right now, American and Israeli Jews are condemning M. Gibson for his portrayal of Jews vis a vis Jesus in his movie. Forget the facts, they first accused him of anti Semitism. Now they are saying he's not really anti Semitic but his movie will lead to anti Semitic violence. In their minds, that's enough reason to censor his movie. I don't agree and I don't think its fair to Gibson. And as you might suspect, I don't care for Gibson nor his politics.
This was a long way in saying that Israel plays the victim card ad nauseum and when that doesn't work, she takes the law into her own hands.......because she can.
Do I think the Palestinians are saints....of course not. However, while Israel continues to grow and prosper, the Palestinians sit in their own dung. If there are victims in this feud, its the Palestinians and not the Israelis.
And yet our gov't acts as if the Israelis just came out of the German camps!
When there are now laws except the laws of the jungle, then there is anarchy.....anything goes
1 - I specifically said the situation was like the law of the jungle to an extent.
2 - Even if I had said "its the law of the jungle", that doesn't mean I would be endorsing the law of the jungle or saying that "might makes right.
Fine. Then, let me be clear.....in my mind, there is either a society of laws, or the law of the jungle.
It has everything to do with the UN and Israel's repeated disregard of UN resolutions involving her. Again, its the law of the jungle; Israel is a regional superpower and doesn't need to follow the rules of the UN.
It has nothing to do with the UN because the UN is not the law over other nations.
UN members have agreed to abide by the resolutions passed by the UN. Israel had no problem abiding by the UN resolution that gave her independence. Yet, she has trouble abiding by resolutions that don't suit her fancy.
Its called having your cake and eating it too. Again.......unreasonable.
Yes, it does.......if you have total control, you get to decide what's right.
No you don't, you only decide what is going to happen. If evil people have control their evil does not become right. If they do evil to others it is still wrong even if they never face punishment for it.
They make it 'right' in their universe. The phrase, might makes right......does not mean literally might makes something right but rather it makes something right in a particular context or universe.
Whenever you have power, you control your universe and when in complete control, you can determine what is right or what is wrong.
I categorically reject that idea. But even if it was true Israel doesn't have the power to control the universe or even control everything that impacts on Israeli interests and concerns.
I don't mean a literal universe but a finite one........the ME for an example. Israel has tremendous control over what goes on in the ME because she is the most powerful nation in that region.
Its only because we are the most powerful nation in the world that we can make 'right' a pre emptive attack on another nation.
Also you think it is true then you never have any reason to declare any action immoral. If the action happens then obviously someone had the power to do it. If having the power to do it means that the action is made right then by definition of "made right" it would not be an immoral or unjust action. This basically amounts to the belief that ethics and morals are useless concepts. That is why I categorically reject the idea that power determines what is right and wrong.
You're not reading me correctly. I am not saying that might does make something right. I am saying that might makes something right in a particular context, usually a narrow one. Its a forced right for lack of a better term. It becomes right because the person or nation doing the imposition can not be challenged.
It has nothing to do with morality or ethics.
You seem to be the one arguing that might makes right. I'm directly stating that it does not. Your statement ""Whenever you have power...you can determine what is right or what is wrong" is a direct statement that might makes right. Power is the same as might and you are telling me that the person with power determines what is right and wrong.
If the right thing to do is to give back the land then presumably not doing so would be wrong whatever power Israel has or doesn't have.
Let me get back to Israel........its not just might that is making Israel right. Its also her status as a Holocaust victim that lets her get away with some of the sh*t she pulls. However, if you took away the victim sh*t, she would still get away with it because of her power unless the US decided to challenge or force her to be more reasonable.
Yes.
Then, assuming you are right that not giving the land back is wrong, not doing so is not an example of might makes right but rather one of might doing wrong. Mighty people groups or countries can do wrong in fact they frequently do.
I agree.
I know you won't agree with this example but I think our attack on Iraq is morally wrong. But our might has made it right in an American context or frame of reference.
ted |
