Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (2777)	2/17/2004 7:15:19 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 7936

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. I never disputed that. I was disputing the idea that I thought might makes right. Israel doesn't give back the land because it doesn't have to. That doesn't say anything about how wrong or right giving back or not giving back the land is/would be. 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" International relations is such an area where you have a partial "law of the jungle". You rarely have total "law of the jungle" because even in relatively undeveloped and ungoverned areas you often have some traditions and sense of limitations on people. BTW I am assuming that you meant "to an extent" and not "to and extent' up above. Yes the n is a typo and since "and" is a word spell check didn't catch it. 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. Treaties like the Geneva convention are one of the reasons why you have something somewhere between the law of the jungle and real law. The Geneva convention is an agreement but not real law. Not every country has signed it and even those who have are not really controlled by it, they give their word to follow it but it specifies no punishment and there is no international government to impose a punishment. 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. I agree with you about Gibson's movie not being an anti-Semitic work and I agree it should not be censored. As for the politics of being a victim that's an unfortunately common tactic, hardly limited to Israel or Jews. The Palestinians use it internationally like Israel. And domestically just about every identifiable ethnic or religious group uses it to a greater or lesser extent. 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. I don't think being weaker or poorer makes your side of the case more correct or moral. I also don't believe it justifies terrorism. UN members have agreed to abide by the resolutions passed by the UN. Show me the agreement where all the UN members state that they will be bound by resolutions passed by the UN. I don't think you can because it doesn't exist. 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. You mean makes it right in their own minds? Even here I don't agree with you. I agree that they probably think they are right. But they would still think or feel they are right if they where weak so even in this way of looking at the issue its not "might makes right", except for the few people who actually believe that they are right but that they would be wrong if they where weak. I'm not sure you can find people who believe that except perhaps people with severe psychological problems. Its only because we are the most powerful nation in the world that we can make 'right' a pre emptive attack on another nation. Its because we are powerful that we have the ability not that we have the right. Some people don't believe in rights as something that really exist. If you don't, if you think such things are subjective then rights are only rights under the law. You would get such rights by being politically powerful. Now its true that it is possible to turn physical/military power in to political power and then use that political power to give yourself all sorts of legal rights but I don't think that is what you mean by "might makes right", and it certainly is not the normal meaning of the term. Also when examining Israel's right or lack thereof to the land we are not talking about Israel's rights under Israeli law. We could be talking about either rights under "international law", or a fundamental inalienable right. In neither case does Israel's power give it a right. Israel's power doesn't change the relevant international agreements and if you believe there is some fundamental objective rights then Israel's power wouldn't change those either. So in three possible meanings of might makes right Israel's might doesn't make it right. Those possible meanings of right are 1 - right in the Israelis own minds, 2 - right under international law, 3 - right by some objective moral standard. And by none of those definitions does Israel's might make it right (or wrong for that matter). Another possible definition would be 4 - factually correct, but that wouldn't really apply in this situation. 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. Not being able to be challenged doesn't equal "right" even within a very particular context. Let me try a different tact - Please define "right" as you are using it in this conversation. 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. For the sake of argument lets assume the Iraqi invasion was wrong. Our might didn't make it right even within the American frame of reference. If we were weak then it would only become "wrong" (it it was right to begin with) only in the sense of the word that means incorrect. As in it was the incorrect choice of how to deal with the situation because we don't have the strength to follow through with that choice. And if we assume it is wrong even when we are powerful then out power makes no difference to the question "was the invasion right". If by wrong you mean something other then morally wrong perhaps you should use a different term to make it clear. "Unwise", "Illegal", "Mistaken", "Immoral", "Unjust", all overlap with "wrong" but they have different meanings. Perhaps none of those words fit but then maybe you could provide another one. The only one of the words above where might would make "right" would be if I substituted "unwise" for "wrong" and thus "wise" for "right". Might could make certain courses of actions wise that would be unwise if you where weak. Tim