Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » In the year 2071, the Pan-American Empire crushed the last group of (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: In the year 2071, the Pan-American Empire crushed the last group of
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In the year 2071, the Pan-American Empire crushed the last group of Arab rebels, and, furious with the a people that seemed not to understand when they'd been beaten, set out to drive all Arabs and Muslims from the Arabian Peninsula. The Empire renamed the area "Khufiristan," ostensibly to honor the pagan people driven from the peninsula many centuries before, in the time of Mohammed, but everyone knew that it was a calculated insult and a warning to the Muslim people, and a statement that they were no longer welcome on their most sacred land. The Empire moved in other displaced people, who gradually became known as Khufirs. The Khufirs renamed the city of Mecca to "Al Bundy."

Someone remind me ... what exactly is the standard international norm here? Just how many centuries or millenia are supposed to pass before the Muslims have to renounce their claim on Mecca? At what point exactly does the claim of the Khufirs become stronger than the claim of the Muslims?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This argument may work on fanatics, but rational people recognize that every country on earth is based on land that used to belong to someone else. If everyone had the right to set up a country in their ancestral homelands, then half the states on earth would have to be disbanded.
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But what about the dinosaurs???
Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The title of this thread makes me slightly nauseated.
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No one has to renounce their 'claim' on anything for, as the Pan-American subjugation and exile shows, what matters is the clout backing up the claim.

"At what point exactly does the claim of the Khufirs become stronger than the claim of the Muslims?"

When the Pan-American empire backs them up with military might.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 1217

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
... if we're going to empire anaway, can I be emperor? [Big Grin]

Anyway, if this is about the Israelis, and you wished to be accurate, the situation would be a little more like this:

"In the year 2071, the Arab peninsula is a sparsely populated land, a mere section of the Pan-Arabist Empire. The Khufirs, a people who had stayed as a significant minority population scattered across the world, began to settle in their ancient homeland, buying up the land piecemeal, putting up settlements and generally settling there legally. For awhile, peace continues, and the Khufirs, who have a specific plan to prepare or a nation state, prepare, buying up land, living there, bringing people in, etc.

In time, the Pan-Arabist Empire collapses during the Fifth World War, that is, the "War for Universal Freedom," as some people called it. Several colonial powers, including the Pan-American Empire, cut up the Middle East for colonial purposes, and soon promise both the Arabs and Khufirs that they'll possess the Arab peninsula.

In time, geurrila warfare from both sides begin, as certain groups of the Khufirs attack the Americans, and pretty much all the Arabs do so.

In time the Pan-American Empire, weakened finally by the nuclear Sixth World War, pulls out of the Arab peninsula. So, naturally, the Khufirs, who have weapons, legal ownership of much of the land, and a promise to have their own state, declare themselves a state. The rest of the nations around them immediately declare war, as, naturally, they don't wish these pagans to own one of their ancestral holy lands.

After a rather nasty war, the Khufirs beat back their enemies and stand victorious, at least for a short time, and...

well. I'm done transcribing history into the future. It's kinda boring, really.

Anyway, point is made.

And as Ken said, the Khufirs' claim becomes strongest when they have the power to back it up, or have the support of someone who can.

Posts: 2668 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"well. I'm done transcribing history into the future. It's kinda boring, really. "

Give i to Card. Maybe he can make something entertaining of it. It's what him do...

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 1217

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, I dunno how boring it was to read.

I just mean it was boring to write after awhile.

... it WAS boring? Well, shoot.

And yes. Give it the OSC hyperbole (tm) treatment. Hmm. Naw, as fun as it would be, in this case I don't feel like being too comic. [Big Grin]

Posts: 2668 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Remove the buggers as a factor, and you do have - sort of - OSC's take on it in the Ender series.

I think his prediction of the US officially going protectionist is accurate the way things are going now. Of course, at the end of Shadow of the Giant, he hints that the US was the power pulling a lot of the strings all along.

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 1217

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But in the end, remember..

***spoilers***

The IF was playing a rather complex game, and was playing against the America which was supporting it. In the end, those strings were cut, thanks to American diplomat, Hegemon, and older brother to the world's savior. Yes, the one and only Peter Wiggin.

Anyway, yeah, I have a strong feeling that that IS in some ways the way things'll go. A lot of wars in Eurasia as China and India go at it, the Americans holding back and making money and generally having fun in space, the Muslim World having all sorts of junk going on, the E.U. doing the same as America.

Russia, though? Eh, wasn't Ender's Game written while the Cold War was still going, so Russia was a major player there.

In the future, will Russia become important again? It might, though it is definitely a large country. Having lots of nukes does something to your strength, I wager.

But yeah. In the Shadow series, I keep forgetting about the buggers when I read it. It just seems so... political fictiony to me! I like it.

Go FPE! ha ha

Posts: 2668 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I keep thinking of an article I read the other day - I've been checking out a lot of Cato's stuff this week: It’s Not Another World War
quote:
True to their label, the Islamic terrorists are terrifying, and they can sometimes inflict nasty damage, as we discovered to great sorrow five years ago. But terrorism has always been the strategy of weak parties, not strong ones, and radical Islamic terrorism is no exception.

The closest historical analogy for the radical Islamic terrorist threat is neither the two world wars nor the Cold War. It is the violence perpetrated by anarchist forces during the last third of the nineteenth century. Anarchists committed numerous high-profile assassinations, including a Russian czar, an empress of Austria-Hungary, and President William McKinley. They also fomented numerous bomb plots and riots, including the notorious Haymarket riot in the United States. The Newt Gingriches of that era also overreacted and warned of a dire threat to western civilization. In reality, though, the anarchists were capable only of pinpricks, and life went on.

The radical Islamists are only a little more potent. U.S. intelligence agencies estimate that there are no more than a few thousand Al Qaeda operatives—many of whom are hunkered down in the wilds of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

However fearsome they are, we must keep their threat in perspective. Even in the improbable worst-case scenario—the one in which Al Qaeda gets its hands on a nuclear weapon and somehow figures out how to detonate it (not an easy task)—the scope of destruction, while terrible, would still not begin to rival the horrors of the last century's bloodletting, much less what would have happened if the Cold War had turned hot. There is no realistic prospect of Al Qaeda obtaining thousands of nukes.

Made me kind of step back and think for a moment. Are the Islamofacists really the boogey men we've come to think of them?
Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My wife and I had an interesting discussion about the cause of the current Islamic terrorists the other day.

Basically, Islamic terrorists were created by the clash of Western and Islamic cultures and financed by Western oil consumption. Of course, the most potent point of this clash of culture is Israel, where Western nations basically “gave away” one of Islam’s most holy cities, Jerusalem, to another culture (Jewish). This feeling of helpless ("can’t even keep our own holy sites") along with the money from oil breeds the current terrorism.

Of course, the whole state of Israel was in reaction to the Holocaust, where Jews were murdered and displaced. The Holocaust is, of course, Hitler’s fault. And the primary reason for Hitler coming into power was the onerous reparations that Germany had to pay for WWI.

And, as we all know, the initial spark for WWI was the anarchist assassination of Archduke Ferdinand.

So the real cause of the Islamic terrorists today is actually the Anarchists of the early 20th century! It’s all the Anarchists fault!

Looks good on paper, at least. [Big Grin]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
hm...I would've thought it was the nihilists...
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nihilists...Anarchists...Dadaist...same difference.
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"In time, the Pan-Arabist Empire collapses during the Fifth World War, that is, the "War for Universal Freedom," as some people called it. "

Gerg.

Ummmm, so far off it's not really very funny.


If you want to consider why, I'll just leave you with a few proper nouns.

Ottoman Turks

The Seven Pillars

Do you need more?

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No one suspects the Spanish Inquisition!
Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
This argument may work on fanatics, but rational people recognize that every country on earth is based on land that used to belong to someone else. If everyone had the right to set up a country in their ancestral homelands, then half the states on earth would have to be disbanded.

Suppose that I asked a question instead of making an argument. Assuming that what you said is true, how long until one loses the right? Five minutes? Five years? Fifty years? Five hundred? Five thousand?

Or do other variables intercede?

What if a small group of Muslims continued to live in the city that they continued to call "Mecca?" What if most of the world, Muslim and non-muslim alike, continued to refer to the city as "Mecca" despite the fact that the PAE had razed the Kaaba and built a McDonalds in its place?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 0Megabyte:
... if we're going to empire anaway, can I be emperor? [Big Grin]

Anyway, if this is about the Israelis, and you wished to be accurate, the situation would be a little more like this:

"In the year 2071, the Arab peninsula is a sparsely populated land, a mere section of the Pan-Arabist Empire. The Khufirs, a people who had stayed as a significant minority population scattered across the world, began to settle in their ancient homeland, buying up the land piecemeal, putting up settlements and generally settling there legally. For awhile, peace continues, and the Khufirs, who have a specific plan to prepare or a nation state, prepare, buying up land, living there, bringing people in, etc.

In time, the Pan-Arabist Empire collapses during the Fifth World War, that is, the "War for Universal Freedom," as some people called it. Several colonial powers, including the Pan-American Empire, cut up the Middle East for colonial purposes, and soon promise both the Arabs and Khufirs that they'll possess the Arab peninsula.

Technically true, but the truth is that the PAE's stranglehold on the middle-east had already begun to slip years before after a wild band of Texan separatists looted the PAE capital, Panama City. [Wink] After that, PAE remained united on paper but had effectively split into two empires. Khufiristan and Al Bundy were ruled from the African capital, Little America City, often referred to as CFTI, "the City Formerly Known as Istanbul."
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's Istanbul, not Constantinople, right? [Wink]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Also known as the city formerly known as the city formerly known as Constantinople.

Also known as the city formerly known as the city formerly known as the city formerly known as Byzantium.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why did Constantinople get the works?
That's nobodys business but the Turks...

[DOH] Folied again!
And here I thought I was being original...

[ September 15, 2006, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: jm0397 ]

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"And, as we all know, the initial spark for WWI was the anarchist assassination of Archduke Ferdinand."

Oh c'mon, we all know that that isn't the real reason.

It was actually The Tipping Point

The reality is that WWI was not caused by Mr. Franz's death, but from a culmination of tensions caused by imperialist conquests and secret alliances.

[Smile]

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, if you want to be technical about it...

Hey, why let a prefectly good theory get ruined by the facts? [Wink] [Smile]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's what Pete said..
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Suppose that I asked a question instead of making an argument. Assuming that what you said is true, how long until one loses the right? Five minutes? Five years? Fifty years? Five hundred? Five thousand?

Or do other variables intercede?

What if a small group of Muslims continued to live in the city that they continued to call "Mecca?" What if most of the world, Muslim and non-muslim alike, continued to refer to the city as "Mecca" despite the fact that the PAE had razed the Kaaba and built a McDonalds in its place?

You speak of a "right" as if there is such a thing as a natural right to live on a certain chunk of land. The land, like the air, belongs to whoever happens to occupy it. There is no "right" to land, apart from rights created by law, and of course the natural right of force.

For the sake of peace, I am all in favour of the Palestinians having a state. Israel may even wish to cede territory as a bargaining chip. But I won't acknowledge any natural "right" for Palestinians to live in a certain space of land, just because their parents and their parents' parents lived there. I also refuse to base Israel's current claim to the land on some "right" based on ancient historical ties.

To acknowledge ANY right in land based on historical or ethnic ties to it would be hypocrisy. Following that line of thinking to its logical end, you'd have to disband the United States and hand it over to the Indians. No thanks.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So close...
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Land for Peace?

One for One sucess record.

See Also: Egypt.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You have to actually have a partner who wants to take your land in order for "land for peace" to work, though.

On the other hand, land for peace failed absymally for american indians.

[ September 15, 2006, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: Everard ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Additonally, 0Meg, the Arab mass migration to what they called their homeland didn't happen for nearly two milenia later. During that time, Khufiristan got passed from one empire to another. Some time during the 2760s it was actually called the Kingdom of Arabia for about for a few years and restored the name of Al Bundy back to Mecca, but the rulers of this Kindgom of Arabia were neither arabs nor Muslims, but a group of militant Amish. The Amish Kingdom of Arabia was overrun in 2892 by the spreading Kurdish empire, who by now considered themselves Khufirs since other Muslims had rejected them for so long, but within a century, the Kurds converted in mass to the Maoist religion. It wasn't until the thirty-sixth century, in the aftermath of the First Interplanetary War (IWI), when the United Bantu Peoples liberated Khufiristan from the iron grip of his holiness Mao Zedong LXXVI. The denizens of Khufiristan never really had a chance to make a nation for themselves, (and it's unclear that they even called or thought of themselves as Khufirs at the close of IWI). Seeing their first opportunity to reclaim their lands, the Arabs and other Muslim allies flooded in en masse.

I realize that I've oversimplified things a bit; feel free to elaborate if you think I missed any key points, or if I've misunderstood the history.

My question is, at what point exactly did the Arabs and Muslims lose any claim to the Kaaba? To Mecca? To Arabia?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not the long run it didn't, Ev.

Oh, ummm, did you mean peace under humane terms?

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
quote:
Suppose that I asked a question instead of making an argument. Assuming that what you said is true, how long until one loses the right? Five minutes? Five years? Fifty years? Five hundred? Five thousand?

Or do other variables intercede?

What if a small group of Muslims continued to live in the city that they continued to call "Mecca?" What if most of the world, Muslim and non-muslim alike, continued to refer to the city as "Mecca" despite the fact that the PAE had razed the Kaaba and built a McDonalds in its place?

You speak of a "right" as if there is such a thing as a natural right to live on a certain chunk of land.
Really? Where did I do that? I think you've confused me with someone else, Jason. I spoke to positive law, to tradition, to international law and norms.

To refresh your memory to the top if the thread, I asked:

quote:
Someone remind me ... what exactly is the standard international norm here? Just how many centuries or millenia are supposed to pass before the Muslims have to renounce their claim on Mecca? At what point exactly does the claim of the Khufirs become stronger than the claim of the Muslims?
More clear with the bolding?

quote:
The land, like the air, belongs to whoever happens to occupy it. There is no "right" to land, apart from rights created by law, and of course the natural right of force.
I'm talking about rights created by law. But the laws of most nations take international norms into consideration, so we're back to my original question. You could adapt it and ask, what *should* the law be?

State law recognizes a statute of limitations period, with ironic abbreviation SoL, because when it runs out, you're SoL, with no claim on your property. However, most jurisdictions recognize that when you have no reasonable ability to claim your property at law, that the SoL does not run.

But by your logic above, Palestinians are out of luck since Israel occupies their land, and therefore has the "right" to it?

But then you say:
quote:
For the sake of peace, I am all in favour of the Palestinians having a state. Israel may even wish to cede territory as a bargaining chip. But I won't acknowledge any natural "right" for Palestinians to live in a certain space of land, just because their parents and their parents' parents lived there. I also refuse to base Israel's current claim to the land on some "right" based on ancient historical ties.
So how does "the sake of peace" modify what you described as right by possession or the natural right of force? Is this a separate right created by the williness to commit certain acts? Do you believe that appeasing terror brings peace?

quote:
To acknowledge ANY right in land based on historical or ethnic ties to it would be hypocrisy. Following that line of thinking to its logical end, you'd have to disband the United States and hand it over to the Indians. No thanks.
To create a duty to give someone land in order to create "peace," creates problematic incentives as well, I think.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Loki
Member
Member # 2312

 - posted      Profile for Loki   Email Loki   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have your answer. A century and a half after someone takes it from them.

[ September 15, 2006, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: Loki ]

Posts: 311 | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, the current gold standard seems to be about three generations.

My Grandfather was Irish. Because of that, by Irish law, my father or I could become Irish citizens on application. My children cannnot unless I do.

According to many people, the Gold Standard should be one generation, at least as it applies to Palestinians. If a Palestinian refugeed was forced out if Israel in 1948, they but not their children might have a right of return, and they only have it if they can prove they were forced out by Israelis rather than fled due to general fears or Arab propoganda. (That is as I understand the position, anyway.)

The only population for which anyone in the world believes they have a right of return after 54 generations (18 centuries at an average of 3 generations per century) is the Jews.

None of these are my opinion, but they do represent a fair comparison of actual standards that are held to apply.

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Loki:
I have your answer. A century and a half after someone takes it from them.

Marvy. And what's that based on? Who has applied that standard, and where?

[ September 15, 2006, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"My Grandfather was Irish. Because of that, by Irish law, my father or I could become Irish citizens on application. My children cannnot unless I do.

According to many people, the Gold Standard should be one generation, at least as it applies to Palestinians. If a Palestinian refugeed was forced out if Israel in 1948, they but not their children might have a right of return, and they only have it if they can prove they were forced out by Israelis rather than fled due to general fears or Arab propoganda. (That is as I understand the position, anyway.)"

You realize this isn't an accurate comparison at all, right?

"The only population for which anyone in the world believes they have a right of return after 54 generations (18 centuries at an average of 3 generations per century) is the Jews."

You realize there was a large jewish presence in israel continuously for the last 2500 years, right?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ev:

quote:
You realize this isn't an accurate comparison at all, right?
Why not? This goes directly to the question of a "right" of individual return, and if the individuals can't return, the notion of a right to reestablish a nation state in the region is empty.

quote:
You realize there was a large jewish presence in israel continuously for the last 2500 years, right?
I realise that the majority of Jews have lived outside of the current territory of Israel for most of the last 2,500 years. I realise that the majority of the current territory of Israel has only had a Jewish government for 250 of the last 2,500 years (assuming we count Herod the Great as Jewish). I realise that the Jews have only formed a majority population for any part of the current territory of Israel oustside of the hill country of Judea for around (at most) 200 of the last 2,500 years. I also realise that the majority of the ancestors of the Palestinians have been resident within the current territory of Israel for most of the last 2,500 years; and for a significant portion of it, for most of the last 5,000 years.

What I don't understand is why the presence of a small population of Jews in Jerusalem for 2,000 years gives a right to all those Jews whose ancestors have not lived in Palestine for over 1800 years (and for most of their ancestors cases over 2,500 years) to live in Palestine; and a right to live their superior to the Palestinians, most of whose ancestors have lived in Palestine for over 1500 years.

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm talking about rights created by law. But the laws of most nations take international norms into consideration, so we're back to my original question. You could adapt it and ask, what *should* the law be?
And which law creates such a right? Is there a law that creates a right in land based on historical/ethnic ties, that says: "because you belong to ethnic group X, which inhabited country Y, Z centuries ago, you are entitled to assume control of land Y."? Can you cite this law? Which country has deigned to legislate this? More importantly, who even has the authority to legislate such a thing, and who is willing to enforce it? As for "international norms", the only such norm I am familiar with is that of those with power enforcing their will (for good or bad) on those without power.

quote:
Really? Where did I do that? I think you've confused me with someone else, Jason. I spoke to positive law, to tradition, to international law and norms.
If I misunderstood or misstated what you said, then I apologize. I was actually referring to the part where you said

quote:
Suppose that I asked a question instead of making an argument. Assuming that what you said is true, how long until one loses the right? Five minutes? Five years? Fifty years? Five hundred? Five thousand?
You referred to one losing a "right", so I assumed you pre-supposed the existence of said right. I assumed that the purpose of your original analogy was to demonstrate the historical claim of the Jews to Israel by using an obvious Muslim claim based on a fictitious future scenario. I responded by denying what I deemed to be the premise of your argument: that one can have a "right" in land based purely on historical ethnic ties.
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Why not?"

The state of ireland exists. The state of palestine never has. If the palestinians form a government, then can design any conditions for return that they wish in the land that they control. They never had a state, and so could never control who could and could not live on their land, from a political perspective.

As far as the rest of your post,

" I realise that the majority of the current territory of Israel has only had a Jewish government for 250 of the last 2,500 years"

More like about 500. At times its been only a local government, true.

" I realise that the Jews have only formed a majority population for any part of the current territory of Israel oustside of the hill country of Judea for around (at most) 200 of the last 2,500 years."

Depends on how you define "part." Several of the holy cities have had a jewish majority extending back to the crusades. And, since judea is about half of modern israel, I see you are concedeing me abotu a millenium of jewish majority presence in a large chunk of the land we're talking about.

" I also realise that the majority of the ancestors of the Palestinians have been resident within the current territory of Israel for most of the last 2,500 years; and for a significant portion of it, for most of the last 5,000 years."

Well, this is just some made up gibberish, as far as I can tell. The palestinians are primarily arab. Huge chunks of the people who call themselves palestinians now had ancestors who only very recently moved into whats now israel from egypt, syria, lebanon, jordan, and iraq.

"What I don't understand is why the presence of a small population of Jews in Jerusalem for 2,000 years gives a right to all those Jews whose ancestors have not lived in Palestine for over 1800 years (and for most of their ancestors cases over 2,500 years) to live in Palestine; and a right to live their superior to the Palestinians, most of whose ancestors have lived in Palestine for over 1500 years."

Because we tried to establish a state there, and did establish a state there, while the palestinians only attempts to establish a state prior to the last 15 years or so were done so with the declared intent of genocide as a necessary component of their national movement. Because we bought land legally, moved in legally, and built a state where none had existed for the previous hundred years, and the palestinians didn't. And because we never relinquished our claim to the land, and attempted to return on a very regular basis over the preceeding 1800 years, only to be slaughtered or denied the ability to return. Because we established our national state in a more ethical manner then any other modern nation, and the palestinian attempts have all been amongst the most unethical attempts at state creation in modern history.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The Amish Kingdom of Arabia was overrun in 2892 by the spreading Kurdish empire, who by now considered themselves Khufirs since other Muslims had rejected them for so long, but within a century, the Kurds converted in mass to the Maoist religion. It wasn't until the thirty-sixth century, in the aftermath of the First Interplanetary War (IWI), when the United Bantu Peoples liberated Khufiristan from the iron grip of his holiness Mao Zedong LXXVI."

I really don't think Pete is getting enough credit here for the wonderful lunacy he invests in the names he grants his future history.

I can't help but interpret Mao Zedong LXXVI as having the word 'pope' implied. Pope Mao Zedong LXXVI...

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 1217

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, welcome back Ev.

Hmm. Really, this whole debate about the actions of the Jews are meaningless at this point.

They essentially took back what they considered their homeland by force, and have been fighting there to keep it ever since. Will they always hold it? Maybe, or at least will until it becomes a sea of radioactive glass.

There is no "right to land" except what you can back up, really.

Nations do not, really, have rules over them. the human world is naturally anarchic. There has never been any law over all nations. Or at least, never any law no one could break. Only force. Is this good? Is this right? I don't think anarchy is a good thing at all.

I'd prefer an end to the anarchy of nations. But that won't concievably come unless the Buggers come and try to colonize Earth. That is, until there's a threat so great and so significant that the nations of Earth cannot help but join together.

At the moment, however, there are no rules. The only rules are what you can force others to abide by. That IS the reality, as evil a reality as it is. And by that reality, the Isrealis, who have the power to back up their claim, get to hold their claim, damn whatever anyone else says.

Just like we claimed all this territory the same way. The land I live on used to be controlled by a very different civilization, even two hundred years ago. We Europeans said, essentially "no, it's ours" had the power to back it up, and made it so. That is the reality of nations, and we're no better than Israel or the Normans who invaded England in 1066 or the Arabs who invaded the Iberian peninsula or anyone else.

Eventually the United States will cease to exist. Maybe a thousand years from now, but it'll happen someday. The people who replace us will do so because they're stronger than us. Or smarter. Or else because we destroy ourselves in stupid internal conflict, because at this venture that's the only thing that will destroy us.

What solutions are there? The United States is not powerful enough, has not the willpower or the incentive to try to police the world, and that isn't really right based on the few rules we try to follow.

We alone can't unite the world. Nor can any other nation at this time, nor should they.

Would the world willingly unite now? No, not a chance! All the nations are after their own self-interest, all peoples are after that.

Is the U.N. the key? It's a joke, but ahh, a world government with teeth could do so.

But it would have to be a world government freely joined, democratically joined. It would have to be a government that dealt lightly with its subjects, that had no interest in enforcing any but the most basic civility within the states, (you know, no clitorectomies, no torture, no killing people except by court of law, etc) but had the military, economic and political power to intervene successfully. This would of course mean that there would have to be standards to join.

It would have to be so economically beneficial to join that many would want to join.

Above all it would have to be democratic, and a federation, not a confederacy, because a confederacy would probably not be all that much better than the U.N.

But there would have to be a fostering of unity for this to happen, as well. The ability for people of different kinds to work together. But that is one of the main good sides of globalization, that different peoples are learning about each other, trading with each other, discussing with each other.

That of course leads to its negative side, this growth of differences, this uncertainty of truth causing many to pull back into a fundamentalist attitude. That must be dealt with, or at least marginalized enough to no longer be a significant problem.

Strange that I go here from talking about Israel, but it's important. This is the only real way to keep such events as the Native American displacement, the conquest of nations from happening.

Hell, in such a world government, we could compete with each other in the worldwide favorite sport Soccor, or something. Maybe chess. Or we could play virtual war games and fight for fun instead of for blood.

But for now, at this moment, anything other than the force to back up a claim is not respected. That shouldnt' be right. But that's the reality.

Posts: 2668 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1