America's Covenant with Israel: A Pact with the Devil

[Himmler II]

America's Covenant with Israel
A Pact with the Devil
Charles Sullivan

...With the blessings of the US, and in full view of the world, Israel is engaged in a violent and malicious campaign of ethnic cleansing against the people of Palestine. Like the US in Iraq, Israel is an unlawful foreign occupier of Palestine. Few Americas can appreciate the harsh treatment, beatings, harassment and humiliation; and the frequent killings that the Palestinian people are routinely subjected to at the hands of the Israeli military. The violence and humiliation perpetrated upon the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip bears a striking similarity to that imposed upon the Iraqi people at the hands of an unlawful foreign invader--the United States (...) Every people have the right to defend themselves. However, Israel and the US are foreign occupiers in lands where they have no rights of ownership. The legitimate citizens of the occupied nations have an inherent right and moral obligation to resist foreign occupation, by any and all available means...



Read the full article: http://www.uruknet.info/?p=19357

[OVERWATCH]

The only legitimate occupiers of any land are those who are strong enough to hold onto it; otherwise their claim lay with the mercy of the victor.

[jcs]

The only legitimate occupiers of any land are those who are strong enough to hold onto it; otherwise their claim lay with the mercy of the victor.
Might doesn't make right; it's just hard to argue with.

[daisy]

they will soon be u.s.

[Ixtab]

The only legitimate occupiers of any land are those who are strong enough to hold onto it; otherwise their claim lay with the mercy of the victor.
If your neighbour were to break into your house, lock you up in the basement, and declare that any claims to proprietorship of your residence on your part lay at his mercy, would you accept that from an ethical point of view and give up having any proprietary sensations over your former place of residence? Legality and morality mean nothing as long as the 'victor' has the might or cunning to maintain effective ownership. But propietary feelings can transcend the realities of occupation.

Basic ethical considerations override the self-evident truth, a truth which has nothing to do with morality, that victors are able to exercise a certain control over the lands they occupy--which is all you have stated in different words.

[Felix the Cat]

Quarrels between related members of the same nation are completely different to quarrels between different nations.

Different situations, different rules

Therefore the "neighbourly" analogy you give is inappropriate

The concept of "theft" has no meaning in international relations

[Ambrosio Spinola]

The only legitimate occupiers of any land are those who are strong enough to hold onto it; otherwise their claim lay with the mercy of the victor.

I tend to agree with this. At the end Nature does not hand out second chances in the fight for survival.

[Ixtab]

Quarrels between related members of the same nation are completely different to quarrels between different nations.They are different but sufficiently analogous. Different situations? Different rules of conduct? Different laws? The only rule is 'might makes right'. Legal rules and rules of conduct are utterly irrelevant because legality and propriety can be evaded or manipulated. If the victim should appeal to any law or rule in justifying his claim to proprietorship in the scenerio described, he forgets that legality has already been evaded. "Might makes right" can apply just as forcefully to these situations as they can to international relations.

The concept of "theft" has no meaning in international relationsMorally it can be very meaningful. You are implying legal compulsions again, which are themselves based on 'might' (meaning you are arguing circularly), and can have no bearing on the absolute morality of an act.

In fine: 'Might makes right' regardless of the rules in place within a nation because (a) they can be evaded, and (b) Laws are themselves based on the idea that might makes right.

[Ixtab]

I have argued at Speak Easy that Laws can only be justified circularly.

[Himmler II]

The only legitimate occupiers of any land are those who are strong enough to hold onto it; otherwise their claim lay with the mercy of the victor.
Precisely. That is part of the reason why I see nothing morally wrong with crushing or diminishing the Jewish state through continued martyrdom operations and/or war. Anyone following current events will have noted by now that Israel's racial enemies are steadily growing and strengthening in the Arab and Muslim world.

[OVERWATCH]

If your neighbour were to break into your house, lock you up in the basement, and declare that any claims to proprietorship of your residence on your part lay at his mercy, would you accept that from an ethical point of view and give up having any proprietary sensations over your former place of residence? Legality and morality mean nothing as long as the 'victor' has the might or cunning to maintain effective ownership. But propietary feelings can transcend the realities of occupation.

Basic ethical considerations override the self-evident truth, a truth which has nothing to do with morality, that victors are able to exercise a certain control over the lands they occupy--which is all you have stated in different words.

The might of the Law is greater than the might of a criminal, and the might of the Law says that criminal is in the wrong, and I have legitimate claim to my abode, because society(i.e., the Law) deems it so. The Law is ultimately dependent upon force of arms to retain it's legitimacy, as well; ethical protestations by groups of relatively powerless anarchists, et al, notwithstanding.

[Ixtab]

The might of the Law is greater than the might of a criminal,...Not in those cases in which laws are evaded. If might determines legitimacy, then the criminal's "might" in the case specified overrides the might of law.

And laws do not necessarily correspond with moral truths.

I have legitimate claim to my abode, because society(i.e., the Law) deems it so.The rules of society can be evaded; in such cases the criminal is mightier than the law.

[Jimbo Gomez]

In some cases he is yes, and in those cases he will own flak's basement. In 99,9% of the cases, the law is mightier than the criminal though, so the law is right. No rule, wether moral or legal, is worth a damn if you or your allies don't have the muscle needed to enforce it.

[Ixtab]

In some cases he is yes, and in those cases he will own flak's basement. In 99,9% of the cases, the law is mightier than the criminal though, so the law is right. I don't disagree. By the logic of might makes right, the uncaught criminal is exonerated. When criminality triumphs over laws, that's just another case of might making right -- however unoften that happen.

[Jimbo Gomez]

I don't disagree. By the logic of might makes right, the uncaught criminal is exonerated. When criminality triumphs over laws, that's just another case of might making right.


yup, exactly

[Ixtab]

How do you reconcile this attitude with your religion?

[Jimbo Gomez]

It follows naturally out of human interaction. I regret it being so, and I do recognize higher moral truths, but I'm realistic enough to know that without the strength to enforce those moral truths, or the law for that matter, you can't achieve a whole lot.