Biblical Israel Reaches Out to Pres. Bush

[humus_sapiens]

Originally posted by sharonbn
Oh I see, and claiming that modern Jewish people are direct descendants of a people who lived in Israel 2,000 years ago is not ridiculous?

Doesn't look ridiculous to me at all. I saw some genetic research proving that. Of course, the genotype of Jews and the Arabs is very close if not the same... Aside from ethnicity, the religion and national identity is a strong argument for this too. Another is the Jewish written history, because of very high rate of literacy.

The historical fact is that the Khazar people, who were a European empire in the middle ages, did indeed convert to Judaism. The empire collapsed sometime in the 13th or 14th cent. What happened to all these people? It is still an unaccounted question.

The pro-Arab sites are full of this "Jews = Khazars" hypothesis. Anything to disprove the Jewish links to Israel. I'd like to understand why do you repeat after them? Do you realize that _you_ doing it make much stronger case for that myth?

The Palestinians are descendants of the Arabs who came here 1,500 years ago and this place is their homeland.

...And also thousands upon thousands of those who recently came here from the neighboring countries after the Zionists (who called themselves Palestinians, BTW!) have turned the swamps and deserts into gardens. The British encouraged the Arab immigration, at the same time shutting down Jewish immigration.
Why you don't make any distinction?

I don’t believe Israelis have any right whatsoever to settle in any land that was occupied after the 1948 war. [/B]

The message you are sending here: "the aggression and terrorism works".
What about the Hebron massacre of 1929? Give it up?
What about 1967? The Egyptians started the war.
Even more, what about Americans, Canadians living on an occupied land?
What about the lands that were taken from Germany after WWII and given to Poland and Czechoslovakia?
How about the Albanians who were recently settled in Serbian and Croatian lands, with the help of NATO?

All illegal and immoral occupation? Should all this land be given back? Or only the land "occupied" by the Jews, because the "proud" Arab cannot live under Jewish flag? He simply explodes...

Finally, the main point you and other Mitzna supporters continue to miss: the issue is not about the land. Isn't it obvious already the Arabs are unable to tolerate any Jewish presence in the Middle East? Isn't it obvious they are unable to compromise to find a way to coexist peacefully?

I am afraid, the Arabs won't appreciate your friendly position towards them, but rather use it as a trampoline for their "final solution to the Jewish question".

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by sharonbn
I myself do not live in disputed land. I am third generation of Israelis and Israel is my homeland. I live in the state of Israel that was recognized by the world nations in 1947, and by the Palestinians themselves in 1998.

On this issue, there are three types of Arabs (1) those that recognize Israel's right to exist, (2) those that don't recognize Israel's right to exist, and (3) those that try to give the impression to Westerners that they recognize Israel's right to exist but do so only as a tactical ploy to extract concessions.

Given this, I don't know how you can feel you are not living on "disputed land."

I believe the state of Israel has a sound moral basis for its foundation and existence.
I don’t believe Israelis have any right whatsoever to settle in any land that was occupied after the 1948 war.

Your own formulation of this point shows it is not so simple. What makes land captured in 1948 immune to dispute?

A couple of points worthy of notice:

* None of Israel's Arab enemies were interested in negotiating any sort of compromise until Israel began building settlements.

* They don't merely call for Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders, which they never recognized anyway, they demand that Jews get out of the West Bank and Gaza.

Part of a genuine peace would be willingness to form a Palestinian state with a Jewish minority, just as Israel is a Jewish state with a sizable Arab minority.

[sharonbn]

The argument here is discussed on two separate levels: moral/philosophical and practical/political. I am david agrees with me that morally speaking, the Jewish conquest of Israel is the same as the Arab one.

Originally posted by I am David
Although the Hebrews conquered Canaan from the canaanites, this act is immoral, however the immoralcy simply doesnt effect the issue, between the Jews and the Arabs

He states that since the Jewish conquest came before the Arab one – that makes the Jews the rightful owner and the Arabs the thieves. I disagree for two reasons:

1) The Arabs did not take the land from the Jews – they took it from the Romans. The Arabs where not the ones who caused the Jews the historical injustice and are in no way “bound” to correct that injustice.
You have to remember we are talking about a vastly different period in history than the present. Its not like the world was already neatly divided into nations and countries and everyone knew their place. This is a period when the same nations and cuontries were actualy formed so the notion of "national land ownership" was still taking shape.
For instance - at the same period, the Vikings were turning into Normans and also English (through conquest), Vikings also played a role in the creation of the Russian nation - again through conquest, etc.

2) After 2,000 years of absence, Jews cannot just appear and claim “what’s theirs”, conveniently ignoring 1,500 years of Arab residence in the land. These 1,500 years give the Arabs a claim on the land at least as legitimate as the Jewish one.

Now, in line of the above (that both people have some legitimate claim on the land), I move to the practical side: the present status quo, also acceptable by the Palestinian leadership in 1998, is the borders created after 48 war. I guess the reason is that pre 67 is the most recent situation where a more-or-less total separation was achieved between Jews and Palestinians (assuming Arab Israelis are indeed Israelis, not Palestinian citizens – this is a different issue). This is indeed far from a just and perfect solution, but seems like a reasonable compromise between What’s right and what’s feasible.

Now one needs to ask oneself is it worth it to “implement” Jewish right over the land: Will this step further complicate the already impossible entanglement? Is the price in human suffering worth it?

I say (as you might expect) that the present complicated situation merits Jewish settlement in the occupied territories fruitless. I don’t believe (anymore) that Jews and Palestinians can live together in piece. Not in the foreseeable future. A separation, as total as possible, needs to be implemented for piece to exist. This means that either Jews or Palestinians will have to move away from the land as part of the permanent agreement. In my eyes, it is both more just and more practical that Jews will be the ones who will have to leave.

Regarding the differentiation I make between the state of Israel and the occupied territories:

The differentiation is not my invention. It comes from the perception of the Zionist goal. I am a Zionist, a true believer of the Zionist cause and its moral justification (and I don't call myself Palestinian...) The Zionist goal was NEVER the restoration of biblical Israel with its biblical borders. Zionism is about the Jewish people – giving that people a home and refuge. The sovereign state of Israel serves that function. That state draws its legitimacy from the recognition of the world nations, as well as the Palestinian leadership since 1998.

This is as undisputed as you can get here. There will be individuals who will dispute everything. Palestinian leadership accepted Israel in its pre 67 borders, the same way Israeli governments accepted Palestinians right for statehood on the occupied territories.

[I am David]

Sharon your argument makes no decent sense. "1,500 years give the Arabs a claim on the land at least as legitimate as the Jewish one"? Why does it? Why do you think you have the authority to define the amount of time it takes for one group of peoples claim to the land overides anothers? You say 1,500 years is enough, well would you say 2 years is enough? No doubt you will say that is much to little. Well guess what, in my OPINION, one just as valid as yours I might add, 1,500 years is not enough to overide the original owners right to the land. In my opinion, it has to be at least 5,000 years. It is of my opinion that the right of ownership of land (as a nation) for a certain people, is no small thing that can be overidden by a few thousand years. It must be more significant, say, 5,000 years .

What if the Jews ethnically cleansed the West Bank of Arabs, moved in more Jews, and let that sit for 100 years. Is that 100 years enough to overide the Arabs 'claim' to the land? So all one has to do in order to give themselves a 'right' to the land, and for his people, is commit a crime against humanity, and then just wait a while? Is that really what you think?

And no, I don't care, and nor does the commonly accepted code of morality, that the Arabs took the land from the Romans, rather than the Jews. That makes no difference. It's like saying that if you were given a car by someone, but that someone stole that car from its rightfull owner, then you found out about the car and its real owner, but did not give the car back, then you would still have a 'moral' right to the car, just because you had it for a month. That's ridiculous, but the same kind of argument that you are proposing.

I also don't care for you jumbled together argument about 'neatly divided nations' and not 'neatly divided nations'. Just because there isn't a standard political boundary does not mean there are not hundred of thousands of people living on the land (who would be the Jews, who as of now are the ONLY rightfull owners left to be considered, lest you go back to the tired argument of saying that the Jews stole it from the Cannanites ). Besides, can you explain to me how the boundaries of Israel proper (non empiracal) were not well defined, after it was taken over by invaders?

And on a last note, your differentation between biblical and modern Israel did not have to do with Zionism, because we are not discussion Zionism, we are discussion the Jews moral right to live and have a nation on ANY of the land where the Palestinians lived, because the Jews resettled after they had lived there. If you say it is morally right to live in Israel, then minus the double standards, you must say the same for the West Bank and Gaza.

BTW it would be nice if I didnt have to wait a month practically for your reply.

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by I am David
Sharon your argument makes no decent sense. "1,500 years give the Arabs a claim on the land at least as legitimate as the Jewish one"? Why does it? Why do you think you have the authority to define the amount of time it takes for one group of peoples claim to the land overides anothers? You say 1,500 years is enough, well would you say 2 years is enough? No doubt you will say that is much to little. Well guess what, in my OPINION, one just as valid as yours I might add, 1,500 years is not enough to overide the original owners right to the land. In my opinion, it has to be at least 5,000 years. It is of my opinion that the right of ownership of land (as a nation) for a certain people, is no small thing that can be overidden by a few thousand years. It must be more significant, say, 5,000 years .

I personally draw the line at the third generation, roughly 70-100 years. This is for two reasons:

1) From personal experience, I can say that this third generation really knows no other home. These people share no link with original home of their ancestors. You may say this for their parents but then comes my second argument:

2) The displaced people need also some time to accept the new situation and adjust to their new home. Again, from my experience, the first two generations of immigrants endure much hardship and prejudice before the third generation may be accepted as indigenous by the host nation.
This leaves the displaced people a “chance” of some 100 years to attempt to recapture or otherwise claim their old home back. After that time, its my belief they lost this privilege since other people now call the land “my home”

Of course these numbers are not written in stone. In some cases, like the Jewish people, they were never accepted by the host nation (partly by their own intention – that’s a different story).

Take the case of Tibet. It is now 60 years under Chinese (brute) occupation. The Chinese government have vigorously engaged in policy of displacing the Tibet people and settling Chinese instead (sounds familiar?) I believe that some 50-100 years from now, demographically and culturally speaking, Tibet will indeed become home to a lot of Chinese people and Tibetans will lose their right to claim their land back. They will have to either adjust to their new home, or conquer Tibet from its new rightful owner and then settle there for 100 years... you get the picture.

Everyone draws his/her lines at when a conqueror becomes the rightful owner as his/her conscience and point of view dictates.

And yes, I believe that somewhere in the 2050-60s, Israel can claim the occupied territories as its land by virtue of continuous residence. By that time, it is expected from the Palestinian refugees to settle and built their lives in their new home. The question is if Israel can carry out a settlement plan as comprehensive as the Chinese, bearing the Palestinian and resistance and internal conflict.

By your standards, I am David, who’s the rightful owner of America? who’s the rightful owner of California? who’s the rightful owner of Australia?

Originally posted by I am David
What if the Jews ethnically cleansed the West Bank of Arabs, moved in more Jews, and let that sit for 100 years. Is that 100 years enough to overide the Arabs 'claim' to the land? So all one has to do in order to give themselves a 'right' to the land, and for his people, is commit a crime against humanity, and then just wait a while? Is that really what you think?

But isn’t this what the Jews did when they migrated from Egypt to Israel some 5,000 years ago? They came into the land, mass murdered or mass transfered all the indigenous population, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Yevusies etc. and just settled in and waited long enough for this crime to be forgotten and they could claim ownership?
You agree that the Jewish conquest of Israel is immoral. Then you say this is irrelevant in the argument between Jews and Arabs because the Jewish ethnic cleansing was successful.
Sounds pretty twisted to me.

Originally posted by I am David
And no, I don't care, and nor does the commonly accepted code of morality, that the Arabs took the land from the Romans, rather than the Jews. That makes no difference. It's like saying that if you were given a car by someone, but that someone stole that car from its rightfull owner, then you found out about the car and its real owner, but did not give the car back, then you would still have a 'moral' right to the car, just because you had it for a month. That's ridiculous, but the same kind of argument that you are proposing.

Your analogy is incorrect (imo).
You are mixing moral/historical ownership of land and legal/property ownership of land. Like you yourself said before, one should not be switched with the other or override it. These two concepts carry different rules and attitudes. In the case of legal ownership, morality pays no role, since (usually) its not a question of emotional attachment, but rather of monetary value (for instance, the original or new owner of the car may be compensated with money.) In the case of land claim from moral/historical reasons, there are no established rules to determine who’s right and who’s wrong, and, consequentially multiple people can claim the same piece of land, each one with its own conviction and reasoning and usually there is no one absolute answer. Also, since we’re talking about ownership by virtue of history, time does bare a significant and even crucial role in the argument - as we saw, different people regard different lengths of time as legitimate claim - there is norule that says how long...

that's what I meant when I said morality is subjective. It is not because "I say moral is subjective and murder is moral boohahaha" or similar cr*p that was thrown here, but beacause the issue of moral claim of land depends on personal interpretation of history. whether or not 1,500 years of residence is "strong enough" or not - its subjective.

I believe the following analogy is more close to the issue at hand:
Say an infant was taken by force from his mother, (for whatever reason – say she was declared unfit) and adopted by a childless family. The match does not go well and the child is given to yet another family. This time the new parents raise the child with love and care and she grows up like a normal child with normal family. The mother do misses her child but makes no attempt to claim her until 15 years have passed. The girl is now a teenage who all her life knew one pair of parents. Now the mother claims her child was unjustly taken from her and files for custody.
The parents claim that they should be viewed as the true family of the child since she was raised by them from infancy and has no emotional ties to her biological mother.

There is no one absolute truth here. Both parties have a morally (and possibly legally) legitimate claim. The court will probably rule based on practical considerations (best for the child, etc.) but morally – there will be some who will side with the biological mother that did not relinquish her child voluntarily, and others who will side with the adopting parents who developed a true family ties with the child.

Originally posted by I am David
I also don't care for you jumbled together argument about 'neatly divided nations' and not 'neatly divided nations'. Just because there isn't a standard political boundary does not mean there are not hundred of thousands of people living on the land (who would be the Jews, who as of now are the ONLY rightfull owners left to be considered, lest you go back to the tired argument of saying that the Jews stole it from the Cannanites ). Besides, can you explain to me how the boundaries of Israel proper (non empiracal) were not well defined, after it was taken over by invaders?

I was not talking about political borders. I was raising the point that national land ownership is a relatively new invention from around 18th cent with the enlightenment movement. That was the first time that people accepted the notion that a historical connection of a people to a land gives them right for self govern. Before that, this notion did not exist. IMO, It is historically and morally incorrect to apply 20th cent. cultural ideas and moral standards to the dark ages and ancient times.

Originally posted by I am David
And on a last note, your differentation between biblical and modern Israel did not have to do with Zionism, because we are not discussion Zionism, we are discussion the Jews moral right to live and have a nation on ANY of the land where the Palestinians lived, because the Jews resettled after they had lived there. If you say it is morally right to live in Israel, then minus the double standards, you must say the same for the West Bank and Gaza.

I was misunderstood: I don’t say that Jews don’t have a moral claim for the occupied territories. I say this claim does not invalidate the Arab one. Two nations may claim the same piece of land with equal conviction. The solution will probably be a compromise based on practical terms.
The differentiation I made was that the state of Israel was founded not on the basis of the historical right of the people (or at least this is not the main cause), but as a refuge for this people from persecution and annihilation. The case of the Jewish people on the occupied territories is not the same, since the refuge problem is already addressed. The case is solely based on subjective historical view.

[I am David]

But isn’t this what the Jews did when they migrated from Egypt to Israel some 5,000 years ago? They came into the land, mass murdered or mass transfered all the indigenous population, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Yevusies etc. and just settled in and waited long enough for this crime to be forgotten and they could claim ownership? You agree that the Jewish conquest of Israel is immoral. Then you say this is irrelevant in the argument between Jews and Arabs because the Jewish ethnic cleansing was successful. Sounds pretty twisted to me.

I think I've explained this to you at least 3 times. Are you just ignoring me on purpose or do you really not understand it? Please tell me now so I don't have to keep repeating myself. No, I don't say it is irrelevant because the Jewish conquest was succesfull, but becauase the Cannanites are not a party to be considered in practical solutions because they don't exist to be considered at all! There please read that over again so mabye I don't have to write it again!

Though, it's odd, you say it sounds 'twisted', yet you yourself say in the same post, that all it takes is for a people to be rightously in ownership of land, is to be succesfull in displacing a people, (aka Chinese, Israel, America), wait 100 years, and then the land is rightoulsy that of the conquerrors! So it's 'twisted' for my argument but not for yours.

Your analogy is incorrect (imo). You are mixing moral/historical ownership of land and legal/property ownership of land. Like you yourself said before, one should not be switched with the other or override it. These two concepts carry different rules and attitudes. In the case of legal ownership, morality pays no role, since (usually) its not a question of emotional attachment, but rather of monetary value (for instance, the original or new owner of the car may be compensated with money.) In the case of land claim from moral/historical reasons, there are no established rules to determine who’s right and who’s wrong, and, consequentially multiple people can claim the same piece of land, each one with its own conviction and reasoning and usually there is no one absolute answer. Also, since we’re talking about ownership by virtue of history, time does bare a significant and even crucial role in the argument - as we saw, different people regard different lengths of time as legitimate claim - there is norule that says how long...

No, my analogy is perfectly correct, while yours is misleading and an innacurate analogy. Firstly, My analogy was not meant to get you to look at the legal side of things, in fact my analogy works just as well when the country the situation takes place in has no laws at all. The analogy is based solidly on morals, I.E. who is the truely rightfull owner of the car? Who DESERVES the car? Oh and btw, many a law are based 100% on morality. Illegal to kill, STEAL, rape etc. Laws ARE made for moral issues because civil human society seeks to prevent moral injustice. (which goes against your claim that morality is subjective btw). Your analogy is misleading and incorrect because it is not really an analogy, IE the different aspects of the situation are not equivilent to the argument's situation (Israel and the Jews). For example, you say the baby was taken from the mother, and you simply say "for whatever reason!", as if that has no bearing whatsoever on the analogy. Too bad it does. A peice of land cannot be treated badly (or wont care if it is), So the Jews cannot be forced off their land rightously because they were mistreating THEIR own land. A baby however, can be mistreated, and can be rightously taken from its parent because it doesn't deserve to be mistreated. You don't say in your analogy if the mother was mistreating the baby, you leave that undisclosed. This makes your analogy an innacurate representation of the Israel-Palestinian issue because it does not correctly establish if the action of taking the object/property away was unrightous or not, since it was obviously unrightous with the Jews.

Your analogy is also incorrect because it places the importance on what people think, and not what the actual truth is. Those are two different issues. You show how morallity is subjective by showing how the mother can think she deservers the baby, and how the foster parents can think they deserve the baby. This is not the issue, the issue is who is actually deserving the baby/kid! What people think and the truth is are two different things. Thus, your analogy is incorect because it places the importance on what people think, rather than what the truth is.

Either way, the kid, no longer a baby, has a mind of its own, and is one to be considered when choosing its next home (with foster parents or biological mother). Sadly for your analogy, land does not have a mind of its own, and the only choosing gets done by those who WANT the land.

My analogy is perfectly correct on the other hand, the car, just like the land, is chosen and does not choose, and it correctly represents the Jews unrightfull expuslion from their own land, IE the car was stolen from its rightfull owner.

This brings us to your argument of how 100 years of succesfull occupation of land that is not occupiers, suddenly and magically becomes the occupiers because they could hold on to it for enough generations. I agree that 3 generations is the time it would take to get a family to feel truely belonged in the land, but I disagree that this has anything to do with an issue at all. Yes, those people who moved onto anothers land for 3 generations may feel like it is their land, just like you may feel like the car that was given to you by a theif is yours after a month of blissfull ignorance of its true owner, but that does not make the land morally theirs, just like it does not make the CAR morally yours. You are mixing up two different issues here. You are mixing up A.) The unlucky feeling that people get that they belong on a land and that that land belongs to them even though it doesn't, and B.) The true morall owners of that land. Face it, life is tough, sometimes you feel like something is yours through bad luck, but it turns out it isn't. Just because you feel that it is yours does not make it so. Yet that is what you are trying to say with the Palestinians.

As long as the Jews were unrightsly ripped from their land that was theirs, and as long as they longed to return to it, then it remains theirs, even if 10 different other peoples comes and settles on the land, each one of them thinking it belongs to them.


...

I was not talking about political borders. I was raising the point that national land ownership is a relatively new invention from around 18th cent with the enlightenment movement.

LEGAL land ownership is a recent 'invention', but a peoples moral right to what they collectivly own existed since humans were fully evolved, IE 1 million years ago or more, certainly enccompasing ancient Israel

[danholo]

You know, after the Jewish conquest of Canaan, the Hebrews didn't mass murder and expel people... at least all of them. Canaanites lived there with the Jews. Most Jews after a couple of hundred years started worshiping Baal like the Canaanites, thanks to Canaanite seduction. I hope that our ancestors didn't start sacrificing humans for these "Gods", like the oh so poor Canaanites did.

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by I am David
I think I've explained this to you at least 3 times. Are you just ignoring me on purpose or do you really not understand it? Please tell me now so I don't have to keep repeating myself. No, I don't say it is irrelevant because the Jewish conquest was succesfull, but becauase the Cannanites are not a party to be considered in practical solutions because they don't exist to be considered at all! There please read that over again so mabye I don't have to write it again!

You are, again, mixing apples and oranges.
On one hand you claim Jews have a moral right over the land in question. On the other hand, you dismiss the Jewish conquest based on a practical reason. moral/historical debate is not about practical solution to the present conflict. Similarly, the ultimate solution, once reached will not take into account rights by “historical virtue”. It will deal with legal land ownership, defense considerations, water distribution and other non-moral related issues.

That's why you must understand: If the Jews took the land of Israel by force - that action alone bears moral judgment regardless of what happened to the losing side. Same for the Arab. If you seek a practical solution, then the motives, considerations, even the type and pace of debate is different.

Originally posted by I am David
Though, it's odd, you say it sounds 'twisted', yet you yourself say in the same post, that all it takes is for a people to be rightously in ownership of land, is to be succesfull in displacing a people, (aka Chinese, Israel, America), wait 100 years, and then the land is rightoulsy that of the conquerrors! So it's 'twisted' for my argument but not for yours.

OK I will clarify myself: I do approve, morally-wise, of the Jewish conquest of the land, same as I do for the Arab one (you said it was immoral, not I), since I judge these actions in the historical context of the standards and customs of the period. I judge the Israeli occupation of the territories with different standards because the standards have changed significantly over the period of 2,000 years and will probably change in the future.
What was twisted in my eyes was the differentiation you make between Jewish and Arab conquest. They are the same, morally speaking. The fact that the first occurred before the other does not give the earlier conqueror any superiority or advantage. Especially since the events occurred so long ago.

Regarding my analogy – its an analogy – not an example (I hope you know the difference) the differences you point out (the reason the child was taken away, the child having a mind of its own vs. the land, etc) are irrelevant here. The point I was making is this:
Strong Emotional attachment that stretches over a long period of time gives the “conquerer” a moral right over the desired object, regardless of the history of the object and the “conquest”. In these cases, there may be two claims over the object that are both valid morally: the original owner and the new one.[/u]
The stress here is on the quarrel between the two parties, not the object of desire.

The solution, who will eventually take possession of the child/land/object/whatever will take into account differentconsiderations – the judge will not attempt to decide who DESERVES the object. The judge will not attempt to decide how much the object is loved by each party. The judge will not address the moral issue AT ALL. The judge will take into account other desiderations that are particular to the case: the best for the child, legal land ownership, etc.

Morally speaking, I believe the Palestinian right of return is justified. Practically speaking, I cannot accept that claim, since I wish Israel to remain a Jewish majority country.

Originally posted by I am David
Your analogy is also incorrect because it places the importance on what people think, and not what the actual truth is. Those are two different issues. You show how morallity is subjective by showing how the mother can think she deservers the baby, and how the foster parents can think they deserve the baby. This is not the issue, the issue is who is actually deserving the baby/kid! What people think and the truth is are two different things. Thus, your analogy is incorect because it places the importance on what people think, rather than what the truth is.

When it comes to moral issues, what people think is all that matters. THERE IS NO ONE TRUTH that everyone agrees on. You attempt to “declare” the one truth but it is only your personal interpretation of the history of the region – NOTHING else. My (equally personal) interpretation and any other person’s interpretation are just as valid. We are not dealing with a legal issue of ownership where rules tell us who is the owner, we are dealing with people’s feelings of attachment because they say “this is my home”. So people’s thoughts and feelings is all that counts.

If a Brit comes along and claim that Israel belongs to him since it was under
British rule for 30 years, we will all dismiss his claim since in our eyes British history on Israel is not enough to merit such a claim. Had the British settled in Israel and lived there for a century or so raising family, fighting invaders, developing a local culture and folk – then the “Israeli Brits” call Israel “my home”. They don’t call Britain “my home”. They will, at that time, be morally entitled to Israel, regardless of how or why their ancestors came in the first place.

[I am David]

Sharon your arguments are very weak this time, simply because you don't give reasons for your beliefs.

You are, again, mixing apples and oranges. On one hand you claim Jews have a moral right over the land in question. On the other hand, you dismiss the Jewish conquest based on a practical reason. moral/historical debate is not about practical solution to the present conflict. Similarly, the ultimate solution, once reached will not take into account rights by “historical virtue”. It will deal with legal land ownership, defense considerations, water distribution and other non-moral related issues. That's why you must understand: If the Jews took the land of Israel by force - that action alone bears moral judgment regardless of what happened to the losing side. Same for the Arab. If you seek a practical solution, then the motives, considerations, even the type and pace of debate is different.

What on earth are you talking about? I do not 'dismiss' the Jewish conquest of the land for any reason. When I say it is irrellivent that the Jews also conquered the land originally, I do so because the Arabs do NOT have moral right to the land, even though the Jews may not either. So even if the Jews should not be on the land by moral issue, it is pointless to kick them off because who they conquered no longer exists. And simply put, it is not up to another conqueror to say that the original conqueror has no rights to the land (or even a third party).

Furthermore, the crux of your argument is at fault, for one can mix moral and practical issues when trying to find an overall practical solution to a problem. When one looks for a practical solution to a problem, they often think "what is the MOST moral solution I can come up with, while still being practical?" There is nothing anywhere that says it is incorrect logically to mix morality and practicallity when looking for a solution to a problem/When looking for the most moral solution. So your whole argument is down the drain by default.

Regarding my analogy – its an analogy – not an example (I hope you know the difference) the differences you point out (the reason the child was taken away, the child having a mind of its own vs. the land, etc) are irrelevant here. The point I was making is this: Strong Emotional attachment that stretches over a long period of time gives the “conquerer” a moral right over the desired object, regardless of the history of the object and the “conquest”. In these cases, there may be two claims over the object that are both valid morally: the original owner and the new one.[/u] The stress here is on the quarrel between the two parties, not the object of desire.

The point you were trying to make is irrellivent in itself, and THAT is the point I was trying to make, not just the fact that it is not an accurate analogy (which could be the cause of the former, but either way...) Your point is supposedly 'Strong Emotional attachment that stretches over a long period of time gives the “conquerer” a moral right over the desired object, regardless of the history of the object and the “conquest”.". Well please, give me a reason for this belief, one at least, or just don't argue it anymore. If you became emotionally attached to that car that was given to you by a theif, but then found out it was unrightfully stolen from the person who bought it with his hard earned money, would you still feel that your emotional attachment to the car gives you a right to it that overides the original owners right to it? Do you really think that your simple usage of the car for a period of time overides the rights of the first owner who took about a year of his lifes wage for the car? Is that the concept that your argument is based on? That an unlucky, yet unfair 'attachment' to an object/property is all it takes to magically give you moral rights to the object/property over its true and rightfull owner?

The solution, who will eventually take possession of the child/land/object/whatever will take into account differentconsiderations – the judge will not attempt to decide who DESERVES the object. The judge will not attempt to decide how much the object is loved by each party. The judge will not address the moral issue AT ALL. The judge will take into account other desiderations that are particular to the case: the best for the child, legal land ownership, etc.

This is simply false. As I explained earlier, most laws are based on morality, and judgment of breaking them as well. Laws are mostly meant to prevent a moral injustice (well a lot of them, others just issues of taxes and whatnot), and correct them as best they can when they do happen. Just because the court is technically a 'legal' place does not mean it is nothing but boring paper work over taxes and bills. And yes, many court decisions are made based on who deserves an object, ie who is its original owner, the means of possesion for the second owner, the actions of both the first and second owner, etc, all to determine whats morally right.

When it comes to moral issues, what people think is all that matters. THERE IS NO ONE TRUTH that everyone agrees on. You attempt to “declare” the one truth but it is only your personal interpretation of the history of the region – NOTHING else. My (equally personal) interpretation and any other person’s interpretation are just as valid. We are not dealing with a legal issue of ownership where rules tell us who is the owner, we are dealing with people’s feelings of attachment because they say “this is my home”. So people’s thoughts and feelings is all that counts.

The weakest argument that is so common is when someone says 'everyrthing is relative' or 'all morality is subjective' because it is just a cheap way out of saying they are downright wrong. Morality is not subjective, at all, I am sorry. Yes it is subjective to a select few who think murdering and stealing is rightous and who think a house will belong to them if they illegally live in it and become attached to it while its owners are on a two year vacation ( )

But in all honesty, you cannot say that killing an innocent when there is no reason to is right, even if .1% of the population says, just as you cannot say the same for stealing when you have no need for what you stole. The only thing you can say is that the different sides of an issue/argument feel differently about what the solution should be, simply because they often have no care for morality and only what will benifit them most, no matter how wrong their opposition is (so that is what you mean by morality being subjective, eh?). But let me get this straight before you say that is agreeing with you...That does NOT mean that morality is subjective because that is not what morality is. When a judge gives his final say in a court despute between two parties, he gives his best solution for what is ACTUALLY moral, for what is MOST moral and rightous, not just to the side that thinks they are the most right, because they only care about bettering themselves. The judge looks at who is deserving of what, who wronged who in what, who did what when, what its cause was, and gives the most RIGHTOUS and MORAL solution he can. The judge has a mind of his own and that mind in determining what is right is not influenced by what one of the conflicting parties thinks is right. His mind is focused soley on what IS moral and what IS NOT.

Morality is only subject to those who want to escape it.

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by I am David
What on earth are you talking about? I do not 'dismiss' the Jewish conquest of the land for any reason. When I say it is irrellivent that the Jews also conquered the land originally, I do so because the Arabs do NOT have moral right to the land, even though the Jews may not either. So even if the Jews should not be on the land by moral issue, it is pointless to kick them off because who they conquered no longer exists. And simply put, it is not up to another conqueror to say that the original conqueror has no rights to the land (or even a third party).

If, as you admit, Jews (and Arabs) have no moral right over these territories, why does Israel deserve to annex the occupied territories? Jews make up less than 13% of the population in the occupied territories.

The "point" behind dismantling Jewish settlements in the occupied territories is that, by your own admition, these settlers had no right to go there in the first place, plus the settlements are blocking the way for peace (more on that later)

Originally posted by I am David
Furthermore, the crux of your argument is at fault, for one can mix moral and practical issues when trying to find an overall practical solution to a problem. When one looks for a practical solution to a problem, they often think "what is the MOST moral solution I can come up with, while still being practical?" There is nothing anywhere that says it is incorrect logically to mix morality and practicallity when looking for a solution to a problem/When looking for the most moral solution. So your whole argument is down the drain by default.

I thoght we are discussing who deserves the land. This is a phylosophical question. Answering this question one way or another will not get us close to an end to the Israeli Arab conflict.
If you want practical real solutions, then there are two possible ones, presented by the two political ideologies, right and left:

The right say: Jews have a moral right to settle in all areas controlled by Israel, incl' GS and WB, becuase the land of Israel morally and historically belongs to the Jewish people and to that people alone. We should implement our moral right by establishing settlements all over the place.
The Palestinian people may either live in peace under Israeli rule, or be kicked out if they resist this rule.

The left say: Who deserves to inherit the land? I don't know and the answer is irrelevant to the practical solution, since no side will voluntarily give away its moral claim. This means that if Jews want to implement their moral right to settle in the occupied territories - they will be met with Palestinian resistence.

If bloodshed is to be avoided, the practical solution will have to abandon the moral question, and seek a compromise that caters for the critical needs of the two people, whice are:
1) Israel must remain a state with a solid Jewish majority.
2) The Palestinians, as a people, have the basic right for self rule.
The solution will also take into account the following consideration:
Jews and Palestinians cannot live together in the same state because the long bloody conflict resulted in hate and mistrust on both sides. A separation, as total a possible, should be reached.

Given the above, a two-states solution seems the best answer.
It also seems logical to draw the borders of the two states around concentrations of Israeli and Palestinian populations. The last time a total separation existed between the two pwoplw was before the 67 war, so the borders will more-or-less go along the green line, with some modifications, so as to allow Jewish settlers to be concentrated along the border.

Israel compromises its claim to GS and WB, while the Palestinians compromise their claim for "right of return" - this is regardless if any of the above claim is "morally" rightous.

Originally posted by I am David
The point you were trying to make is irrellivent in itself, and THAT is the point I was trying to make, not just the fact that it is not an accurate analogy (which could be the cause of the former, but either way...) Your point is supposedly 'Strong Emotional attachment that stretches over a long period of time gives the “conquerer” a moral right over the desired object, regardless of the history of the object and the “conquest”.". Well please, give me a reason for this belief, one at least, or just don't argue it anymore. If you became emotionally attached to that car that was given to you by a theif, but then found out it was unrightfully stolen from the person who bought it with his hard earned money, would you still feel that your emotional attachment to the car gives you a right to it that overides the original owners right to it? Do you really think that your simple usage of the car for a period of time overides the rights of the first owner who took about a year of his lifes wage for the car? Is that the concept that your argument is based on? That an unlucky, yet unfair 'attachment' to an object/property is all it takes to magically give you moral rights to the object/property over its true and rightfull owner?

I'm sorry, but to me, emotonal ties as moral basis seems natural as common sense.
FYI, most Jews (myself among them) claim that Israel belongs to the Jewish people not because, as you say, "we were here first", but rather by moral right because the Jewish people has an evident strong emotional connection to the land. The Jewish faith believes God promised the land of Israel to the Jewish people. Jewish prayers often mention Jerusalem and other holy places (remember what the groom says just before he breaks the glass?) Even though Jews were all but absent from the land for 2,000 years, they never ceased yearning to return to it. If they believed they had no moral right over the land - they would have forgotten it by now and assimilated into their host societies.
The Zionist movement rejected all alternative places for the Israeli state because it believed Jews will not come to the state of Israel unless it was founded in the land of Israel (and this was proved to be true).

and I beg you to drop the car analogy. You take it so far it becomes absurd. Emotional attachment to a car? pleeease. Yes, I know sometimes people say they love their car. But I'm talking about the kind of emotions you get from remembering the stories your grandmother told you about your grandfather building the house you live in. Of childhood memories of your house, of having the conviction that God himself gave your ancestors the land. People have fought and died over these convictions and beliefs. You compare that to a car??

and please remember that as much as the original owner put "about a year of his lifes wage for the car", so did the new buyer. you so easily dismiss his hardship to get the car as bad luck?

Originally posted by I am David
The weakest argument that is so common is when someone says 'everyrthing is relative' or 'all morality is subjective' because it is just a cheap way out of saying they are downright wrong. Morality is not subjective, at all, I am sorry. Yes it is subjective to a select few who think murdering and stealing is rightous and who think a house will belong to them if they illegally live in it and become attached to it while its owners are on a two year vacation ( )

Do we live on the same planet? I wonder.
Don't you know there exist in the world (my world, at least) countless moral questions where there is no one true answer?

How about the death penalty? Who is the "select few, who think murdering and stealing is rightous"? those for or against the death penalty?
How about abortion? Who is the "select few"? pro life or pro choice?
How about social classes? Who is the "select few"? western society which advocates classless society, or Indian society, which maintains a rigorus cast system?

Even the questions of murder, theft and rape are moral questions that have many answers. Is murder wrong no matter what? if not, when is murder justified?
Do you remember the movie "A Time to Kill" with Samuel Jackson (an adaptation of a John Grisham novel)? It tells of a black father whose daughter is brutally raped by two white hooligans. He shoots both of them before they go to trial, believing they would be acquited. Is his action justified? Grisham believes it is. I blieve its not. Is there one "correct" answer here?

How about Robin Hood, the thief who led a gang of pirates. He stole from the rich and gave to the poor - Does this excuses his crime? Is he a hero or hooligan?

[I am David]

and I beg you to drop the car analogy. You take it so far it becomes absurd. Emotional attachment to a car? pleeease. Yes, I know sometimes people say they love their car. But I'm talking about the kind of emotions you get from remembering the stories your grandmother told you about your grandfather building the house you live in. Of childhood memories of your house, of having the conviction that God himself gave your ancestors the land. People have fought and died over these convictions and beliefs. You compare that to a car??

Before you had asked me if I knew the difference between an analogy and an example. Now I am forced to ask if you know what an analogy is at all. You say my car analogy is invalid because I am comparing the emotional attachments of a car to that of where you live/family/your own history. The emotional attachment to a car is definitly not on the same scale as that to family, your home etc, nor is it usually even the same kind of emotional attachment. Nor does it even matter.

An analogy is meant to show how a concept works, with all the factors in relation and of importance to the concept being in equal propertions to each other on each side of the analogy. The emotional attachment to a car does not need to be equal in absolute terms to the emotional attachment of home/family, it just needs to be equal in relative terms based on the concept. The analogy is meant merely to represent the concept of how an owner of property still deserves that property and it is still morally his rightously, even if someone else has emotional attachment to it after they unrightously (or unluckily) recieved it. It doesn't matter the extent or degree of the emotional attachment. I hope you can understand this.

Jesus, I find myself explaining to you how a simple analogy works, and I think I can get you to understand issues of morality intertwined with practicallity? Of course I did not know it would turn out like this.

You say 'most Jews claim that Israel belongs to the Jewish people not because the Jewish people has an evident strong emotional connection to the land'. I don't think you can really use that argument here. If I were asked, never having had this argument, why Jews claim the land, I would very likely say the same thing, not assuming that my casual and quickly thought out answer would contridict that the Jews also deserve the land by historic and moral right. Evidently, I'm sure that the Jews have an emotional attachment to the land, because we have a historic, moral right to it as well? And not to mention, that can be a reason for the Jews' claim to the land, but not the only one, or the whole answer as explained before.

Jewish prayers often mention Jerusalem and other holy places (remember what the groom says just before he breaks the glass?) Even though Jews were all but absent from the land for 2,000 years, they never ceased yearning to return to it. If they believed they had no moral right over the land - they would have forgotten it by now and assimilated into their host societies. The Zionist movement rejected all alternative places for the Israeli state because it believed Jews will not come to the state of Israel unless it was founded in the land of Israel (and this was proved to be true).

I'm looking for the part where this should prove me wrong, at least partially. OBVIOUSLY the Jews beleive Israel is their land and act accordingly, for [/i]many[/i] reasons. Zionist did reject other places for a Jewish state, yes indeed. But that works just as much for my argument as it does for yours.

If, as you admit, Jews (and Arabs) have no moral right over these territories, why does Israel deserve to annex the occupied territories? Jews make up less than 13% of the population in the occupied territories.

No, I do not 'admit' the Jews have no moral right to the territories, I admit the original act of conquering the Canaanites was immoral. The two are very different. It was immoral to conquer Canaan, but the Jews expelled by the Romans could be not be blamed for that immorality, as it was already ancient history, and the Romans were no less wrong in expelling the Jews because the ancient Hebrews conquered Canaan on that same land. The Jews living during Roman times could not be blamed for the ancient injustice, and being that Caanintes were no longer existent, or in an considerable numbers that could recopy a significant portion of Israel, there is NO immoral sin that can be left as 'unsolved', and on the shoulders of the Jews living during Roman times. Thus simply put, in Roman times, the Jewish community was not wrong in living there and having their lives there because they were not wronging anyone, because there was no one TO wrong! And those Jews certainly were not the ones who conquered Canaan, so the land was wholy and fully theirs. However, when the Arabs stole the Jews land, when they built their houses and farms on land that was lived apon by Jews just a short while before, and continued to do so untill the present day, when the Jews still are around, and clamouring for a homeland, it is not morally or rightously theirs in any way, because those who were wronged are still around!

That is why it is the Jews' land

Don't you know there exist in the world (my world, at least) countless moral questions where there is no one true answer?

There is a 'one true' answer, thought it probably wouldnt be as simple as you would expect, or perfectly fair. But probably why you think there is not 'one true answer' is because it is hard to judge without knowing almost everything about the situation, and 'one' situation is oftent many.

How about the death penalty? Who is the "select few, who think murdering and stealing is rightous"? those for or against the death penalty? How about abortion? Who is the "select few"? pro life or pro choice? How about social classes? Who is the "select few"? western society which advocates classless society, or Indian society, which maintains a rigorus cast system?

Is the Death Penalty right or wrong, is Abortion right or wrong? Who said the answeres were that simple, as simple as right and wrong? Just because there are near absolutes in morality does not mean that in a complicated situation with an arbitrary question is going to have a very simple answer. Example: Abortion is not one thing, it is many things, but by your arbitrary question, you make it as one. 'Abortion', as if it were a single situation. There is first, second, and third trimester abortions. There is first, second, and third trimister abortions when the mother was raped, when her life could be in danger, or when the fetus is believed to be deformed. Each on of these is a possible situation into itself. It is hard to argue that a third trimister abortion is rightous unless the mothers life is in danger, because a third trimester fetus is practically the same thing as a newborn baby. But even there it is not so simple, because f the mothers life is in danger, then it may be morally right to kill the fetus. If the mother was raped for the fetus it has, it may or may not be morally right to kill the fetus, depending on how much greif the mother will have in bearing the baby, and how much it would ruin her life. Possibly one of the reasons why you think abortion is so "subject" to peoples personally interpetations is because you have never taken the time to realize that 'abortion' is not one issue but many, just as it is with the death penalty. This goes for almost all issues of morality.

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by I am David
An analogy is meant to show how a concept works, with all the factors in relation and of importance to the concept being in equal propertions to each other on each side of the analogy. The emotional attachment to a car does not need to be equal in absolute terms to the emotional attachment of home/family, it just needs to be equal in relative terms based on the concept. The analogy is meant merely to represent the concept of how an owner of property still deserves that property and it is still morally his rightously, even if someone else has emotional attachment to it after they unrightously (or unluckily) recieved it. It doesn't matter the extent or degree of the emotional attachment. I hope you can understand this.

Your analogy is still not correct.
This is because what matters is not whether or not emotional attachment exists, but is it used to claim ownership. In the car analogy, both the original and new owner don’t claim ownership by virtue of the “history” (e.g. personal experience) they had with the car. They don’t even claim ownership by virtue of who owned the car first. They have to present legal proof of ownership in the form of legal notes (e.g. car registration, purchase papers, insurance papers, etc.)
Without such hard evidence, None of the car owner can expect to win in court. Unsubstantiated claims such as “but I did own the car a few years ago” will simply be ignored.

Where is this analogy correct? It is the same as if we’re talking about a specific piece of land, where two individuals are quarreling over its ownership. They both may have emotional attachment, but that is irrelevant. Nor is who were there first. Their claim in court must be backed by hard evidence such as purchase deeds, government registration, etc. The judge will decide ad hoc according to the legal notes and other practical considerations.

All this is regardless of which people has the right to settle on the land – this is a quarrel on a different level. On this level, claims are unsubstantiated by legal notes and are based on emotional attachment and interpretation of history over centuries.

In the aforementioned quarrel over the piece of land, neither owner will come to court saying “I’m a Jew/Arab and my people has the historical right over the land, so I am the righteous owner.” Same for the car analogy.
However, in the baby analogy, the parties often do make claims of emotional attachment that are not backed by legal notes and hard evidence. The court does take into considerations the history of the parents with the child.

Originally posted by I am David
Is the Death Penalty right or wrong, is Abortion right or wrong? Who said the answeres were that simple, as simple as right and wrong? Just because there are near absolutes in morality does not mean that in a complicated situation with an arbitrary question is going to have a very simple answer. Example: Abortion is not one thing, it is many things, but by your arbitrary question, you make it as one. 'Abortion', as if it were a single situation. There is first, second, and third trimester abortions. There is first, second, and third trimister abortions when the mother was raped, when her life could be in danger, or when the fetus is believed to be deformed. Each on of these is a possible situation into itself. It is hard to argue that a third trimister abortion is rightous unless the mothers life is in danger, because a third trimester fetus is practically the same thing as a newborn baby. But even there it is not so simple, because f the mothers life is in danger, then it may be morally right to kill the fetus. If the mother was raped for the fetus it has, it may or may not be morally right to kill the fetus, depending on how much greif the mother will have in bearing the baby, and how much it would ruin her life. Possibly one of the reasons why you think abortion is so "subject" to peoples personally interpetations is because you have never taken the time to realize that 'abortion' is not one issue but many, just as it is with the death penalty. This goes for almost all issues of morality. [/B]

I do admire your perseverance
With each and every specific case of the Death Penalty, a public argument rises. The argument is almost always about the concept of the Death Penalty and not about the specific criminal. Those who oppose the Death Penalty say that the concept of “the Death Penalty” is morally wrong, no matter what the specific crime is. They argue about the irreversibility of the punishment (“what if we discover that the executed did not commit the crime?”) They argue that people have no right to “play god” and decide to terminate a person’s life, etc. Those who favor the death penalty argue about the deterring factor, about “an eye for an eye” – all these arguments speak about the concept of the death penalty – not about a specific crime.
Same kind of arguments with same level of generalization, are brought up in the case of abortions. The people who demonstrate in front of abortion clinics are not concerned with the specifics of one case. They oppose abortion as a concept.

[Mediocrates]

Not all of us. My specific objection to the Death Penaly is based on reliable outcomes. We're simply not smart enough or perfect enough to make those decisions. There are too many places to make mistakes, lack the proper insight or be just enough. So if it's going to be arbitrary then we need to not do it at all.


But what you say has merit. For example there are posters here who hate Israel and probably are antisemitic on purely philosophical grounds. The facts, the existence or non existence of any specific reality is completely irrelevant. No amount of 'reasoning' will make any difference.

[I am David]

Your analogy is still not correct. This is because what matters is not whether or not emotional attachment exists, but is it used to claim ownership. In the car analogy, both the original and new owner don’t claim ownership by virtue of the “history” (e.g. personal experience) they had with the car. They don’t even claim ownership by virtue of who owned the car first. They have to present legal proof of ownership in the form of legal notes (e.g. car registration, purchase papers, insurance papers, etc.) Without such hard evidence, None of the car owner can expect to win in court. Unsubstantiated claims such as “but I did own the car a few years ago” will simply be ignored. Where is this analogy correct? It is the same as if we’re talking about a specific piece of land, where two individuals are quarreling over its ownership. They both may have emotional attachment, but that is irrelevant. Nor is who were there first. Their claim in court must be backed by hard evidence such as purchase deeds, government registration, etc. The judge will decide ad hoc according to the legal notes and other practical considerations. All this is regardless of which people has the right to settle on the land – this is a quarrel on a different level. On this level, claims are unsubstantiated by legal notes and are based on emotional attachment and interpretation of history over centuries. In the aforementioned quarrel over the piece of land, neither owner will come to court saying “I’m a Jew/Arab and my people has the historical right over the land, so I am the righteous owner.” Same for the car analogy. However, in the baby analogy, the parties often do make claims of emotional attachment that are not backed by legal notes and hard evidence. The court does take into considerations the history of the parents with the child.

Your comments are completely irrellevant. The important thing is that, both the Jews before the Palestinians came, and the original car owner, both had a right to their property, it being land for the Jews and a car for the original owner in the analogy. The analogy is meant to illustrate how someone who obtains property that is rightfully someone elses through immoral means, does not own that property in anyway, morally or other, just because he uses it and acts like it is his, and while the original owner is still around to even care. It doesn't matter what that property is, or why it rightously belongs to one person or another, it's just important that it does it is property and it does belong to someone. The distinctions you draw between real life and the analogy purely artificial, as I explained the differences you pointed out do not effect the owner - non owner relationship concept which is the heart of the analogy.

I do admire your perseverance With each and every specific case of the Death Penalty, a public argument rises. The argument is almost always about the concept of the Death Penalty and not about the specific criminal. Those who oppose the Death Penalty say that the concept of “the Death Penalty” is morally wrong, no matter what the specific crime is. They argue about the irreversibility of the punishment (“what if we discover that the executed did not commit the crime?”) They argue that people have no right to “play god” and decide to terminate a person’s life, etc. Those who favor the death penalty argue about the deterring factor, about “an eye for an eye” – all these arguments speak about the concept of the death penalty – not about a specific crime. Same kind of arguments with same level of generalization, are brought up in the case of abortions. The people who demonstrate in front of abortion clinics are not concerned with the specifics of one case. They oppose abortion as a concept.

So? Just because I said that morality does not change per-person does not mean I said that every person understands what they are talking about when they speak of morality. Morality is a very difficult issue because when discussing it and forming opinions about it it is hard to see how much effect an action/situation will have on one person, and thus how much punishment/reward the maker of that action/situation deserves, and so on. But the point is, just because some people think the situation will have this much or that much effect on one person or another does not change the real effect it has. People who disagree with abortion as a concept do so because they disagree with pretty much all abortion cases, and thus can make on be all end all statement refering to it. Yes they believe this but that doesn't mean they are right in this belief.

Morality is not really subjective, for one reason, because the people a situation effects on people does not change, no matter anyones opinion of it (as stated above). Tell me, does a person thinking that killing an innocent is rightous/moral change in anyway the misery brought on the family of the decieced innocent, or the many years of that innocent's life left unlived?

No it does not. Nor does all the many opinions on abortion change what the situation actually is. It's just that a lot of those opinions (most) don't really understand the true implications of their beliefs, nor even if they did would I trust them to form fair solutions for those situations which would equalize justice and injustice.

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by I am David
Your comments are completely irrellevant. The important thing is that, both the Jews before the Palestinians came, and the original car owner, both had a right to their property, it being land for the Jews and a car for the original owner in the analogy. The analogy is meant to illustrate how someone who obtains property that is rightfully someone elses through immoral means, does not own that property in anyway, morally or other, just because he uses it and acts like it is his, and while the original owner is still around to even care. It doesn't matter what that property is, or why it rightously belongs to one person or another, it's just important that it does it is property and it does belong to someone. The distinctions you draw between real life and the analogy purely artificial, as I explained the differences you pointed out do not effect the owner - non owner relationship concept which is the heart of the analogy.

Well then, you and I simply differ in our opinion of rightful ownership. I believe that there is "stature of limitation" on claiming property that was not claimed for a long time. I personally put the line at 100 years.

I believe there is no moral justification for claiming any property after 2,000 years, conviniently ignoring generations upon generations of residents. I also believe that there is no legal justification as well: If a Jew would present an ancient legal note from his ancestors that describes a piece of land as the family property, it will not be accepted by the court and will not be sufficient cause for evicting the current residents. The reason will be stature of limitation.

I come back to the distinction that I make between "national" owndership over territory that is unsubstantiated in legal notes, vs. legal ownership over a piece of land or property, where emotional or historical links are disregarded, and legal proof is sought.
I understand from previous posts that you don't condone "redistribution" of Palestinian land by the state of Israel (correct me if I'm wrong here). But the land, all of it, was indeed Jewish before it was Arabic so why not? Why not correct a historical injustice, take land from the Arab thieves and give it back to the Jewish rightful owner?

Originally posted by I am David
So? Just because I said that morality does not change per-person does not mean I said that every person understands what they are talking about when they speak of morality. Morality is a very difficult issue because when discussing it and forming opinions about it it is hard to see how much effect an action/situation will have on one person, and thus how much punishment/reward the maker of that action/situation deserves, and so on. But the point is, just because some people think the situation will have this much or that much effect on one person or another does not change the real effect it has. People who disagree with abortion as a concept do so because they disagree with pretty much all abortion cases, and thus can make on be all end all statement refering to it. Yes they believe this but that doesn't mean they are right in this belief.

You are wrong about the Death penalty and abortions. The death penalty is either legal or illegal in some countries, meaning the legistlative made an overall decision regardong the issue, without getting into specific cases. Same goes for abortions. It is either legal or not.
Who is to say if the death penalty should be used or forbidden? Who is to say if abortions should be used or not?
Who is the authority on moral issues? the court? the government? Different judges and Parliament members hold different opinions on moral issues. Of course they do, they're human beings.

Originally posted by I am David
Morality is not really subjective, for one reason, because the people a situation effects on people does not change, no matter anyones opinion of it (as stated above). Tell me, does a person thinking that killing an innocent is rightous/moral change in anyway the misery brought on the family of the decieced innocent, or the many years of that innocent's life left unlived?

Its very easy to take a concensus issue, murder, and present it as a case of moral absolutism. Yes, murder is a moral issue and a subjective one. Most probably, more than 95% of the human population believe murder to be immoral. That does not make the answer objective.

How about a more controversial issue? How about a teenage girl who slept with her boyfriend and got pregnant. He wants to marry her and keep the baby. His parents want her to marry and keep the baby. Her parents want her to marry and keep the baby. But she doesn't want to keep it because she says she's too young, she doesn't want to marry and doesn't want the responsibility.
Is she morally "allowed" to abort the child? Do you seriously believe there is a right and wrong answers here??

Originally posted by I am David
No it does not. Nor does all the many opinions on abortion change what the situation actually is. It's just that a lot of those opinions (most) don't really understand the true implications of their beliefs, nor even if they did would I trust them to form fair solutions for those situations which would equalize justice and injustice.

who does understand the true implications? You?