Subject: Re: [lpny_manhattan] The moral case for supporting Israel Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 22:47:54 -0400 To: From: Bob Armstrong On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 15:51:19 -0700, James Lesczynski wrote: >=A0Bob Armstrong wrote: >=A0>=A0How can a State founded as homeland for a particular >=A0>=A0religion , with settlers coming from all over the world >=A0>=A0( 65% from US ) , making bantustans out of the >=A0>=A0indigenous populations , with those populations having >=A0>=A0no vote , separating them from religious enclaves on >=A0>=A0taken territory expect to win the moral argument ? > >=A0Well, you get credit for making me look up the word= "bantustans". Look at a map of the West Bank with it Berlin Wall trying to= chop it in pieces . >=A0Not only were Palestinian Arabs welcome to become citizens of= Israel with full voting rights, but they have elected members of= the Knesset. I've read blogs by secular Jews complaining that they are second= class citizens . The country is clearly controled by the most zionist zealots . > The ones who live in refugee camps have their Arab neighbors to= thank, > first for talking them into fleeing in anticipation of a swift= Arab defeat > of the Israelis, Fleeing to where ? From where ? > and second when those same Arab allies refused to admit the= refugees into > their own countries. Why should they ? Can't the people be safe in the homes they= were born in ? What happened to their property rights ? Are they fully= enfranchised citizens of a unified secular state ? Sure doesn't look like= that . > As for "taken territories", yes, taken when the Arabs got their= asses > kicked in one aggressive war after another. Aggression against who ? The Europeans flooding in seeking to= set up a theocracy on the same Nietzchean philosophy as the Arian= Lebensraum they were fleeing ? The "State" didn't exist before it was= partitioned off like India and Pakistan about the same time , with the same resulting blood shed . The first clause of our first amendment= was no accident . > To the extent that states and wars have any legitimacy, it is= legitimate > and moral for a victorious (and defending) nation to keep the= territory > it won as the spoils of war and as a defensive measure against= future > hostilities. And enslave the population and take their farms and homes ? That's Libertarian ? C-SPAN had a 25th anniversary panel about the first Camp David ,= with Jimmy Carter and most of the central actors who are still alive= . At that time there were only 5000 settlers . Now there are a= quarter million . And 65% are from the US ! Obviously many more are= from Russia . How can anybody try to justify that as moral much less= libertarian ? How do you differentiate it from South African apartheid ? And it is facing the same fate . --=A0 =A0Bob Armstrong -- http://CoSy.com -- 212-285-1864 Liberty : http://CoSy.com/Liberty.htm =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A02003/09/30 9:36:57 PM