Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sun Tzu
Is the essence of what you are saying here that it’s not a matter of right and wrong in the eyes of the international community, because no one will have a countries best interest in mind other than the country itself? So then right and wrong out of it, does the bottom line represent when (as been the theme for much of history)- the one with the bigger guns is the one that’s right. I say this because occupants of the settlements- especially in the West Bank (I leave the label illegal / legal off) expand their lands via migration of temporary fencing. This will only accelerate as time goes on. Obviously the expansion is colliding with other indigenous occupants. One can only attempt to guess how either side will feel when approaching each other about this issue. The difference is- some (not all) possibly even far and few between. . . that because the country is that is going to contribute the kind of support I think you are mentioning happens to be Israel, the settler (many- immigrants) have the right to expand their land, the previous owner becomes labeled a terrorist if ANY resistance shown.
|
In one sense you are right in saying that no agent will have the interest of a state, but that isn't necessarily the point I was making. The point I was trying to make is how a non-sovereign interest would try and implicate its will on a sovereign actor. When you address the question of who is right and wrong, I think there are some things to be considered. Politics by very nature is solely about power, the allocation thereof, who gets what, when, where, and how. A state as an actor cannot be solely bound to work within a framework of "right and wrong", operating under such a tense is ideal, but it isn't practical, as things are not always so easily right and wrong, black and white. To quote Machiavelli:
Quote:
|
I deem it best to stick to the practical truth of things rather then to fancies. Many men have imagined republics and principalities that never really existed at all. Yet the way men live is so far removed from the way they ought to live that anyone who abandons what is for what should be pursues his downfall rather then his preservation.
|
For me the preservation point was key, but in the context of this conversation I was talking about the occupation of places like the Golan Heights, strategic military positions, rather then places like Gaza and the West Bank. I have a hard time really siding with or defending residential settlements in occupied zones. But in the context of this thread, I find myself perplexed. The problem is with the partition, Israel exists as a state. At it's inception it was attacked by several other sovereign nations, all at the welcoming of the Palestinians. Palestine didn't itself yet exist as a sovereign nation, and when they team with other countries like Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan, and they lose, I think Israel has all the rights to hold the contested land, especially for defensive purposes. I think its ironic that these countries are so angry about the occupation, when they had in mind the destruction of an entire state and people.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sun Tzu
Are you stating the settlement expansion at the cost of indigenous occupants can’t be seen as illegal or legal by outside countries with any foundation because they are not Israeli? When conversing with others that have similar views the fact of the expansion remains a key issue that seems to be avoided. Do you think it’s because of the underlying nature of what it really means? Defining what "it" means is a cross between a mathematical equation (population growth vs. land /2) and a reflection of early American history perhaps.
|
This question was posed about indigenous occupants, which is more of a Palestinian/Israeli issue, not a Lebanese/Israeli issue. When I initially talked about occupation, I wasn't talking about what Israel is doing in the west bank or gaza, but again the positions taking along the borders of Syria and Lebanon. But if you are asking me personally I can't really say. Any party can levy such claims in regards to legality of state actions, they may or may not be right, bottom line is at the end of the day Israel is responsible to its people, not the UN. Also I don't know about the comparison to American History as it is night and day for differences to me. Tough to say.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sun Tzu
Rockets hurling into towns is terrible. I've been in a couple of bomb shelters in that region (not during shelling), I can imagine how difficult it would be to be cooped up or getting flyers falling from the sky stating "get out were about to bomb the shit out of your house." Not taking any loss of life for granted, I don’t see what recently happened as "the big one". My question is if / when the "big one" happens what do you think the chances that will become WWWIII, if any?
|
Are you asking me? Hope I'm not presuming to much by answering this. I don't know if WWIII will come out of this conflict. In the instance of global conflict I definitly think the Middle East will be a deciding catalyst for the next major conflict, but I think it will immensly larger in scope than Israel and it's neighbors. World War III will come about when the global hegemon, being America, is threatened or taken into conflict. My personal opinion is it will be more of a Russian-Sino, possibly Iran conflict. Who knows though maybe shit will degrade with Israel, at which point Syria and Iran get involved, the US jumps in and stands decisively with Israel, things will probably be so bad that no amount of International pressure will matter and things will gradually get worse. Somewhere in between all of that Russia or China would make a move, and thus you would have your world war.
Does that help, or am I missing something?