Psudo wrote:
Then discount us for hypocrisy. The UN gave Israel all the international recognition they need to justify their sovereignty by that principle.
The UN had no authority to do that and as such the transfer of sovereignty can be declared invalid.
Psudo wrote:
That's the cost of living by a pragmatic principle instead of an ideal. Unless someone can give a moral principle by which to judge sovereignty, the pragmatic principle stands. Your statements are regrettably true until then.
I did give moral principles though and you seem to dispute that ideology in favour of "pragmatism". Why don't we govern our society like that also? If I can take something from somebody then why should the law interfere? The UN was designed to function in a manner the would eliminate the need for "pragmatic" solutions as you put it presumably why they just arbitrarily granted statehood to undeserving people who did not achieve it on their own. They can certainly do the same for Palestine and its people.
Psudo wrote:
Though the likelihood that Israel has nuclear weapons makes it less likely that foreign governments will invade them directly, so they're somewhat less likely to be attacked by neighboring Arab nations. But the idea that war may spring up in the region should hardly be news to anyone.
All the more reason for them Arab states to pursue pragmatic solutions of their own in the form of nuclear weapons or chemical weapons that they can deliver in massive surprise attacks (to minimize their casualties and the possibility of reprisal attacks of course).
They might be listening to just that kind of thinking.
Psudo wrote:
At their current borders, or at borders that include parts of Israel, or as a government without a state? They all have different implications.
Various levels but since you want to use the term "disputed" so as not to make a pre-judgement you should also hold the opinion that it isn't wrong to consider the entire region as part and parcel of Palestinians recognition since all of Israel is disputed by at least some.
Psudo wrote:
Good thing that's not what I said, then. I spoke of two ways: military victory or moral mandate. Moral mandate is the better way (both easier to achieve and better morally), and the violence of Hamas conflicts with that possibility.
You said that because Palestine hasn't achieved either a military victory nor a peaceful mandate they don't deserve recognition (at least thats what you implied to me). The idea plays into the hands of people who want to achieve a military victory because it lets them use that argument to sway people, especially people who have recently lost family members in Israeli attacks. Thats why everytime Israel attacks they swell the ranks of groups like Hamas.
Psudo wrote:
The reason I keep saying "pragmatic" is because it's a lousy system, but it works and is recognized. Defending Palestine seems to include both a denouncement of pragmatism and the declaration that there is no alternative measure of sovereignty. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Either there is a better way and Palestine should use it, or there's not and Israel is justified in it's sovereignty and both sides are justified in their continuous fighting.
I much prefer the better way; endless combat is bad.
Did you ever hear about the monkeys and electrofied ladder parable whereby it was possible to get monkeys to beat another monkey simply because that was always how it was done?
Recognizing Palestine is the only real solution and letting them know that they don't need to use violence to get what they want seems the only way to convince people who truly believe they will only get what they want through violence because thats how its always worked.
Psudo wrote:
Yes they did. They definitely filled the international recognition requirement. The borders were drawn with the intent of giving both local populations their own state; it's an unusual way to create local popular sentiment, but West Virginia set a precedent for it. And in case any question remained, they won a war. You need a new standard if you're going to declare Israel doesn't meet it.
No they did not, at least not in any way different from Palestine. They achieved recognition from the UN because the UN created them. Palestine has consistently received recognition from a great many countries but not the UN.
Who dictated that the UN alone has the authority over recognition?
Psudo wrote:
Palestine either needs to win a war or find that new standard. Firing rockets randomly will not win a war; it just pisses Israel off.
NO.
We need to fix our mistake. The Palestinian people had their land taken away by a much more powerful force that then pretty much created another more powerful force. Since we created the mess we should clean it up and step one is acknowledging the Palestinians.
Psudo wrote:
That would make them stupid. But the pragmatic standard has no exception against that, so long as they eventually win.
Stupid was creating a state in an area surrounded by people they knew full well would be hostile towards it.
Psudo wrote:
Bull. People have different things, they do different things, they occupy different locations, but they're all universally and uniformly people. Arguments are only validly judged by their content, not their source. No exceptions.
Wrong. You simply cannot state that you can automatically understand and emphasize with everybody. That is not possible by anyone.
Psudo wrote:
Yes, cure injustice with more injustice. You certainly know your way around a self-perpetuating problem.
Returning stolen property is justice and I'm not talking about removing then entire state of Israel but more specifically the land at the heart of the illegal settlements.
Psudo wrote:
You're condemning Israel for some moral failing, but you yourself cannot describe the ethical rule they broke. You describe them breaking a pragmatic rule, but even if that were undeniable it has no bearing on the moral. And you justify Palestine in doing what you claim is the same thing; but when they do it, that secret, invisible rule remains intact -- or perhaps it levels the playing field to have injustice increase on one side.
Its a good thing you don't understand by argument then. Israel cannot now say "its wrong to take land by force" now that they have it and neither can you support it since you consider it a valid method of land acquisition.
I support establishing a viable Palestinian state, a state which will include land Israel now claims is theirs. Since every parcel of that land was achieved through an act of the UN the same UN can return the favour to the Palestinians. If they can take land from the Palestinians by decree and force then the same can be said in reverse.
Psudo wrote:
That argument is utter nonsense. A is A. The rule is the same for both parties. If Israel is to be condemned for breaking it, so should Palestine be. If Palestine is justified, so should Israel be. This morally equates them. The only difference is the pragmatic: which governments hold de facto sovereignty over which areas. Which is an argument for Israel's victory because they physically can take it whereas Palestine physically cannot.
The Israelis did not get it in any manner that I don't support the Palestinians using. You are arguing now from an emotional perspective rather then one that can be applied to both sides.
Psudo wrote:
That's not my idea: I prefer Palestine peacefully resist, gain the moral high ground, and attain land by deserving it. The above is simply logic applied to your arguments, the conclusions you would arrive at yourself if you weren't biased by the purely emotional belief that the Palestinians deserve additional support because they are the underdog. Such a belief is fine as a personality quirk, but is meaningless in a logical debate.
I say they already deserve the land and recognition. You think it was OK for the UN to hand over the land and recognize Israel then you should support the creation of Palestine by the same stroke of a pen.
A is to A right.
CKA Uber 
CKA Elite 
