Once upon a time, an Arab had an apple. But a Jew wanted the apple. So he went to the UN and said, “it is unfair, and I am very emotional about this.”
So the UN said, “Gosh! We don’t want any trouble,” and divided the apple in half and gave half to the Jew. But the Arab said “This is some bullscat! No!”
So the Jew said, “you don’t want your half? Ok, we’ll take that too. Nom, nom.”
80 years of warfare and death later, we realize that the whole problem with humans is that most are fundamentally unable to understand the concept of justice. 😆
@spruce112358 saidYour story is rubbish and the only person that does not understand justice is you. You are a deluded supporter of terrorists. The Arabs never owned the land of Palestine, neither was there ever a Palestinian State.
Once upon a time, an Arab had an apple. But a Jew wanted the apple. So he went to the UN and said, “it is unfair, and I am very emotional about this.”
So the UN said, “Gosh! We don’t want any trouble,” and divided the apple in half and gave half to the Jew. But the Arab said “This is some bullscat! No!”
So the Jew said, “you don’t want your half? Ok, we’ll take tha ...[text shortened]... e problem with humans is that most are fundamentally unable to understand the concept of justice. 😆
Here is a breakdown of what transpired over the last few thousand years:
1. Before Israel, there was a British mandate, not a Palestinian state
2. Before the British Mandate, there was the Ottoman Empire, not a Palestinian state.
3. Before the Ottoman
Empire, there was the Islamic state of the Mamluks of Egypt, not a Palestinian state.
4. Before the Islamic state of the Mamluks of Egypt, there was the Ayubid Arab-Kurdish Empire, not a Palestinian state.
5. Before the Ayubid Empire, there was the Frankish and Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem, not a Palestinian state.
6. Before the Kingdom of Jerusalem, there was the Umayyad and Fatimid empires, not a Palestinian state.
7. Before the Umayyad and Fatimid empires, there was the Byzantine empire, not a Palestinian state.
8. Before the Byzantine Empire, there were the Sassanids, not a Palestinian state.
9. Before the Sassanid Empire, there was the Byzantine Empire, not a Palestinian state.
10. Before the Byzantine Empire, there was the Roman Empire, not a Palestinian state.
11. Before the Roman Empire, there was the Hasmonean state, not a Palestinian state.
12. Before the Hasmonean state, there was the Seleucid, not a Palestinian state.
13. Before the Seleucid empire, there was the empire of Alexander the Great, not a Palestinian state.
14. Before the empire of Alexander the Great, there was the Persian empire, not a Palestinian state.
15. Before the Persian Empire, there was the Babylonian Empire, not a Palestinian state.
16. Before the Babylonian Empire, there were the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, not a Palestinian state.
17. Before the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, there was the Kingdom of Israel, not a Palestinian state.
18. Before the kingdom of Israel, there was the theocracy of the twelve tribes of Israel, not a Palestinian state.
19. Before the theocracy of the twelve tribes of Israel, there was an agglomeration of independent Canaanite city-kingdoms, not a Palestinian state.
20. Actually, in this piece of land there has been everything, EXCEPT A PALESTINIAN STATE.
- Joined
- 19 Oct 14
- Moves
- 153915
@Rajk999
And this very interesting excursion through history tells us what about justice (which was your opening statement)?
@beardmusic saidIt says that the Arabs are not justified in claiming that the land of Palestine belongs to them as the opening poster implies. Prior to Israel becoming a state in 1948 the land was under the control of the British.
@Rajk999
And this very interesting excursion through history tells us what about justice (which was your opening statement)?
Justice came when the British along with the UN decided to partition the land between the two waring parties. The Arabs who were greedy [and stupid], refused to accept their portion which was just and fair. They wanted all, and that certainly was not just neither fair.
@beardmusic said'Might is right' is not justice at all. It is irrelevant and has no bearing on this current issue between israel and Palestine. I already stated and you ignored and refused to comment on the fact that the land of Palestine was partitioned pretty fairly back in 1947. It is not possible to share up land between two enemies to their satisfaction. But it was a start.
@Rajk999
Thanks,
History also shows that 'might is often right' which owes little to any conception of justice. Power and injustice (whether perceived to real) will always meet with resistance and this takes us to the heart of the current issue.
The real issue is that the Jews accepted whatever they got. But the Arabs did not accept the partition. They wanted no negotiation, and they wanted war [joined up with their Arab buddies] to remove the Jewish nation from being set up.
Clearly your idea of what is at the heart of this issue is way off.
@beardmusic saidCare to explain?
@Rajk999
The heart of the issue is about imperialism or power to put it more bluntly.
- Joined
- 19 Oct 14
- Moves
- 153915
@Rajk999
This thread began with talk about 'justice.'
Initially, therefore, it is useful to clarity that imperialism (power) lies at the heart of this issue. From here we can also observe that it is human nature for people to resist power and injustice, whether this is perceived or genuine.
Talk of terrorism etc. in this context therefore seems too one sided - you cannot posit something as a universal, in this case it is morally wrong to kill someome (your terrorists), and then ignore this same injunction when it suits you (legitimate defense). This is inconsistent and ignores the fact that 'justice' or a perceived lack of it lies at the heart of the problems in the Middle East.
@beardmusic saidOk, I got it.. that is your theory. I gave you the practical side of what happened back in 1947. If you like go back earlier and tell me how your theory fits into the actual events between the Jews, Arabs and the British/UN.
@Rajk999
This thread began with talk about 'justice.'
Initially, therefore, it is useful to clarity that imperialism (power) lies at the heart of this issue. From here we can also observe that it is human nature for people to resist power and injustice, whether this is perceived or genuine.
Talk of terrorism etc. in this context therefore seems too one sided - you can ...[text shortened]... fact that 'justice' or a perceived lack of it lies at the heart of the problems in the Middle East.
Explain to me how your theory about imperialism fits in.
By the way, a perceived injustice is NOT equivalent to actual injustice. In the former case the person is either delusional or stupid, and his actions cannot be justified. If he rapes and kills because of a perceived injustice he should be killed.
@spruce112358
This thread will now go on for pages while Spruce chuckles and munches apples. It's all a joke. It's all a joke.
@spruce112358 saidTWIST The apple tree originally belonged to the Jew but it was taken by violence
Once upon a time, an Arab had an apple. But a Jew wanted the apple. So he went to the UN and said, “it is unfair, and I am very emotional about this.”
So the UN said, “Gosh! We don’t want any trouble,” and divided the apple in half and gave half to the Jew. But the Arab said “This is some bullscat! No!”
So the Jew said, “you don’t want your half? Ok, we’ll take tha ...[text shortened]... e problem with humans is that most are fundamentally unable to understand the concept of justice. 😆
@Sleepyguy saidShhhhhh!!! 😆
@spruce112358
This thread will now go on for pages while Spruce chuckles and munches apples. It's all a joke. It's all a joke.
- Joined
- 19 Oct 14
- Moves
- 153915
@Rajk999
I am aware of the practicalities of 1947 and my 'theory' about imperialism fits in to these events as they were an act of imperialism. Surely this is a clear and self-evident historical fact?
As I also mentioned at its core imperialism is about power - those with better weapons etc. can impose their will on those who are weaker than they are. Again this is clear throughout history.
The complexity comes as these actions bring with them many other factors in their wake such as justice and the desire of people to resist what the perceive as injustice.
Your example is fair enough as it stands, but as I said it is inconsistent to posit something as universal (such as respect for human life) and then ignore this when it doesn't suit your argument. After all, this is all those you are disagreeing with are doing. Philosophically speaking at least, if violence, murder and the subjugation of the weak by the powerful are (universally) wrong then they should be resisted wherever they occur not selectively justified on particular grounds.