Foolosophy's statement is hypocritical...he complains that the Palestinians are having their land taken away by Jews, but doesnt seem to have a problem with them getting their land taken away by "the world".

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

I have a problem with Israel taking Palestinian land. I have less of a problem with the UN taking palestinian land. At this point, maybe a multilateral UN initiative is what's needed, first of all, to secure the area, and secondly to get some infrastructure and economy going. God knows that's not happening with the current set up. What's so bad about the idea of the world coming together to try to help?

Of course, the UN seizing Palestinian land might (*)(*)(*)(*) them off just as much. But if both parties agreed to a massively increased UN presence as a mediator and third pary, I think real progress could be made.

__________________
it is a mistake to throw out the language of equal worth because of its contingent historical association with Western power.

Why? What makes it less of a crime if the UN does it?

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

This whole discussion as regards 'Stolen', by whomever, is Bizarre and Improper.

In 1948, The UN apportioned the last of the territory of the Ottoman Break up to the remaining Palestinians (the ones who didn't get 'Jordan'), and the Jews.

77% of the British Mandate and 99?% of the Ottoman Land had gone to.... ARABS under various New and old names, previously. No vote of an International Body, just British whim (ie Iraq). Unlike the more legitimate Israel. (87% to Arabs if you include the 1948 partition/10% more to 'palestinians')

The remaining 23% was partitioned-for-rule/Sovereignty/NOT ownership betwen the remaining Resident Jews and Arabs; roughly 13/10 in favor of the Jews.

And of the Jews 13%, 2/3 was [intentionally] State Land and owned by No Arab (passing from the Ottomans to the British to them) including the half alone of Israel that is the Negev Desert.

No land was 'Stolen'.
The Partition involved NO mandatory evacuations Nor land changing hands.
It was the Arab Started War that resulted in Refugees and Evacuated Land, Not the UN Resolution 181.

__________________

It's less of a crime first of all because the UN is the closest thing we have to a world legislative body, and as such it is the most relevant arbiter of what constitutes an international crime or not.

Secondly, the Israeli occupation of the West Bank does not allow for sufficient Palestinian participation or for sufficient respect for Palestinian community and economic rights. The UN, imho, stands a much better chance of providing greater opportunities for Palestinian self-government and participation, as well as having greater legitimacy in the eyes of Palestinians.

__________________
it is a mistake to throw out the language of equal worth because of its contingent historical association with Western power.

...except that the security council gets more votes than anyone else. So it is not quite analogous to a democracy.

So it is wrong for one nation to impose it's will, but it is ok from a group of nations to impose their collective will?

What gives the UN authority to divide land up as it pleases? Where did it get that authority from?

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

The vetos permanent members of the security council get is a travesty and it's the first thing that should go if the UN wants to really become the important institution it could be.

The concept of legitimacy is a difficult one to thrash out. What is it that gives any authority legitimacy? Today, the basic answer is popular support. The UN is a voluntary international institution that has been joined by the vast majority of the world's countries today. It collectively represents the will of almost all the world's people. Sure, there are still quite a few countries that are not democratic, and thus you could argue that the people in those countries have not assented to membership in the UN, but it's genuinely the closest thing we have, and it shouldn't be discarded for its flaws. Rather, we should try to build on it and make it more accountable.

The difference between one country taking land and doing with it as it pleases and all countries coming together and doing with land as they please is the same as one man taking another's candy bar, as opposed to the community taking the candy bar and deciding the best use for it. Some would argue that the original owner of the candy bar should keep it, but if that man is killing loads of people on a sugar-high candy craze, then you kind of need to deal with it.

I think that analogy went a step too far.

still, you get the idea.

__________________
it is a mistake to throw out the language of equal worth because of its contingent historical association with Western power.