Pro-Israel organizations in the United States are creating public pressure to seek compensation for an Egyptian Jewish family whose confiscated assets are now owned by Coca-Cola. The Bigio family, writes Edwin Black, are suing for compensation from the giant corporation. Pro-Israel groups launched a boycott of Coca-Cola in support -- a clever way to promote the image of Zionists as victims in the Arab world and to get some funds for pro-Israel causes.
So, Zionist organizations are against state confiscation of private property? One would never know that from their active support of Israel's historic and continual theft of Palestinian property -- their land, personal property and businesses.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Bad and Good Theft
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
So Arab governments are against returning private property stolen form people? One would never know it from their active whining about returning property lost (in wars started by Arabs)..
You are really not good at arguing Will.
As if the fact that you're not a member of any bar association hasn't proved it already (you should have at least tried the Passachussets bar exam), worst Boalt graduate ever.
Really a blight on the UC system.
Such is life.
Well, I realy hope you didn't pass any bar exam with that reasoning, Anon...
1. Because Arab governments might have done it, Israel can, is an argument that even fifth-grade Zionists shy away from... Unless "Better than Yemen" is your benchmark for Israeli excellence.
2. Remind us, how did the 1967 War start? Was it:
a) Israeli warplanes destroying the Egyptian airforce before one plane had taken off?
b) Something plucked from Abba Eban's backside?
""Unless "Better than Yemen" is your benchmark for Israeli excellence.""
Well, is that really the line of argument you're going here? That you see greater potential for justice and fairness in a reformed Israel than in any of the other governments in the region, and so you hold it to a higher standard, because you want Israel to fulfill its promise as a liberal democracy? Because if so, that's admirable. But if not, you're trying to have it both ways.
""Remind us, how did the 1967 War start? Was it:
a) Israeli warplanes destroying the Egyptian airforce before one plane had taken off?""
Now, why would the Israeli air force ('warplanes'? Really? As opposed to 'peace-planes'? It was an air force attack, let's call it what it was, but this kind of silly nit-picking of language just goes to show how devoted you are to making this Red Sox vs. Yankees) go and do a thing like that?
Ahh, lowfields, sadly for you, I did.
As for your weak attempt at deconstructing logic, it was Will who brought up the appropriation of private property by an Arab government. A pretty "important" one too (not exactly Yemen) - who had an interesting role in the 1967 war - which, by the way, has zero to do with Will's "argument."
Thanks for rendering his "point" further pointless.
Can it be that you're more useless than Will?
I guess Boalt did teach him something. Just not much.
So, hang on you two (I assume you're different people...), let's get this straight.
Do you object to Egypt expropriating land from a Jewish family or not?
If you do, then surely the same argument from a Palestinian perspective is equivalent and, therefore, valid. There's nothing to suggest Will doesn't also think it's illegal/unethical... he merely highlighted the interesting – and not remotely inappropriate – comparison between a Jewish family suing a state to gets its land back and the wholesale refusal of the Jewish state to recognise land rights of Paletinians.
(Now, why do I think you understand that very basic point already...?)
If you don't think Egypt is wrong, then you're simply arguing against the presentation of an argument. You're only point is that Will might be inconsistent. Which, from the post, is simply an assumption.
All of which means you'll be highly successful as a lawyer.... and never actually stand for anything. Apart from the sound of your voice.
Bravo.
As for why Israeli warplanes might attack Egypt – a bad rhetorical question, or a silly real one? – you can mix and match the following:
- territorial expansion
- eliminating a potential threat before is materialises (pre-emption, in neo-con language)
- Smashing the regional prestige of Nasser.
- Deal a hammer blow to pan-Arabism.
Frankly, as pretexts go, the Straits of Tiran was as flimsy as WMDs, the shuffling of troops in Sinai as transparent as bringing democracy to Arabia.
""
Do you object to Egypt expropriating land from a Jewish family or not? ""
In theory, sure. In practice, the conditions in Egypt aren't ripe for much better happening. It'd be understandable, given the circumstances. Shit like that happens to the Jews in plenty of places. My main, overarching goal is for Egypt, and the rest of the region, to adopt a secular liberal-constitutionalist form of government, with all the cultural and social changes that entails.
A Jewish family having their land taken in Egypt isn't a policy decision that would move us either toward, or away from, that goal -- it's not a 'cause' of overall change, merely an 'effect'.
I worry about getting the underlying 'causes' of change correct -- and then, in the long term, the 'effects' fall into place. In the meantime, a few eggs get broken here and there. Unfortunate, but it happens.
""comparison between a Jewish family suing a state to gets its land back and the wholesale refusal of the Jewish state to recognise land rights of Palestinians.""
While this is a subordinate issue to the logic above, your formal logic here is lacking. The definition of the Egyptian 'state' is not contested in the same way that the definition of the state in the land of Palestine is; the family suing is doing so under a consistent, universal framework governing what 'ought' to be happening within that state's borders -- there's a state with a monopoly of force backing it up.
There is no consistent, universal framework, backed up by sovereign authority, governing what 'should' be happening in the land of Palestine -- it's an anarchic situation, with highly conflicting ideas of what the 'good' entails.
Hence, it's an apples to oranges comparison.
Though, as I said a moment ago, this is all subordinate to the larger goal-oriented issues I've outlined above.
""As for why Israeli warplanes might attack Egypt – a bad rhetorical question, or a silly real one? – you can mix and match the following:
- territorial expansion
- eliminating a potential threat before is materialises (pre-emption, in neo-con language)
- Smashing the regional prestige of Nasser.
- Deal a hammer blow to pan-Arabism.""
Of your four explanations, A, C, and D are laughable. B, in my mind, is *probably correct*.
That said, you've got your history and terminology wrong on explanation B. Pre-emption is *not* a neocon doctrine -- the right of pre-emptive attack has a long and storied history.
The neo-con argument was that we should move from *pre-emptive* warfare to *preventive warfare*. The invasion of Iraq was not pre-emptive, it was preventive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preemptive_war
The Israeli attack was pre-emptive, and perfectly justified.
Post a Comment