News Is Israel a Rogue State? A Discussion on International Controversy

[TheStatutoryApe]

Of course they do, just like if someone wanted to force himself into your home he'd likely consider the legality of doing so debatable too.


It's not a matter of wishing on my part. The Geneva Conventions doesn't make any exceptions, for farmers or otherwise, when http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/WebART/380-600056?OpenDocument":

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

Is it simply that you wish to not consider doing so rogue, but lack a rational argument to substantiate the position?

I am assuming that the Geneva conventions has no provisions regarding persons who lived in a territory prior to the occupation which are now citizens of the occupying nation? Jews have lived in many of these areas for quite some time. They were banned from returning or settling in these areas by Israel but did so any way. Were evacuated and had their homes destroyed and returned any way. They have been settling in occupied territory and then getting removed by Israel over and over again since 1967. It looks to me like there is a group of people who wish to live there and Israel is having trouble dealing with them. They approve the building of the settlements because they don't know what else to do with them and likely they have sympathizers in the government. There are also settlements which are officially deemed illegal by the Israeli government.

Besides, those a faction of those settlers you dismiss as farmers and the like regularly attack Palestinians there while the Israeli military turns it's heads, as explained in http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=49378" for example sake.

And there are violent racists in the US. You have probably heard of them, the KKK? They are mostly farmers and the like. They are also not run by the government and their actions would hardly be considered actions of the US. I don't know why bigoted Israeli farmers would be considered agents of Israel.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/world/middleeast/26settlers.html
As far as I can tell this is a major political issue for Israel and not an act of the Israeli government. Israel, the state, does not appear to be actively attempting to displace the Palestinians. So no, I do not consider it the actions of a rogue state.

 

[planck]

I affirm Israel's legitimacy as a state, contend that they are engaging in rogue conduct.

Ahhh, and there in lies the crux of the debate. You see, israel's neighbors don't agree to any that legitimacy.

I'm curious, what would you consider rogue conduct, if not engaging in might makes right conquest by acquiring territory by force and subjugating the populations there?

Then, everybody is a "rogue" state. The US is a "rogue" state because they "subjugate" their native american populations on reservations as a result of a military conquest. Canada "subjugates" quebec. England "subjugates" scotland. Serbia "subjugates" kosovo. India--kashmir. Iraq/turkey--the kurds. You see where this is going?

Yet even Hamas has stated willingness to resolve the conflict on the basis of international law, as noted by the head of their political bureau in http://enduringamerica.com/2009/10/28/video-transcript-hamas-meshaal-on-goldstone-report-peace-with-recognition-and-1967-borders/" :


So, who specifically are you putting the onus on here, and how do you substitute your position?

LOL. Maybe I'm just a cynic, but I wouldn't believe Hamas if they told me that men landed on the moon back in the 60's. First of all, Hamas is a terrorist organization (US govt. certified) that happens to be governing a portion of the middle east. And secondly, if they really believed in "peace" with their israeli brethren, then why didn't they rejoice when Israel left the gaza strip a few years ago. A completely, israeli-free zone yet, the first thing they did was destroy israeli built greenhouses and launched rockets at the other side of the border.

 

[kyleb]

I am assuming that the Geneva conventions has no provisions regarding persons who lived in a territory prior to the occupation which are now citizens of the occupying nation?

It seems you are assuming there are people who fit that description, but there aren't any.

Jews have lived in many of these areas for quite some time. They were banned from returning or settling in these areas by Israel but did so any way. Were evacuated and had their homes destroyed and returned any way.

Rather, Israelis have been colonizing the West Bank since Israel took occupation over it in 1967, with official government support, starting with the re-establishment settlement of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gush_Etzion" , which was previously evacuated by Jordanian officials when they illegally took control over the West Bank in 1948.

They have been settling in occupied territory and then getting removed by Israel over and over again since 1967. It looks to me like there is a group of people who wish to live there and Israel is having trouble dealing with them. They approve the building of the settlements because they don't know what else to do with them and likely they have sympathizers in the government.

It's not a matter of likelihood, the Israeli government has long provided http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443727809&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull" . Sure, Israel removes some settlements too for various reasons, but the Israeli population of the West Bank didn't go from zero to nearly half a million without constant Government support.

There are also settlements which are officially deemed illegal by the Israeli government.

I am aware of this, but it does nothing to change the fact that all the settlements are all illegal under international law regardless.

And there are violent racists in the US. You have probably heard of them, the KKK? They are mostly farmers and the like. They are also not run by the government and their actions would hardly be considered actions of the US. I don't know why bigoted Israeli farmers would be considered agents of Israel.

The Israeli solders and police who turn a blind eye to those bigots attacks on Palestinians are agents of Israel.

As far as I can tell this is a major political issue for Israel and not an act of the Israeli government. Israel, the state, does not appear to be actively attempting to displace the Palestinians. So no, I do not consider it the actions of a rogue state.

Ignoring the fact that an occupying power transferring parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies is illegal regardless of whether or not the existing population is displaced, would the fact that "http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/954967.html" " change your opinion on the matter?

Ahhh, and there in lies the crux of the debate. You see, israel's neighbors don't agree to any that legitimacy.

I see that Israel's neighbors have offered to recognize and normalize relations with Israel in exchange for Israel respecting the rights of Palestinians under international law, which leaves the crux of the debate at Israelis refusal to do anything of the sort.

Then, everybody is a "rogue" state. The US is a "rogue" state because they "subjugate" their native american populations on reservations as a result of a military conquest. Canada "subjugates" quebec. England "subjugates" scotland. Serbia "subjugates" kosovo. India--kashmir. Iraq/turkey--the kurds. You see where this is going?

I see that you are ignoring the distinction between internal and international actions to construct an absurd argument, and apparently don't realize that both England and Scotland are parts of Great Britain.

LOL. Maybe I'm just a cynic, but I wouldn't believe Hamas if they told me that men landed on the moon back in the 60's. First of all, Hamas is a terrorist organization (US govt. certified) that happens to be governing a portion of the middle east. And secondly, if they really believed in "peace" with their israeli brethren, then why didn't they rejoice when Israel left the gaza strip a few years ago. A completely, israeli-free zone yet, the first thing they did was destroy israeli built greenhouses and launched rockets at the other side of the border.

From reports I've seen, the greenhouses were looted by by Gazans other than Hamas, while Hamas condemned the destruction. Can you cite any credible source to support your claim to the contrary?

In regard to Hamas being a terrorist organization, of course they are. However, considering the fact that Israel was refusing to settle the conflict on the basis of international law since long before Hamas existed, I don't see any reason to doubt Hamas's claim that they'd change their ways to conform to international law if Israel would do the same. As for why Hamas continued to launch rockets, since you've stated that you wouldn't believe them even when they are obviously telling the truth, I'll quote http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=485929" instead:

The disengagement plan is the preservative of the sequence principle. It is the bottle of formaldehyde within which you place the president's formula so that it will be preserved for a very lengthy period. The disengagement is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that's necessary so that there will not be a political process with the Palestinians.

Put simply, it was a cynical ploy which gave Israel cover to continue expanding their colonization of the West Bank, all while keeping Gaza under siege by controlling their coastline and airspace.

 

[seycyrus]

I think this whole thread is to create a dust storm of confusion in which the actions of Iran can be defended.

That's just what my crystal ball shows, of course.

 

[Sorry!]

I wonder what would happen if rockets started to bombard Southern States from say Mexico...

I love however how when rockets were constantly going over the border from the Gaza strip how the Palestinian (people I knew at least who live in the area and from what I saw on the news) were happy and joyous about their people fighting back... wonder what caused the change in emotions? (As I'm assuming has occurred from the post by kyleb)

 

[Hurkyl]

all while keeping Gaza under siege by controlling their coastline and airspace.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

 

[kyleb]

I think this whole thread is to create a dust storm of confusion in which the actions of Iran can be defended.

My intent, here and otherwise, is to dispel confusion though rational discourse.

I wonder what would happen if rockets started to bombard Southern States from say Mexico...

To make it a fair comparison, first wonder what would happen if we were holding Mexico under overwhelming military force while denying Mexicans civil rights and colonizing their homeland out from under them. Jon Stewart also made an excellent analogy of the situation http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-5-2009/strip-maul".

I love however how when rockets were constantly going over the border from the Gaza strip how the Palestinian (people I knew at least who live in the area and from what I saw on the news) were happy and joyous about their people fighting back...

I get the impression many people love watching such madness, and can't help but wonder if that is why our news likes to show you the Palestinians who were happy about the rockets while ignoring the ones who aren't. I personally find the whole situation revolting, which is why I'd like to see a just solution to the conflict on the basis of international law.

...wonder what caused the change in emotions? (As I'm assuming has occurred from the post by kyleb)

I wonder what change in emotions you are referring to, and how you managed to assume anything of the sort from my post.

 

[kyleb]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

I say that to dispel the myth that Israel lifted their siege on Gaza, as in fact they simply altered the tactics by which they continue to maintain it.

 

[Sorry!]

My intent, here and otherwise, is to dispel confusion though rational discourse.


To make it a fair comparison, first wonder what would happen if we were holding Mexico under overwhelming military force while denying Mexicans civil rights and colonizing their homeland out from under them. Jon Stewart also made an excellent analogy of the situation http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-5-2009/strip-maul".


I get the impression many people love watching such madness, and can't help but wonder if that is why our news likes to show you the Palestinians who were happy about the rockets while ignoring the ones who aren't. I personally find the whole situation revolting, which is why I'd like to see a just solution to the conflict on the basis of international law.


I wonder what change in emotions you are referring to, and how you managed to assume anything of the sort from my post.

your post that referred to Hamas being willing to SERIOUSLY seek out peace?

As well it was palestinians from MY AREA not only on the media. There are a bunch of people from that part of the world that live near me. They all support attacking Israel.

So before any attacks against Israel frmo neighbouring states occurred Israel randomly attack the Palestinian people?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It seems you are assuming there are people who fit that description, but there aren't any.

No? I guess that the Arabs killed them all then? None of the Jews that lived there before the war were still alive after 1967? None of their descendent's or family? and none of those people's descendent's survive today? That would be rather surprising.

Rather, Israelis have been colonizing the West Bank since Israel took occupation over it in 1967, with official government support, starting with the re-establishment settlement of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gush_Etzion" , which was previously evacuated by Jordanian officials when they illegally took control over the West Bank in 1948.

Sorry what was that? Jews lived there before? And returned? I thought that such people didn't exist?

It's not a matter of likelihood, the Israeli government has long provided http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443727809&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull" . Sure, Israel removes some settlements too for various reasons, but the Israeli population of the West Bank didn't go from zero to nearly half a million without constant Government support.

From what I have been reading it has been a constant point of contention. The settler movement has people in the government. When their supporters fall out of power and the ground work they have laid for their support is uprooted they have back ups in other branches of government that continue to push for them. It goes back and forth even still. It is far from the government planned campaign to displace Palestinians that you seem to be saying it is. Even the authorization of the plan to re-establish Gush Etzion which you just referenced was grudging and originally quite limited per your own link.

I am aware of this, but it does nothing to change the fact that all the settlements are all illegal under international law regardless.

Allegedly illegal. I doubt that the signatories of the convention meant to prevent peoples dislocated by war from returning afterwards due to the redrawing of borders. In fact if you read the rest of the section you referenced earlier, with only a single line, it indicates that those displaced by war should be returned to their land as soon as possible. Obviously, such as the case of Gush Etzion, the Jews displaced from the Gazan region by the original war were never allowed back. They were capable of returning almost 20 years later and this supposedly means that they were breaking the very section of the convention that ought to have protected their return in the first place? Seems more than a little ridiculous to me.

I mention the settlements classified as illegal by Israel because I doubt that a country actively attempting to displace a population through colonization would deem any settlement of their people in the area illegal.

The Israeli solders and police who turn a blind eye to those bigots attacks on Palestinians are agents of Israel.

Yes, they are agents of Israel sent by their government to escort and protect the Palestinians. The individuals involved unfortunately are not doing their job properly. Fortunate for the Palestinians that there is an Israeli organization called Yesh Din made up of retired Israeli generals and politicians working to try to protect them, according to the article you cite.

Ignoring the fact that an occupying power transferring parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies is illegal regardless of whether or not the existing population is displaced, would the fact that "http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/954967.html" " change your opinion on the matter?

As already noted there is sufficient reason to question whether or not the settlements are really illegal (even if obviously ill advised) or that the government, as opposed to a movement among the Nation's people which would include some politicians (they are just people too of course), is actively attempting to displace the Palestinian people.

My opinion, as I already noted, is that this seems a major (and complex) political issue in Israel itself, that they are attempting to deal with it, and that this does not make them a "rogue state".

 

[kyleb]

your post that referred to Hamas being willing to SERIOUSLY seek out peace?

That's not new, as explained http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Goals":

A memorandum prepared by the political bureau of Hamas in the 1990s at the request of western diplomats, published in a book by Azzam Tamimi, states that Hamas is "a Palestinian national liberation movement that struggles for the liberation of the Palestinian occupied territories and for the recognition of Palestinian legitimate rights."

The problem being that Israel has always thumbed their nose at anything of the sort.

As well it was palestinians from MY AREA not only on the media. There are a bunch of people from that part of the world that live near me. They all support attacking Israel.

Many do, as many Jews support attacking Palestinians, but not all on either side, yet our media shamelessly by and large promotes that cycle of violence while ingoring those working for a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

So before any attacks against Israel frmo neighbouring states occurred Israel randomly attack the Palestinian people?

Not quite, as Israel was attacked the day after they declared statehood, but that was a response to their founders systemically ethnically cleansing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from the region in the months before.

No?

No, there is no one that fits the discription you presented, and your string of arguments from ignorance does nothing to change that fact. Beyond that, this question I found particularly disturbing:

I guess that the Arabs killed them all then?

Despite my previously noting the fact that the residents of Gush Etzion were evacuated by Jordanian officials in 1948, you speculate killing and blame "the Arabs" as a whole. Should I take that to suggest you harbor disdain for Arabs in general?

From what I have been reading it has been a constant point of contention. The settler movement has people in the government. When their supporters fall out of power and the ground work they have laid for their support is uprooted they have back ups in other branches of government that continue to push for them. It goes back and forth even still.

There is back and forth on the details of the colonization, but no notable opposition to it as a whole.

It is far from the government planned campaign to displace Palestinians that you seem to be saying it is.

It's a government planned campaign to colonize the West Bank and deny Palestinian sovereignty over the territory, as exemplified by government sponsored financial incentives to encourage colonization I mentioned, and also http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections/knesset15/elikud_m.htm":

Settlements

The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.

Self-Rule

The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.

The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel's existence, security and national needs.

I hope you might take that as cause to question the credibility of whatever you have been reading.

Even the authorization of the plan to re-establish Gush Etzion which you just referenced was grudging and originally quite limited per your own link.

They squabbled over the details of the colonization, as they still do, nearly half a million settlers later.

Allegedly illegal.

Illegal, as demonstrated by http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?pr=71&code=mwp&p1=3&p2=4&p3=6&case=131&k=5a".

I doubt that the signatories of the convention meant to prevent peoples dislocated by war from returning afterwards due to the redrawing of borders.

Of course they didn't, but the vast majority of the nearly half a million settlers in the West Bank aren't even descendants of the few thousand peoples dislocated during the 1948 war, so where is there any reasonable dispute on the illegality of those hundreds of thousands of settlers who don't fit your description?

In fact if you read the rest of the section you referenced earlier, with only a single line, it indicates that those displaced by war should be returned to their land as soon as possible.

Given the option to return to their land that is, which Israel has constantly refused to the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians refugees and their descendants who were displaced from what is now Israel.

Obviously, such as the case of Gush Etzion, the Jews displaced from the Gazan region by the original war were never allowed back. They were capable of returning almost 20 years later and this supposedly means that they were breaking the very section of the convention that ought to have protected their return in the first place? Seems more than a little ridiculous to me.

Your citing the legitimate rights of a few thousand people to defend illegitimate colonization of hundreds of thousands of people is utterly ridiculous.

I mention the settlements classified as illegal by Israel because I doubt that a country actively attempting to displace a population through colonization would deem any settlement of their people in the area illegal.

They are colonists, not anarchists.

Yes, they are agents of Israel sent by their government to escort and protect the Palestinians. The individuals involved unfortunately are not doing their job properly.

Were it a few individuals rather than systemic disregard for the protection of Palestinians, I'd consider your argument here reasonable.

Fortunate for the Palestinians that there is an Israeli organization called Yesh Din made up of retired Israeli generals and politicians working to try to protect them, according to the article you cite.

Israelis like those in Yesh Din are far outnumbered by those who lack such regard for Palestinians rights under Israeli law, and ones who respct Palestinians rights under international law are even fewer.

As already noted there is sufficient reason to question whether or not the settlements are really illegal (even if obviously ill advised) or that the government, as opposed to a movement among the Nation's people which would include some politicians (they are just people too of course), is actively attempting to displace the Palestinian people.

My opinion, as I already noted, is that this seems a major (and complex) political issue in Israel itself, that they are attempting to deal with it, and that this does not make them a "rogue state".

What line would Israel have to cross before you would feel comfortable applying the term to them?

 

[mheslep]

Look, one can't claim this in one sentence:

My intent, here and otherwise, is to dispel confusion though rational discourse.

and then site mocking comedy shows in the next:

Jon Stewart also made an excellent analogy of the situation http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-5-2009/strip-maul"

 

[mheslep]

That's not new, as explained http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Goals"

First that's a Wiki link to highly charged political subject for which the underlying reference is not available on the net, and second there's no mention I can find of any association of the statement with the US Army War College.

 

[kyleb]

My bad, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub894.pdf" I had originally intended to cite:

When HAMAS was established, it defined its mission as the liberation of Palestinians and cessation of Israeli aggression against them. That is to say, its goal is not the destruction of Israel, as is commonly asserted by the American and Israel media, and certainly HAMAS does not possesses the military means to attain that goal.

Which references the same source, but I changed to the Wiki article since it actually quotes the source, which can be seen http://books.google.com/books?id=qi...cognition+of+Palestinian+legitimate+rights."". I'll go back and correct my post now.

Edit:

Look, one can't claim this in one sentence:
and then site mocking comedy shows in the next:

Do you have anything even resembling a rational argument against the analogy, or just a compulsion to ad hominem the source?

 

[mheslep]

Do you have an rational argument against the analogy, or just a compulsion to ad hominem the source?

What analogy, and what ad hominem? Saying 'here is somebody else that thinks as I do' is not an analogy. I've not personally attacked you, I'm challenging your assertion.

You've asserted your intent "is to dispel confusion though rational discourse." I contest that you make that case by citing comedy shows and the like. Rather, it supports the notion of an intent to do exactly the opposite: emotionalize the issue.

 

[mheslep]

My bad, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub894.pdf" I had originally intended to cite:



Which references the same source, but I changed to the Wiki article since it actually quotes the source, which can be seen http://books.google.com/books?id=qi...cognition+of+Palestinian+legitimate+rights."". I'll go back and correct my post now.

Thanks.

 

[kyleb]

What analogy, and what ad hominem?

The one Stewart made near the end of the clip I presented, which it seems you prefer to ignore based the character of the show rather than any rational dispute with the analogy itself. Am I to take it you didn't even watch the clip?

 

[mheslep]

The one Stewart made near the end of the clip I presented, which it seems you prefer to ignore based the character of the show rather than any rational dispute with the analogy itself. Am I to take it you didn't even watch the clip?

Yep watched it, not interested though I like Stewart, and ignoring Stewart is not an ad hominem here.

 

[kyleb]

Attacking the arguer to ignore the argument is ad hominem, which you are doing by dismissing Stewart/TDS as a comedy program rather than addressing the analogy they present.

 

[Hurkyl]

The analogy is being dismissed as comedy, because it is comedy, rather than any sort of serious political commentary. You think otherwise?

 

[DaveC426913]

The analogy is being dismissed as comedy, because it is comedy, rather than any sort of serious political commentary. You think otherwise?

The fact (or opinion) that it is couched in humour does not negate its validity as an argument. To claim it does would be an ad hominem (dismissing a valid argument based on who is doing the arguing).

It is no accident that Jon Stewart couches biting political discourse in seemingly harmless mockery. Indeed, one of the reasons it is so funny is because of how well it hits the mark.

It seems some people are mixing up cause and effect here.

It is is not that: it is a good argument because it is funny,
it is that: it is funny because it is a good argument.



This entire objection would go away of kyleb simply removes Jon Stewart from the equation and restates the analogy as if it were his own. Then objecters can simply attack kyleb's argument directly.

 

[tiny-tim]

"rogue state"

A lion will attack even if it is not attacked.

Any elephant will attack if it is attacked.

A rogue elephant will attack even if it is not attacked.​

Any state will attack if it is attacked.

A rogue state will attack even if it is not attacked.

You can't call Israel a rogue state just because it responds to attacks on its own citizens … that may or may not be over-reaction, but it certainly isn't being a rogue state, in the way that ordinary people use the adjective "rogue".

The definition quoted from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rogue+state?r=75" …

a state that does not respect other states in its international actions

… is simplistic and wrong.

A dictionary should reflect common usage of a word (or phrase), and this does not.

Incidentally, this definition is virtually the same as that normally given for "pariah state" (although dictionary.reference.com itself, surprisingly does not have a definition for "pariah state"!) … see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pariah_state" …

A pariah state is one whose conduct is considered to be out of line with international norms of behavior.

 

[Hurkyl]

Indeed, one of the reasons it is so funny is because of how well it hits the mark.

It seems some people are mixing up cause and effect here.

Yes, you and kyleb. It would be a ridiculous statement no matter who said it. The fact it's funny doesn't make it any stronger of a statement -- except to people who are easily swayed by that sort of thing.

But, just for fun, we can answer humor with humor. They keep the guy locked in the hallway because he keeps throwing rocks at them whenever they let him into the living room.

 

[kyleb]

This entire objection would go away of kyleb simply removes Jon Stewart from the equation and restates the analogy as if it were his own.

Yeah, I'm not one to present something as my own which isn't though. Regardless, I do thank you for emphasizing the distinction between the arguer and the argument.

You can't call Israel a rogue state just because it responds to attacks on its own citizens …

Nor was I, but rather because Israel refuses to respect Palestinians rights under international law.

The definition quoted from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rogue+state?r=75" …

… is simplistic and wrong.

A dictionary should reflect common usage of a word (or phrase), and this does not.

As I said previously when others made this argument, feel free to present whatever you might consider a more authoritative source for the definition.

The fact it's funny doesn't make it any stronger of a statement...

I wouldn't find it funny if I didn't find it analogous to the situation. Like I see no humor in this:

They keep the guy locked in the hallway because he keeps throwing rocks at them whenever they let him into the living room.

How do you figure "whenever they let him into the living room" is when the "rocks" are "throw[n]"? it seems to me the rockets are a response to Israel's refusal to respect the rights of the refugees, and the rights of Palestinians to sovereignty over what little of their homeland is still legally theirs under international law.

 

[Hurkyl]

Like I see no humor in this:

I didn't expect you to; you don't seem like the kind of person who could enjoy a jab at something he believes in. Similarly, I expected you to be far more critical of an analogy "illustrating" an opposing point of view than one "illustrating" your own point of view.

But I am genuinely surprised that you cannot even see what aspect of the situation the analogy tries to capture.

 

[Evo]

This thread should have been closed a long time ago.