Bushbred

Holding the balance of power has never been something which has been decided internationally by consensus. Historically countries have had the balance of power in their favour because they take it.

You seem almost obsessed with Israel’s nuclear weapons, Yet Israel has never even acknowledged that they have them. They certainly have never threatened anyone with them publicly, as have the Iranians. Israel defeated the Arab armies single handedly three times without resort to nukes. Even in their darkest hours, when things were going badly during the Yom Kippur war and Israel’s very existence was threatened, they didn’t use nukes.

Just look at the President of Iran. Ahmedinejhad believes that the Mehdi is hiding down a well waiting for judgement day. Indeed during Ahmedinejhad’s time as mayor of Tehran, he widened the streets for a more befitting parade when the Mehdi returned. This is also the man who said Israel needs to be wiped off the map.

Tell me why I don’t hear you deploring the Indian nuclear program or the Pakistani nuclear program? Why are you silent on the North Korean lunatics and their weapons program? The North Koreans regularly use the nukes for political gain. And how about the Soviet nuclear program which splintered along with the evil empire in 1989? Surely they are a hundred times more dangerous.

Israel has held no-one to ransom with its nuclear program. Israel poses no threat to Iran or any of its neighbours for that matter. Whilst the Israelis are not shy about pre emptive defence, they aren’t interested in chasing Iranians out of their homeland, or Syrians etc. Yet the Iranians are very interested in destroying Israel. Indeed they have said as much a number of times.

>> “Israel gained enough power when built up by America to challenge the fresh lot of arms coming from the Soviets early in the Yom Kippur War “

What absolute nonsense. The Israelis very nearly lost the war in 1973. And they had nukes at that time.

And which philosophers do you think you speak for?

Islam is no more exceptional than Judaism either, Paul. Once we start claiming one faith is better or more valid than another there's no possibility of resolving any dispute. Your post leaves me with the impression Israel has a better case, and specific references contradicting yours are met with derision.

You "don’t really see how you can suggest that Palestine is a nation or a state', and ask "on what basis do you make the claim to sovereignty by Palestinians?" Well gee Paul, what are you suggesting take its place? Subservience to geopolitics? Palestinians have been saying it for years. Simply " leave us alone". Last week another illegal Israeli settlement was approved. And so it goes...

I don't have to be an expert on M.E. history to know something stinks. Not everything can be laid at the feet of Hamas. It's an extremist organisation borne of extreme conditions. Anyone can train an attack dog if they've a mind to do so. Israel owns Hamas as much as it owns the occupied lands.

Good on you, Bennie for looking fairly at both sides. Can't understand PaulL when he says that it is okay now for Israel to have nuclear weapons, because previously no-one was supposed to know.

Certainly don't know what political science school would agree with that philosophy?

"Why should Palestine be the sovereign state? What special characteristic that Israel lacks does Palestine have that it should be granted sovereignty over the land?"

The region is a land whose sovereignity should be determined by the indigenous Semites. Whether it is called Palestine or Israel or both is irrelevant.

"Do we Australians deserve sovereignty over our country? And if not who does?"

As I have already stated several times, a more strict definition would grant the determination of sovereignity to the indigenous people who were murdered and colonised. Until that is resolved there will always be "an aboriginal problem". Rather like the "aboriginal problem" in the levant.

"BTW it seems as though the League of Nations felt that the Jews were a nation of people."

I am well aware of the intellectual confusion which continues to this day. Of course as you must surely be aware by now a homeland does not justify a state.

According to Wikipedia the term Semite means a member of any of various ancient and modern peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, Arabs, and Ethiopian Semites. I would be happy for you to post a link if you have a different meaning.

I’ll run with this one for the moment. So indigenous Semites in the middle eastern region should have their own sovereign state, is that what you are saying?

So what borders will you be drawing for this sovereign state? Will they be defined by where indigenous semites live? What proportion of the population must indigenous semites be to include the land they live on within your new state?

I mean if 60% of the population of a particular area are indigenous semites should this area be excised from its existing country, like Jordan or Iraq or Turkey, for example, and incorporated into your new state? Or should all semites live in the one sovereign country bounded by the geographical distribution of these people, removing all borders in between?

Or are you just suggesting the borders the UN agreed upon?

Btw I wonder why you are not pushing for a Kurdish State?

>> “I am well aware of the intellectual confusion which continues to this day. Of course as you must surely be aware by now a homeland does not justify a state.

I had never before realized that you were such an arrogant bugger. I mean, you’re ridiculous point scoring against Danielle over a very minor matter was an indicator. I didn’t realize that the rules with regard to statehood were written down in stone anywhere. Perhaps you were given them by someone on a mountain somewhere. To suggest that the League of Nations was confused because they weren’t following your guidelines is enormously arrogant. Am I doing you a disservice and there actually is a hard and fast rule somewhere about the role homelands play in the formation of a state? Or is it just from gods lips to your ears?

Paul,

I am glad you are prepared to consider that Semitic people are the people who can determine, for themselves, what the borders of the semitic lands should be. This is an excellent improvement on your part.

Although I am confused on why you suggest that I do not support a Kurdish state. I have expressed support for a Kurdish state here and elsewhere for over twenty five years. The Kurds are deserving the right of self-determination as much as any other nationality.

What you see as minor point scoring with is actually a significant matter; the capacity of individuals to acknowledge error. What you claim to be arrogance is actually humility - because I immediately acknowledge error when I am shown to be factually incorrect.

As previously cited - in this very thread no less - a more precise definition of nationality concurs with the etymology of the word. The theory of the self-determination of nations has been well studied for over one hundred years. Whilst the Soviet Union was hardly a case study in supporting this, the words of Lenin in the book "The Right of Nations to Self-Determination" makes an explicit summary:

"[T]he tendency of every national movement is towards the formation of national states, under which these requirements of modern capitalism are best satisfied. ... [T]he national state is typical and normal for the capitalist period. Consequently, if we want to grasp the meaning of self-determination of nations ... by examining the historico-economic conditions of the national movements, we must inevitably reach the conclusion that the self-determination of nations means the political separation of these nations from alien national bodies, and the formation of an independent national state. ...[It] would be wrong to interpret the right to self-determination as meaning anything but the right to existence as a separate state."