Apology to all: This is way, way off topic. I won't respond again on
anything biblical, or even Middle Eastern, in this thread. (If you want
to yell at me about it do it privately and spare the rest of the list.)
thomas malloy wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
R C Macaulay wrote:
Howdy Vorts,
Gosh, golly, gee folks, here we go again with the Jews and arabs.
This time the "wedge" is oil. The USA uses oil like toilet paper and
everybuddy knows wez intitled to it.. or we think we do. We have
enough oil provided we turn off
This didn't endear the nascent nation of Israel to the locals, and
doesn't seem to put the possession of the land of Israel on the
firmest of legal footings. Oh, granted, God said it was theirs, so
under God's law it's clear cut, but under international law it's
rather hazier, I think; unlike God's law, international law doesn't
technically recognize the principle of "might makes right".
I think that the principal of the gain of territory by military conquest
is an established principal of international law.
Interesting view you have of "international _law_".
Taking territory by conquest and holding it by force is a way of doing
it which works; that is true. It worked for Rome when they had a
"Carthage problem", and it worked for Genghis Khan and his sons. Taking
power by coup with support of the military and holding it by dint of
that same military is an established way of doing that, too. However,
both of those approaches are commonly called "rule of men" rather than
"rule of law". Neither approach will stand up in court. (Just check
out the last stages of General Pinochet's career if you don't know what
I mean by "court". It's a different word from "battlefield".)
Last I heard, international law as currently defined didn't recognize
the right of a strong country to just barge in and steal land from a
weak country, but perhaps we're talking about two different
"internationals" here, eh? Or two different kinds of "law"?
While this concept of the "rule of law", in its current form, is pretty
"modern" (and vastly post-dates biblical "law", or Sharia "law") the
basics have been around for at least a few centuries. Didn't you ever
wonder why the United States government was always so determined to get
treaties signed with various American Indian tribes? They had the
Indians outgunned at least 10 to 1, so they didn't really need the
treaties; and certainly it wasn't to record real promises, as the
government rarely honored the treaties, and typically just replaced them
when they grew tired of the terms. However, whether the treaties were
signed by free will or deception or coercion or something else, the
rulers of the U.S. were well aware that it was important to establish,
at least on paper, a legal basis for the existence of the country. Even
then they were aware of the issue of "international law".
Canada neglected that technicality for parts of Ontario and now, a
century or two later, there is a tempest brewing as a result. So far
the problem has been largely swept under the rug, but I don't think that
approach is going to work forever. No doubt the government will
eventually manage to defuse the situation, but I expect it's going to
take some substantial effort and possibly a good size chunk of cash to
fix it permanently. Down in the States the gummint was cleverer and
they don't have this problem.
In particular, this
applies to aggressors, who subsequently loose the war that they start.
Are you stating this as a general principle? Do you honestly mean to
say the aggressor always loses?
Have you read any American history?
Have you ever heard of Rome? Granted, Rome eventually fell -- but the
western empire lasted several hundred years, and the eastern portion
lasted about 1000 years. "Justice delayed is justice denied" goes the
saying, and that's rather a long delay IMHO. If that's your idea of a
demonstration that the aggressor subsequently loses the war, well, heck,
just wait 'til the heat death of the universe, then you'll see that
/everybody/ eventually loses.
Have you ever heard of Genghis Khan? Though his empire eventually split
into several parts, portions of it persisted for a very long time. Of
course he died, which I suppose you could take to mean God disapproved
of him. But then most of his contemporaries seem to have died too,
including the Christian ones.
The problem is that people of a certain political persuasion don't want
the rules to apply to the followers of Judeo Christian Civilization.
IMHO, the Philistines repeated losses to the Israelis should tell you
something, particularly since they out number them 10 to one.
When you say "Philistines" do you really mean "Philistines" or is it
just your quaint way of saying "Arabs"? The modern Arabs lost to the
Israelis repeatedly, and there was nothing strange about it. They were
using Russian equipment, which kind of stank, and relatively poorly
trained forces. The Israelis were using U.S. equipment and had better
trained forces. As a democracy founded on a shared ideal, the Israelis
may also have had a more loyal, motivated military. As I understand it,
Israel also had a policy of drafting 100% of the men into the military
which gave them a disproportionately large military; the fact that they
get something like a million dollars a day in aid from the U.S. helps to
support this effort, of course. (That's an old figure, BTW, I think the
current figure is larger.)
On the other hand, perhaps you really did mean "Philistines", or other
tribes the Jews had to contend with when after they crossed the Jordan
river. Let's consider that possibility.
What the Israeli victories documented in the Bible mostly tell me is
that Joshua was a good general. (And they tell me the Jews wrote the
Bible -- if they really whipped the Philistines so bad how come they
kept having to do it over again?) And other parts of the conquest story
tell me that if this was your loving God calling the shots, and if this
is the "legal basis" on which you feel Israel rests, there is a bit of a
gulf between us. The conquest wasn't over with Joshua, of course, it
went on throughout the interregnum (Judges) and the rules of Saul and
David. Let's skip ahead a little.
1 Samuel 15 verse 3; direct orders from God to Saul regarding a
conquered tribe, relayed by Samuel:
"... destroy totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not
spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and
sheep, camels and donkeys"
Tell me, Thomas, what bad thing had the camels and donkeys done?
Saul had evil in his heart, though, so he didn't kill all the animals.
What did God say about this? Speaking through Samuel, we find, versus
14 through 17, when Samuel realizes Saul didn't kill the animals,
" Samuel said, 'What then is this bleating of sheep in my ears? What is
this lowing of cattle that I hear?'
" ...
"Why did you not obey the Lord? [and kill all the animals]
" ...
"Because you have rejected the word of the LORD he has rejected you as
king."
So Saul was rejected by God because he failed to kill all the cattle,
sheep, camels, and donkeys. Wow, God just seems so loving here I could
puke.
Of course, fast forwarding a couple more generations, if Solomon hadn't
been such a fathead and all around creep the Jews might have remained
united, and would have had a slightly better chance of holding onto the
land they had stol... er, captured. But that was far later in the
story, and anyway you no doubt buy into the common silliness that
Solomon was a wise man because he proposed cutting a baby in half to
solve a dispute. Real good guy, loved children. Heavy into conspicuous
consumption, tho; internal evidence in the Bible suggests he practically
bankrupted Israel with his spend-spend-spend policies, which led
directly to the rebellion by the North after his death.
Ah, the Old Testament relates such a fine tale of glory...
--- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! --
http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
