Compromising with apartheid [second try]

No, neither does switching a power differential with the morality of genocide.

You should consider ditching this rapid-response post style. You end up with incoherent sentences like the one above.

Don't get me wrong: I'm sure that tossing the word "morality" and "genocide" at many posters here, in an accusatory fashion, is plenty effective at derailing discussions and provoking flamewars. And there's a time and place for that, I suppose.

But to respond that way to someone who is attempting to take your statements at face value and phrase reasoned responses to them? That displays a real lack of respect for your own intellect, as well as an unwarranted level of contempt for your interlocutor. How much less seriously will I be willing to take you the next time?

Are you really so afraid to engage my criticisms honestly? Because retreating into single-sentence barbs about grandiose immorality doesn't make you appear terribly confident in your position. Forward a compelling alternative theory of international property rights, if you really want to shut me up.
 
Last edited:
Forward a compelling alternative theory of international property rights, if you really want to shut me up.

There is something called the Universal declaration of human rights, if you're interested. You might want to take a peek at that one, some time.

Most of us can get by pretty well through life without pretending that stealing is a form of compromise if you're well armed enough to beat the other into submission. Thats what we usually call a mugging. And there is nothing complicated about not desiring to share your living space with your mugger, any more than there is anything immoral about not wanting to marry your rapist. It is true that being powerless can be a an incentive to be generous, especially when your survival is at stake, but it shouldn't be confused with an equal contribution from both sides. The only ones to see the "positive side" of such transactions tend to be the muggers and rapists.

How much less seriously will I be willing to take you the next time?

Indeed.


And with the aim of furthering compromise with apartheid in the "light unto nations"

10 tips for crossing Israeli borders

1. Be white. In America we at least attempt to be discreet when it comes to racial profiling. In Israel, it is overt and unapologetic. If at all possible, be or at least look Caucasian.

2. Don’t have anything Araby-sounding in your name or your family. You may look white as a lily, but if your last name is Rashid, be prepared for a long wait (hopefully not more than an hour, especially if you have an American accent and don’t claim to be visiting the West Bank or Gaza). Even I often get asked, “What is your father’s name?” “Robert,” I answer. “What is your grandfather’s name?” “Melvin.” So far they haven’t asked me for my great-grandfather’s name, but if they ever do, I will reply, “Ibrahim Yusif Mohammad Abdul Aziz bin Laden… D’oh!”

3. Have a clean passport. Any evidence in your passport of travel to Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran… you get the idea. If you’ve been to a country that’s not friendly to Israel, they will not be friendly to you. They’ll probably let you through, but rarely in under an hour or four.

4. Dress nicely. Even if you’re white, have nothing Arab-ish in your name, and haven’t visited any Axis of Evil countries, if you look like a raggedy activist, you may get pulled aside.

5. Act confident. Don’t say “Shalom!” with a big friendly smile or look nervous. They respect people more if they are respectful but confident — if they treat the guards as equals (with guns). They’re less likely to pounce on you if you don’t look like a scared, grinning bunny rabbit. Remember, at the end of the day, they’re just kids, and you are an adult.

6. Act clueless. You don’t know any Arabs, you don’t know any Arabic, you don’t know if it’s Ramadan, you don’t know how to dress in Arabic countries, you’re not sure what the West Bank is (if they ask), and there’s certainly no such thing as ‘East’ Jerusalem! Needless to say, don’t have any keffiyas or Hezbollah flags, or even a Ramallah Bravo Supermarket card, in your luggage.

7. Keep the internet clean. If you have a Facebook page with lots of Palestine links, change your privacy settings to maximum and change your picture to someone who’s clearly not you. If you have a website with Palestine stuff on it that can easily be changed, change it. Put someone else’s picture on it. Make the front page all about wildflowers. If you’ve written or published things in several places that can’t be easily changed — well, just hope they don’t Google you, as they have Googled several other people and rejected or questioned them based on what they found. (If you follow all the other steps, they probably won’t Google you.)

8. Lie like a bad rug. Especially if they have no easy way to verify what you’re saying. Sometimes honesty is the best policy, but this is usually not the case at Israeli borders. If you believe it is your right to be in Palestine, don’t make a stand at the border and demand your rights. There are times and places for this; the Israeli border is not one of them. They have all the power, they don’t understand or care about your opinions at all, and there’s no media. Just quietly slip in and go about your life. Otherwise you’re giving eighteen-year-old Russian girls a lot more power than they deserve or know how to handle


I always lie, and I advise other people to lie, but most people haven’t been through as many Israeli borders as I have and aren’t used to lying to authority figures. People tend to believe the Israelis have more knowledge and power than they actually do, which de facto allows them to have more knowledge and power than they actually do. Don’t fall for it.

http://mondoweiss.net/2009/10/10-tips-for-crossing-israeli-borders.html
 
Last edited:
There is something called the Universal declaration of human rights, if you're interested. You might want to take a peek at that one, some time.

I am of course already familiar with it. And it's not a theory of property rights, but simply an assertion of them.

And anyway it's a UN resolution; how are we to regard that as binding, when you have just finished asserting that the UN has no jurisdiction to decide the issues in question?

You can't have it both ways: either the UN is the legitimate arbiter of these questions (in which case the 1948 resolutions partitioning Palestine and creating Israel are valid), or they are not (in which case the Universal Declaration of Human Rights carries no weight). Which is it?
 
Last edited:
I am of course already familiar with it. And it's not a theory of property rights, but simply an assertion of them.

And anyway it's a UN resolution; how are we to regard that as binding, when you have just finished asserting that the UN has no jurisdiction to decide the issues in question?

You can't have it both ways: either the UN is the legitimate arbiter of these questions (in which case the 1948 resolutions partitioning Palestine and creating Israel are valid), or they are not (in which case the Universal Declaration of Human Rights carries no weight). Which is it?

Who said anything about arbitration? Or even enforcement? Do you actually believe the UN enforces human rights anywhere? D'oh!

I was merely pointing out the difference between morality and bullshit.
 
At the time, nothing was agreed on. Both parties could have come to some compromise that didn't lead to war.
 
Who said anything about arbitration? Or even enforcement?

You've said quite a bit on the subject, in this thread. I asked you, directly, for a theory of international property rights with an associated enforcement mechanism, and you referred me to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

If you didn't intend that as an answer to my question, then by all means disclaim it. But it adds up to you being non-responsive.

Do you actually believe the UN enforces human rights anywhere? D'oh!

They have in certain times and places, but I'm not sure where you got that implication about my beliefs, nor what it has to do with anything. You're the one who invoked the UN here. And if you don't believe it is an enforcer of property claims, then why do you bring up UN declarations when asked about how that should be accomplished?

All you're producing here is a sequence of ad hoc evasions and glowing self-characterizations.
 
At the time, nothing was agreed on. Both parties could have come to some compromise that didn't lead to war.

That's the problem the wanting party(the foriegn jewish population) never bothered to even consider the resident party(the palestinian population)
 
Back
Top