V…. for Vendetta
The most daring film of the year… hands down. Forget Munich, forget Paradise Now.
Vendetta is up there with the Wachowski brothers' first Matrix film, which anybody could see had more on its agenda than aerobatic martial arts. The brothers, who wrote the Vendetta script that James McTeigue spiffily directed, are back in top form--not larding political meaning on an action plot but finding a seamless blending of the two. Whether you're mindless or Mensa, you'll find stuff here to challenge and trouble you, the way a good piece of speculative fiction should.
It's more audacious still that the Wachowskis, rather than scrubbing their script clean of 9/11 references, would emphasize the connection, proposing a dapper quasi-hero who is part Zorro (with the fancy swordplay), part Phantom of the Opera (but with a jukebox in his underground lair instead of a pipe organ) and just a smidge of Osama bin Laden (but with tastes more aesthetic than ascetic).
That a government should literally poison its citizens, and that a terrorist should be considered a hero, is a pretty nervy premise for a mainstream film. But that's dystopic fiction for you. These days, with many millions around the world seeing every evil in Bush and Cheney, a film like Vendetta is, at least, timely. And if the villains are the big guys, the hero can be a terrorist--or should we call V an insurgent?
The daring or, as I am sure some will see it, the audacity, of the movie is almost unparalleled. Think of this movie as the Matrix but with the philosophical direction geared towards terrorism.
Personally I can’t stomach death, regardless of reason. In that sense I would probably make a horrible political leader. I am not easy to label; centrist maybe, but the one quote that adequately defines a very important part of me is Mohandas Gandhi’s “There are a thousand causes I would die for but none I would kill for.”
I have much invested in understanding terrorism. I am perpetually trying to answer the questions that have no one answer. The ones that only help you understand the position of the person answering them. The relentlessly changing ones. What is a terrorist? What is the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? When is it OK to take up arms, when is it necessary, and when is it the last resort? Who is the oppressor, and who the oppressed? Is the oppressor vindicated in his virtue or is the oppressed; and how many levels of oppression are there, is some oppression necessary? Who gets to define the terms, who dictates, who refs, and who gets to fill these positions? What is tolerable for the good of the future and when will it become a national and historical stain. What means justify the end?
My audience is fairly diverse and I am sure not one of these questions would be very hard to answer by any of them. The difference between the answers is what interests me the most.
I once defined the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter as follows. “There is a fine line between terrorists and freedom fighters; and it is the masses that determine which side of the line one falls.”
I will change my position on that once again. The film alludes to the difference being defined by the success or failure of the group in its objectives; as a sub-paragraph in the clause that states history to be written by the victor.
So where does that leave the Palestinians in their struggle; between a rock and a hard place. The Palestinian struggle failed long ago. I feel that there should be a stopwatch to this; if you can’t get your land back before it’s over you lose it. I do not feel that Israel had any right to form in Palestine. I have heard all the silly arguments from Jews buying land there to its biblical proclamation. Buying land is not a prequel to declaring sovereignty and I certainly don’t believe in prophecy. The Arab countries had every right to reject the UN’s partition plan and retaliate. They did and they… we, lost. Things are different now. Israeli kids that were born and raised in a land to which they knew no other are not the generation of immigrants that took it over by force; they have every right to be there. The table turned. The sons and daughters of the fled and displaced are now the aggressor. Almost every country has laws that give people that stay on a land long enough its ownership. Egypt does and according to Abd ul-Rahman Hilmi so does Islam. Gaza and the West Bank are still up for grabs; hurry up.
Supposing we could all agree that an invading hostile should be fought. One could then give another timetable for freedom fighter vs. terrorist. At the door fight them; when it drags on to long and you’ve been replaced by your son, when fighting for your rights has manifested itself to point of matter of principle; game over. When it has become ingrained in your culture and synonymous with your religion then for god sake settle.
On the left V. On the right Guy Fawkes the man that tried to blow up the English Parliament on the 5th of November 1605 and the man the character is based on.
Another strong point delivered by the film is its portrayal of tyranny. The West finds it hard to understand life under bad rule. They may think they understand; all the elements are comprehensible, the oppression, big brother on steroids, parasitical leaders leaching the nations wealth, fear and its subsequent compliance. Sure they know what happens but knowing isn’t understanding. There used to be an AIDS campaign that showed streets in America empty with children walking around without parents in a parallel to AIDS stricken Africa. This is like that for life in the Middle East.
I never understood how America tolerated slavery for so long. I mean it’s all right there in the constitution; our rights as man. The constitution didn’t change (besides some minor amendments) only its interpretation. Slavery was the norm back then. Someone against it was a bleeding heart naïve dolt. I think Americans of the future will look back and fail to understand how we today fail to understand the rights of man in general. If America treated the world as it does its citizens we could touch on utopia.
The movie adequately displays the reality that there is no Black and White and no guiltless party. The irony that it was brought to us by American cinema is something us Arabs should think about (you may need to see the movie to get that last bit; diversity of opinion is a beautiful thing.)
-Karim Elsahy
The film is only a film in the end, sure it's great when it gives the brain a bit of a nudge to stirr it but in the end, it is entertainment not a theory.
But let me tell you were you go horribly wrong.
when you say:"The Arab countries had every right to reject the UN’s partition plan and retaliate."
first, Arab countries had no right to agree or disagree. Only Palestinians did.
secondly,as it wasnt their business, Arab countries had no right to retaliate.
Your basis is a mythical entity that never existed, which is a one arab state or nation with one language & one religion( as many middle easterners repeat), & You assume that palestine is arab (it is not) & so is the land of Egypt to Morocco.
You idea simply gives right for every state to have a say , a rightful opinion, in other arab affairs based on their unity or oneness, but in reality that is nonsense.
What makes Egypt an Arab land or country? palestine was never considered arab land, it was part of the Levant & when arabs invaded it, as they did with all what you call arab countries, the majority was not arab till centuries later, after the crusade era when populations mixed there & spoke arabic.
What makes Syria,libya, morocco,sudan,algeria or lebanon arab land? You think these lands were predominant with arab tribes or were vacant space & arabs simply inhabited it? You simply cross out many nations when you generalise them as arabs, & they are not which creates another problem of identity.
& why isnt Turkey considered Arab? its a case which is the complete opposite of arab identity.
whether its language or race, arab states had no say in the UN partition plan of 47, only palestinians have that right.
& like they had no say in egypt opting for peace talks with israel,Hafez Assad of syria wanted a One arab delegation to represent All arabs at the talks which sadat refused on the spot for its ridiculous notion.
Arab states cannot agree on simple issues let alone major ones & you give them the Right to interfere in every one's business? If that delegation went to the peace talks it would have failed & sinai would still be occupied.
Let people grow up as a nation & make their own choices so in the end they can be responsible enough to rule themselves.
I am glad however you acknowledge that israelis born there have a right to the land, the situation shifted years ago & it is valid no longer to say they stole the land,
Yet most arabs deal with the issue as though it is 1950.
(Comment this)
Terrorism is a tactic, "freedom fighting" is an objective. A terrorist can be a "freedom fightter".
That said I believe I must go into more detail regarding war and methods of fighting. For several reasons some methods of fighting are frowned upon. Some are regarded as war crimes. And some are legal.
Terrorism is one of two asynchronous tactics, and a war crime.
The terrorist does not attempt to win the war by defeating the opposing army or system. The terrorist attempts to create terror by attacking civilians, women and children, while avoiding honest battle. Terrorists are cowards. Small children do not fight back. Terrorists know that.
The greatest lie in the Arab-Israeli conflict is that Arab terrorism is "legitimate resistance" against an "illegal occupation". Occupation is not illegal. And terrorism is a war crime and therefor never a "legitimate" anything. (And in this case the Arab side has signed a peace treaty, which the "legitimate resistance" certainly breaks.)
The argument that opposing Israel at the beginning is so much better than the claim that opposing Israel by means of terrorism now is "legitimate resistance", the two are not even in the same league.
However, I do not think the argument is valid. The history of the Arab world, specifically in the last hundred years has made it very clear that minorities, Jewish or otherwise, cannot live in peace in Arab countries. It is very clear that they need their own countries to defend: Jews, Kurds, Chaldaeans, Sudanese (black) Christians and pagans, perhaps even Kopts. The Arabs in the region selected for the Jewish state are perhaps the victims, but they are not the victims of Jewish claims but of Arab history.
And as we saw in Germany and Poland after World War II, moving to another territory close to one's own, where people speak the same language and follow the same customs is not an impossible task. (It is certainly not more demanding than the life of a Jew in an Arab apartheid state, and except for Bahrain, perhaps, and Morocco, no other possibility existed.)
50 Years after the event, few people remember that western Poland was once inhabited by Germans. And Germany is rich again. There are no terrorist attacks against Poles. And I would be ashamed for my people if there were. What do I care for the supposed rights of other Germans who would fight for their demands by killing Polish civilans. I would regard them as animals, I am sure.
War criminals have no rights.
And war crimes are defined by the method employed, not bz the nationality or religion of the perpetrator. Killing civilians accidentally while trying to kill a militant is no war crime (not even if the "accidentally" is a shallow claim). But killing civilians on purpose is. And that is what the "Palestinian" terrorists do and what the "Palestinian" people openly support.
No other nation can so openly support war criminals without being reprimanded for it. And no other nation gets so much international support as the nation that currently kills Jews. (Comment this)
*How would you define "the west"? I have the impression that such a definition would include North America, Australia, New Zeeland and the EU and if this is the case, there would indeed be many "westerners" who know a great deal about what it means to live under oppression. I'm thinking of Eastern Europe, Spain, portugal and Greece in particular. (Comment this)
Very Interesting point about the difference between Terrorist & Freedom fighter.
I would say a freedom fighter would fight the enemy government or its army but attacking civilians whether children or women or men is a heinous crime & cowardly too.
Those who claim that its the only way to make a government pay & listen are mistaken, you dont win freedom by taking other innocent's life, a battle field is where you settle your differences not packed streets, restaurants & buses.
But you said:"The history of the Arab world, specifically in the last hundred years has made it very clear that minorities, Jewish or otherwise, cannot live in peace in Arab countries. ."
That statement is in many ways wrong. sure the mainstream reaction to the creation of Israel in 1948 & the embarassing defeat of 5 armies wasnt favourable for jewish minorities & many had to leave but that is only 58 years ago, there were still jews living in Egypt till the early fifties, & before then they werent mistreated. There are jews still living peacefully in Morocco, Yemen & Tunisia.
On the whole, jews have enjoyed more freedom in the middle east than in Europe which the latter persecuted & slaughtered thousands of them, forced them into ghettos & refused to accept most of them as assimilated europeans, the main reason why theo herzel started his zionist dream.
today its appaling i agree, but it wasnt a hundred years ago as you say. (Comment this)
(I am not a critic of Israel, but this makes sense.) (Comment this)
You said “If America treated the world as it does its citizens we could touch on utopia”
America isn’t abusing the world’s people, Karim. It’s easy to blame the Big Guy for all the suffering out there, but the people of the world are perfectly capable of abusing each other and do so with relentless determination. Utopia will come when people start respecting each other as human beings. It has nothing to do with America.
You said “Slavery was the norm back then”
Actually, it wasn’t. Prior to the Civil War only about 5% of the southern population owned slaves, mainly the big plantation owners. Slavery did not exist in the north. The vast majority of 19th century Americans did not own slaves.
Mike;
You said “Our fathers and grandfathers told us about the nightmare in the forties and we promised that it wouldn't happen again”
But it has happened again, and again, and again. It happened in Cambodia, in Bosnia, in Kosovo, in Iraq, and it’s happening now in Darfur. We can’t stop all of the world’s atrocities, but let’s just stop saying “never again”.
You said “Imagine if an American president was stupid enough to believe that he could destroy one of the worst dictators in modern history and then a new state would emerge that respected the rights of man”
Sadly, you may be right. I had high hopes for the Iraqis. They’re showing they are incapable of democracy. From what I see of Palestinian “democracy”, I’m not too optimistic either.
(Comment this)
but thanx for the photos and the synopsis
Dry Bones
<i>Israel's Political Comic Strip Since 1973</i> (Comment this)
I have to disagree. From what I read about Jewish life in the Arab world before the creation of Israel, things were far from "they weren't mistreated".
It was more like a traditional apartheid system that was in place. Jews in America and the British Empire had more rights and better lives one hundred years ago (and in Austria and Germany as well!).
You are right in that it got worse after the creation of Israel. But incidentally it also got worse for other minorities (like the Kurds). I blame Arab nationalism. I doubt the phenomenom of Arab dictatorships going after ethnic or religious minorities would not have existed had Israel not been founded.
The Kopts are being mistreated in Egypt right now. It is not acceptable, even if it could be worse.
As for Jews in Yemen, Tunisia, and Morocco; I do not know how many Jews are left in Yemen and what their living conditions are. In Tunisia tourism and thus the relationhip with the EU seems to make things better for Jews.
I have no problems with Morocco in this regard. I have every reason to believe that whatever problems might occasionally arise in Morocco are not of a structural kind. Morocco is doing fine. (Comment this)
There are several reasons.
a) Jews already enjoy equal rights in the US and can vote. They do not need their own state in North-America. (The same applies to Europe.)
b) Jews are free to move to any US state or Canadian province and make a region majority Jewish if they wish. There are no laws preventing such, as there were in Palestine.
c) More than half the Israeli Jews are Arab Jews (Sephardim etc.) and some are Iranians. Culturally they belong to the middle east and they speak Hebrew, Arabic, and Persian. Moving them to North-America (English/French/Spanish) would be a terrific culture shock for the lot.
It would be more humane to move all Arab Palestinians to other Arab countries where they would enjoy people of roughly the same culture and language.
(I also personally don't see why the US should help the Arabs to finally get rid of their Jews!)
d) Israel is holy land for Jews. Jews have been praying for a return to Jerusalem for two-thousands years. Forcing them to give up Israel (the location) would be like forcing Muslims to give up Mecca and Medina.
e) I fear other minorities in Palestine, like Samaritans, Druze, Palestinian Christians, and some of the Bedouins might not survive for very long if the Jews would leave. Should we move them to the US as well?
f) When Jerusalem was under Arab rule, visiting the city was very difficult. Jews would certainly not be allowed into the city ever again (like they are not allowed in certain other "religious" Arab countries). Under Jewish rule Jerusalem is open to all, under Arab rule it was not and will not be, I am sure. (Comment this)
That is what a guerilla would do, fighting the enemy government or its army.
That's the other asynchronous tactic. It is a legal way to fight a war. Terrorism is not.
It is one thing to oppose Israel. It is another to fight its army. But it is a war crime to fight its people. (Comment this)
your information is dead wrong about jews living in egypt. Jews had a better living in middle eastern countries in general throughout centuries.
In egypt they were a minority but had many rights as muslims & copts & many were respected businessmen & wealthy who prospered without prejudice.
If you want to say it wasnt a Haven, sure go ahead, but put in mind it wasnt a Haven for muslims & christians either.
If European Jews enjoyed what you claim they did, why then did Theodore herzel think of creating a jewish state where jews can live together & govern themselves?
what about the Dreyfus trial? Can you mention one incident that equals far far the spanish inquisition?
You forget that there were far worse anti semitic slurs & attacks in Europe than the Middle east in the passing centuries till the end of WW2.
jews lived far better in arab countries than those in Europe till the creation of Israel in 1948 where things reversed & the european bigotry was suddenly taken up by arabs.
Sure there were incidents but they were rare flashes that also affected muslims & christians too,Just like you give credit to Morocco while dismiss Tunisian jews & quickly brushing it aside with a mention of the EU, the EU is a recent political entity & i dont think tunisians accept jews for tourism purposes only, thats preposturous.
Try reading Goitein's jewish society & institution under Islam, or read about the jewish travellers by Nathan Adler, your views about the status of jews in recent times in the ME flawed & far from objective. Even the copts you refer to arent so mistreated the way you imply it or that might be percieved from your words. (Comment this)
im against any forms of racism or prejudism or civilians getting blwon up under any pretext. I would also regard certain incidents where soldiers are killed as a crime.Terrorist or guerilla or whateverm, the result is the same, human life wasted. (Comment this)
I have no information about Jews living in Egypt.
"Jews had a better living in middle eastern countries in general throughout centuries."
No doubt. I am talking about the last hundred years or so only.
"In egypt they were a minority but had many rights as muslims & copts & many were respected businessmen & wealthy who prospered without prejudice."
Yes. Unfortunately that ended some time in the last hundred years. I have no doubt that the Egyptian monarchy respected Jews (and Christians). I do not believe the Arab nationalists under Nasser did the same, regardless of the existence of Israel.
"If European Jews enjoyed what you claim they did, why then did Theodore herzel think of creating a jewish state where jews can live together & govern themselves?"
Not all European Jews enjoyed freedom. I spoke of the United States and the British Empire as well as Germany and Austria (to a degree and in the 19th century).
Russia was terrible for Jews. France was better but worse than Germany (in the 19th century!) and certainly worse than the English-speaking countries.
"what about the Dreyfus trial? Can you mention one incident that equals far far the spanish inquisition?"
Neither occured in the countries I mentioned, and one is several hundred years ago.
"im against any forms of racism or prejudism or civilians getting blwon up under any pretext. I would also regard certain incidents where soldiers are killed as a crime.Terrorist or guerilla or whateverm, the result is the same, human life wasted."
I agree. But here I was talking about war crimes specifically. (Comment this)
The jewish Businessmen & wealthy aristocrats i meant wasnt a thing that ended a few hundred years ago, it lasted till the forties & early fifties as you say it ended a few hundred years ago but im sorry,that info is simply not true & again misleading.
What i am saying is, jews living in europe were mistreated & abused till the 19th century where they had more rights given to them by Europeans but still many didnt accept them as European, even though they had assimilated.
In ME countries they enjoyed a better status than European jews till the reverberating tensions of 1948 spread.
Why did Herzl, who was a secular jew, start to think of creating a country for jews if their status was as that of Europeans? Surely some enjoyed full rights but still many didnt & were regarded with suspicion due to old prejudiced ideas still lingering from past centuries.
Also notice that jews living in countries farther from the conflict werent affected like Yemenite & Moroccoan/Tunisian jewry.
With Nasser & Arab nationalists, the 48 war defeat was a hard slap to the face & a bitter pill to swallow. They associated any jew with Israel & zionism & so the 3 formed into one & the ensuing propaganda helped people to hate & suspect them more. & the Lavon affair didnt help either but added more fuel to the fire.
(Comment this)
He moved to the states and did well for himself shortly after the Tri Partite aggression (the English/French/Israeli invasion of Sinai in 56) He lived in Port Said at the time (one of the main flash points as it is strategically located at the intersection of the Sues Canal and the Mediterranean and is on both sides of the Canal (actual Port Said is on the mainland side and Port Fouad is on the Sinai side; he was actually in Port Fouad but they are largely considered one city)
He told me that there was a Jewish community of at least 200k (a large percentage of the city at the time) and even after Israel they were still considered 100% Egyptian. The concept of all Jews being Israeli in the end didn’t take hold until that precise war; at least for Port Said. He had plenty of Jewish friends; actually everyone there did. The concept that there was a real difference didn’t yet exist. He told me it wasn’t even like Coptics now. There was no real thought given to the issue as opposed to the current conscience thought of tolerance.
When that war hit thing changed. The city was, at the time and many may argue still, very, very technologically un-advanced and was hence not very ingrained with the rest of the country because of its lack of communication (actually with the exception of the Cairo-Alex relationship almost none of the city’s were and information and hence attitudes traveled slowly. There was no radio (if there was it was treasured)
There was also no regular army when the invasion started. He told me accounts of the Russians dropping weapons for the untrained Egyptians that were still covered in some tar-like protective substance that the people in the streets would pick up and try to defend themselves with no idea how to clean or use them resulting in plenty of accidental deaths. Their means of communication to pinpoint the enemy and advance on them was to yell it to each other, perpetually making their positions known.
He also told me on his own account that the Jews he was brought up with would use signals with light to avoid getting hit and helped coordinate the attack from the ground. The Lavon Affair was not the only case of Jewish Egyptian traitors.
Many, many died during that war. No one really counts them because its third world. From that point on the attitude shifted. Many Jews were rounded up and shot for that role. The rest quickly left after that. How many and were they all guilty? That’s the problem. Without almost any real governmental structure mob mentality takes over and things turn ugly. During WW2 American Japanese were rounded up in camps. This was because of paranoia ingrained in the population that simultaneously was founded on a gain of truth. Without the governmental structure in place in America at the time it would have been much worse for the Japanese. (Comment this)
Don't forget that the Tri Partite aggression started with Egypt nationalising the Suez canal (after blocking it for Israeli ships, probably against some treaty too).
I think it is a part of current Arab culture to blame others for Arab mistakes. Did Nasser really believe that he could steal the Suez canal and discriminate against Israeli shipping without punishment?
If he did think so, he was absolutely right. He could steal the Suez canal and discriminate against Israeli shipping. The Soviet-Union and the US made sure of that. But that doesn't make the other side the aggressor. Nobody forced Nasser to take over the canal (which the French built). But Nasser forced Israel to give up an important harbour city. THAT is aggression.
"Why did Herzl, who was a secular jew, start to think of creating a country for jews if their status was as that of Europeans?"
I answered that before. He was motivated by anti-Semitism in France and elsewhere in Europe. I said the western world was not a monolithic block with regard to anti-Semitism. The US and the British Empire had no laws against Jews and few anti-Semitic incidents. And in contrast to Arab countries they also accepted Jews as equal citizens. For all the Arab tolerance towards Jews and Christians, it is simply not true that they had equal rights, which brings me back to my original point.
A case can be made that the founding of Israel worsened the situation for Jews in the Arab world, but that doesn't explain the treatment of other minorities in Arab countries. The Kurds suffered, so did Sudanese Christians. Religious minorities are not even accepted in Saudi Arabia, a country founded before Israel on the very principle of intolerance.
I don't see how anything would have changed if Israel hadn't been founded. Arab nationalism would still exist and Arab nationalism would still have discriminated against minorities and tried to exterminate them, because nationalism ALWAYS does that when left unchecked.
If there really wouldn't have been any discrimination against Jews, Israel would have come to be anyway, when Jews bought land and moved to Palestine, legally. Jews, especially American and European Jews, simply had more money than Arab Palestinians. At some point Jews could have owned all the land in Palestine.
The reason there were restrictions against Jewish immigration and Jews buying land was because it was possible that Jewish immigration and Jews buying land could have taken over Palestine. Arabs sold land to Jews. That's why there were laws made against the process.
To me it looks like a lost game for the Arab side: either there was discrimination against Jews in the Arab world and thus a reason for Jews to have their own country, or there was not, in which case Jews could have bought their own country and nobody could have stopped them.
But let's take another look at Jews in the British Empire. Isaac Isaacs was a Governor General of Australia. And he was an opponent of Zionism and a Jewish state. He saw no need for a Jewish state (and for Jews in the British Empire I believe there was none) and he saw supporting a Jewish state as a disloyalty to the Empire. I partly disagree with him, but I submit that a Jew in his position is proof enough that not all of the western world treated Jews worse than the Arab world at the time.
The rise of nationalism all over the world was bad for all minorities, in the western and the Arab world (and everywhere else). A Jewish state was not needed in America or the British Empire, but it was needed for European Jews before the end of WWII and it was needed for Arab Jews; in the same way as a Kurdish state would have been needed for Kurds. Today a Jewish state in Germany is not needed, but a Jewish state in the Arab world is still needed and will remain so.
And Palestine was not only the traditional home land of the Jews, and described as such in Torah, Bible, and Qur'an, but also a region close to both problematic regions, more empty of people than most other viable places, more easily obtained than other places, and a better focal point than any other region. And had the other Arab countries not decided to attack, I doubt there would have been an Arab refugee problem. Arabs and Jews could have lived side by side in one country, when neither side is a real minority.
It wouldn't have been the dream of the Zionists, but I think it was a nightmare for Arab nationalists. (Comment this)
“To me it looks like a lost game for the Arab side: either there was discrimination against Jews in the Arab world and thus a reason for Jews to have their own country, or there was not, in which case Jews could have bought their own country and nobody could have stopped them.”
There are plenty of poor Africans that I am sure would be willing to sell me some land. What, should I go buy a plot, declare sovereignty, and call it Kimoland?
There is this really off idea you seem to entertain that buying land is in someway a prequel to declaring your own country. It doesn’t work that way.
“Arabs sold land to Jews.”
Yes and if we didn’t we would be racist but if we do we get another country? (Comment this)
This has happened a few times.
It is indeed a good question whether buying land constitutes acquiring souvereignty over it.
And it is easy to say that it does not.
BUT what happens if, in a hypothetical African or middle eastern country, or anywhere in the world, one group of people legitimately and without force (again, this is purely hypothetical) buys all the land and starts living there.
Would not at some point the original people have no land to legally live on?
Would that not mean that they would have to leave the country?
At what point would the new population acquire souvereignty over the region?
If never, would it not result in a country inhabited by one people and ruled by another?
In Israel's case of course, souvereignty was obtained in the same way as it was obtained by most Arab countries in the region: the previous souvereign, the Ottoman sultan lost souvereignty, and the victors gave it to somebody else. That is completely legal.
You might argue that this was unfair towards the inhabitants of the region. But the same argument would work for our population of land buyers in the hypothetical country above. (Comment this)
To be perfectly blunt, what is a better way of doing it?
Is it not the best possible and most acceptable scenario for people who live in X to acquire souvereignty over X?
And is buying land not the most legal and most acceptable scenario for people want to live in X to move to and live in X?
If there had been no violence at all and Jews would have bought all the land in Palestine (a big IF, but follow me and see where it goes), would the result not have been a Jewish majority in Palestine (at some point anyway)? And would that majority not have the right to pass laws over the country they live in?
And similarly, could Arab Palestinians have declared souvereignty based on their living in Palestine, assuming that Jews who lived there would not have had that right?
Who gets to rule a country anyway, if not those who own the land and live there? (Comment this)
No, the deeper question that should be pondered is the goal, the purpose, the outcome.
Let me start you off thinking about deeper concepts instead of the "me" versus "you" arguments get us nowhere.
Can anyone clearly explain the difference between democracy and "mob rule"? Think hard. (Comment this)
(Comment this)
"Did Nasser really believe that he could "steal" the Suez canal and discriminate against Israeli shipping without punishment?"
I wish whoever wrote this to grab a history book and try to know how many Egyptians died during digging that canal.
(Comment this)
What makes you think I didn't know?
Do you honestly believe that the number of deaths caused by building the canal would change my opinion about the legitimacy of a dictator starting a war over it?
Why?
The point is that the canal was legally owned by the British and French, not Egypt, and as many important waterways, it was supposed to be open to all.
Thus Nasser did STEAL it, and the reason he did was because he wanted to discriminate against Israeli shipping.
(Also, I didn't put "steal" in quotes. Please don't change such things when you quote me. Thanks.) (Comment this)
if your grand mother would have told you that her mother and father were beaten infront of her own eyes in the mere age of six and the diseases and intolerence and all because of what? -because she doesn't believe in jesus? ,because we believe in one god ? ,because we don't believe that god sent a messenger(an angel) to have sex with some woman and thus to give birth to god's son?.there have been a lot of reasonos to hate the jews for a long time. and some of them are even made up. we ,the jews needed a place where we will not be harmed and since the holocoust we showed our arch nemesis that we will not give up on this land because it represents the new-jew a jewish person that can defend himself and wouldn't ever be treated ever again as cattle,and beaten to death. (Comment this)