deviant art

Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour
[x]
more ▶

Featured in Groups:

Details

November 29, 2012
Link
Thumb

Statistics

Comments: 19
Favourites: 0
Views: 8,501 (24 today)
[x]
In a perfect world conflict would be settled not by armed conflict but by justice which applies to everyone regardless of tribe. For example in Bosnia it was apparently wrong for the Serb and Croatian entities to want to break away so NATO stopped them. Then in Kosovo NATO supports the break away from Serbia. Now how is it both right and wrong for people to break away? Logically this is not possible. To me this seems like the operation of double standards.

I conducted a survey to find out who people thought had the right to the land. Not a statistically significant sample but 7 thought whoever had the biggest army. Probably the most realistic answer. 7 said a people who were originally there and 4 said a people who came along afterwards who live there now. The reason I asked this question is that to my mind it is the key principle at stake in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Now at one time I would have answered that the original people had the rights but then I realised that this principle would cause endless wars. As we all came from Africa we could all easily claim origin in another part of the world. The principle of who is there first would justify the Red Indians reclaiming America, recovery of German lands in Poland, Finland reclaiming Karelia from Russia and so on. No the only principle which could serve peace is the status quo. If its right for Jews to reclaim Israel then it justifies war in similar circumstances everywhere. Me I'm off to reclaim Normandy for the English throne. Anyone coming?
Add a Comment:
 
:iconyellowplasma:
True that justice heeds no tribe or nation. Sad, but our world is one ruled by natural law: survival of the fittest. People want and if their desire conflicts with the desires of another, then there is war, in one form or another. As for the Arab-Israeli conflict, let us be honest: a nation of the Jews is a prosperous, developed, technologically advanced and productive society. The hypothetical nation of Palestine would be poor, neglected (by its own populous), primitive and still angry. Why bother with "Palestine?" Seriously: why bother? Passions aside and honesty to the fore, "Israel" is the better outcome.
Reply
:iconroboman28:
I have the quaint view that justice should be for rich and poor alike. Still up to about 50 years ago say your view in the last sentences would have been regarded as the normal view of progress and civilisation. These days exterminating aborigines and red indians is regarded as poor form.
Reply
:iconyellowplasma:
Justice is not a subjective theory. It is the spirit of sowing and reaping. When there are two factions and one is productive and the other is not, there is no justification to favor the one which has nothing to offer. Those devoid of productivity are also those devoid of caring. Light must shine or there is only darkness.
Reply
:iconroboman28:
How can it be justice for one group of people to come along and forcibly remove another group of people who have lived there for hundred of years from the land. The principle of morality is reciprocity. So if you believe that, then its OK if someone does that to you too. Presumably you would not mind then? or is you morality highly selective?
Reply
:iconyellowplasma:
Arafat was an Egyptian. Most of the so-called original "Palestinians" were Arabs from elsewhere who moved in. Most of the population of Palestine/Israel are only third or fourth generation to that land, whether Arab or Jew. This is a struggle that resulted from two mutually exclusive ethnic groups converging on the same locale. Yes, there were Arab inhabitants before the influx of Jews, but not many. Many of these original inhabitants were Christian Arabs who have more in common with Christian Lebanese than they do with Muslim Palestinians. These Christian Arabs are bullied by both their Muslim kin AND the Israelis... but they don't fit the politically correct agenda for international sympathy.
Reply
:iconozaawaagosh:
I would like to jump in here and say, in regard to the Israel treaties, settlements, and occupation thing'y, yes it was wrong at the time, and yes they are there to stay now. But don't make new treaties and agreements with The Palestinians, and turn around and break them, just because you have the military power to do as you want. Same thing happened in the Americas, white government would make treaties with the tribes, and then reneged every treaty they made till us Natives were on scrappy land, that the whites thought were no good or with no land at ALL. In the most part people can and have lived together with out major conflict, it's the governments doing whats not in the best interest of their people who cause all the harm, and bullying, and I will say it, because it is the new buzz word that every one seems to relate to "Terrorism" toward other nations or even it's own people. It comes down to respect, tolerance, and good will, to do the right things now, we can't turn back the hands of time, its time to work together and sort things out and compromise a living and civil agreement amongst all. I will close with some very wise words from our ancestors of thousands of years ago (Everyone benefits when there are fewer conformists, fewer social slaves among us, and more people who are Self responsible. This is brought about through choice.) OK I am done ranting. thats all. Oh yeah, every one have a happy NEW YEAR
Reply
:iconroboman28:
Yes people with greater power feel free to break treaties and really don't behave in a moral way at all. You only get fair play when people have equal power.
Reply
:iconready2esc:
There's no *right* and *wrong* only winners and losers. Just look at history. History is written by the winners and they decide what is *correct* and what is *justified* and what is a *sin* and what is *crime*
Reply
:iconroboman28:
Historically you are dead right and probably for the future also. The only potential complication to this is that with hydrogen bombs conflict between major powers needs to be avoided because the cost of the war would easily outweigh the benefits. So if people cannot fight things out then people need to settle things by just principles. I thought that was the idea of the United Nations? If people continue the traditional might wins approach we will probably all get wiped out because someone will make a miscalculation. For example I was horrified to see that with the disputed islands both Japan and China have naval vessels close by. It only takes one side to start the violence and things could get rapidly out of hand.
Reply
:icondrewhammond:
My mother gave me some really good advice when I was a kid: Don't talk about religion, politics, or race relations with strangers. There are a lot of strangers on DA. 'Nuff said. Drew.
Reply
Add a Comment: