Historical Precedent
- Thread starter Gmart
- Start date
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Gmarthews said:
So, for example, using your measure of importance, Prince Albert dying 150 years ago is therefore more important than Claudius' invasion of Britain 1930-odd years ago?
Or is your use of "stuff" meant to lend some amorphous quality to your claims whereby you can say "no, I didn't mean that, I meant this"?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Yup.jonH said:
Gmart
Well-Known Member
Ah I see, Indeed the meteor will have more of an effect, but on a human level, ie human interaction, it is more important now than historically.
I am not talking about geology of course, but I can see why people might be thrown by this exception. I tend to concentrate on the human aspects of issues, as my examples show.
I am not talking about geology of course, but I can see why people might be thrown by this exception. I tend to concentrate on the human aspects of issues, as my examples show.
invisibleplanet
porter des cornes
Gmarthews said:
Which Palestinian activist groups do you interact with and support?
invisibleplanet
porter des cornes
Gmarthews said:
I am not attacking you, I am challenging your ideas.
ViolentPanda said:
I've asked several times which Palestinian (and/or Israeli) groups you support - and you've avoided answering every time. What current, active, real issues are you directly supportive of?
Gmart
Well-Known Member
invisibleplanet said:
I don't see why it is relevant. My position is being stated quite clearly in both this and other threads. I have made no secret of my preference for a 1 state solution with Jerusalem as a vatican style/UN protected city with no one in charge, but I accept that many refuse to consider these solutions.
As far as this thread goes, I like it because it is the basic issue that the Israelis feel that their historical claim is somehow of greater importance than any Palestinian they might spit on in the street today. I accept that there are many actions in the past which affect the present, but there is a simple logic that as time goes by things disappear into the past, and their relevance with it.
The NAtive Americans do not have a claim on America because their time in charge went a long time ago. They are still americans though and are entitled to equal rights (though it took the Americans a long time to give them to them). The same will probably happen to the Israelis who seem to feel that the Palestinians are different to themselves and treat them as animals under the misguided excuse of 'military necessity', an excuse that was thrown out of Nuremberg.
My statement on this thread is simple. Time gets more relevant the closer to the present one is. And thus the Israelis insistance on using ancient scripture (of dubious origin) to justify present abuse, is a fallacy. It doesn't matter what Moses or Abraham allegedly said after chatting with God. They're all DEAD! Living people is what matters, or at most living memory.
When they start to communicate on a more reasonable level, accepting their invasion of the area, and accepting the need to treat the Palestinians as equals on a shared homeland, then they will be moving towards peace (though I suspect that the preferred 2-state solution would just lead to hudna and further conflict).
So I wonder Invisible et al which of these ideas causes you such a problem?
G: "Stuff that took place 100 years ago is more important than those things that had taken place 1000 years ago.": Except that neither Arab nor Jew sees it this way. If that were true, Jews would not be arguing because Arabs would conceed that Jews were right. 100 years ago Israel was in the midst of Zionist rebuilding.
Arabs look much further askance, the 7th Century to be exact (CE/AD) because to look 100 years back would be to look at the Turks, etc.
Hisotry and its importance is subjective. It relates to perception, as in yours and mine but by discussing it you have committed yourself to losing this argument. If history does not matter, than why have you been arguing something that began more than week ago. If it did not matter you would not be arguing last weeks subject, would you?
Arabs look much further askance, the 7th Century to be exact (CE/AD) because to look 100 years back would be to look at the Turks, etc.
Hisotry and its importance is subjective. It relates to perception, as in yours and mine but by discussing it you have committed yourself to losing this argument. If history does not matter, than why have you been arguing something that began more than week ago. If it did not matter you would not be arguing last weeks subject, would you?
Gmart
Well-Known Member
I am arguing that whatever justification the Israelis might be able to find in historical documents, it does not justify alienating and restricting the rights of people who are living in their homeland NOW. I don't see a contradiction there at all. The moment one decides to say that hostory is equally important then ANYONE who might have lived there at any time could claim equal possession.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Why?Gmarthews said:
Does acceding the fact that history has importance abnegate current rights?
Does it neutralise current law?
Does it/can it be used to retrospectively set aside past judgements purely on the basis of that history and without reference to legal precedent?
The answer to all those questions is "no".
Gmart
Well-Known Member
That's the point VP. We all agree that history is important, I am just stating tht it is not MORE important. And the answer is no to those questions because of this.
Again no one is denying the importance of history, I am merely pointing out the obvious that someone cannot use history as an excuse to abuse people in the present.
Again no one is denying the importance of history, I am merely pointing out the obvious that someone cannot use history as an excuse to abuse people in the present.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
No-one has claimed that history is more important, though.Gmarthews said:
What people said (on the thread you hived this one off from) was that history has to be taken into account, not that it be given primacy of importance.
Can't they? It's an unfortunate reality that many people in fact do use history as a justification for oppression.
Perhaps you meant "should not"?
Gmart
Well-Known Member
BTW 5 people have voted that History is not only more important, but the most important.
People who are living now should in my opinion be more important than those who are long dead.
The constant quoting of centuries old scripture of dubious origin, quality or completion, to prove that a bunch of racists deserve to own a specific landmass, over and above the existing inhabitants, who were born there; thus leading to the restriction of these people's freedom in their homeland.
Then to go on about how they all had the chance to join with the invaders, if only they had swallowed their pride and lived on their own land by the rules of these invaders.
People who are living now should in my opinion be more important than those who are long dead.
The constant quoting of centuries old scripture of dubious origin, quality or completion, to prove that a bunch of racists deserve to own a specific landmass, over and above the existing inhabitants, who were born there; thus leading to the restriction of these people's freedom in their homeland.
Then to go on about how they all had the chance to join with the invaders, if only they had swallowed their pride and lived on their own land by the rules of these invaders.
G: You still have not told us how Israel oppresses Arabs within Israel. You need to answer that since you have repeatedly ignored it.
You have also pointedly ignored the fact that Zionism has no connection to anything religious. You repeatedly claim that Israelis use Scripture to justify things, you need to provide us examples.
"Join with the invaders and swalow their own pride." You ignore two very basic things. I) Those Arabs have NEVER, EVER had a nation of their own and least not of all on that land. II) Any land they now call their own was in fact land forbily wrested out of Jewish hands. The Jews who held that land lived there thousands of years before Arabs even existed as a group.
You have also pointedly ignored the fact that Zionism has no connection to anything religious. You repeatedly claim that Israelis use Scripture to justify things, you need to provide us examples.
"Join with the invaders and swalow their own pride." You ignore two very basic things. I) Those Arabs have NEVER, EVER had a nation of their own and least not of all on that land. II) Any land they now call their own was in fact land forbily wrested out of Jewish hands. The Jews who held that land lived there thousands of years before Arabs even existed as a group.
Gmart
Well-Known Member
rachamim18 said:
This is a thread about the relevance of history and so to go on about the Arabs 'never, ever had a nation' is to start with only your opinion, and is secondly the whole point of this thread. It doesn't matter if historically the Arabs did or didn't the important thing is that they were BORN on the land and thus have the right to be there in freedom. This birth being more important than any of your historical novels stating what might have happened according to whoever.
I find it quite amusing that you insist that I provide proof that you use history to prove points and then you go on about how the Arabs didn't do this (Note the past tense you used there!), In fact you used the past tense 4 times whilst describing your view, referring to historical events that happened 1000's of years ago.
I tend to use the past tense about actions within living memory which I consider more important, such as the Arab who WAS born there. But you refuse to consider this Arab, one wonders why...
Similar threads
