Right of Return

[Apocalypse]

Thank you but its pretty common sense

I doubt you've asked all your friends so fast, but anyway I urge you to get out and grab some land and make these millions youre so intent on before anyone else gets the idea.

By the way 'suiting' is a fabric for suits. Now thats a bizarre use of the english language.

Common sense wouldn't be so rare.
Perhaps I should go out there and make millions, but I do not know who should I speak with to sell that land, I also need to have documents that show that I'm the owner of the land, no?

PS: My English is not native, it is self-taught.

 

[creation]

Common sense wouldn't be so rare.
Perhaps I should go out there and make millions, but I do not know who should I speak with to sell that land, I also need to have documents that show that I'm the owner of the land, no?

PS: My English is not native, it is self-taught.

Just sell it to whoever is willing to pay you.

Documents? Why do you need documents? You are there already arent you?

 

[Apocalypse]

Just sell it to whoever is willing to pay you.

Documents? Why do you need documents? You are there already arent you?

Yes but selling a land still requires documents, else it is considered as illegal by the law.

 

[creation]

Yes but selling a land still requires documents, else it is considered as illegal by the law.

Law? And on what basis does the law classically hold sway in the land?

 

[Apocalypse]

Law? And on what basis does the law classically hold sway in the land?

I just said that if you do not do this it would be illegal.
Do you disagree with this claim?

 

[creation]

I just said that if you do not do this it would be illegal.
Do you disagree with this claim?

It may agree, it may not. Depends on who you have on your side.

What's the law got to do with it anyway? What does its authority usually derive its power from?

 

[Apocalypse]

It may agree, it may not. Depends on who you have on your side.

What's the law got to do with it anyway? What does its authority usually derive its power from?

A democracy?
From the people.

The buying and selling of lands involve the law because it is a form of trade between two individuals, and hence, the law is there to give the rules of trade, just like the law is everywhere else to state the rules we live with.

 

[creation]

A democracy?
From the people.

The buying and selling of lands involve the law because it is a form of trade between two individuals, and hence, the law is there to give the rules of trade, just like the law is everywhere else to state the rules we live with.

What democracy? You mean the one in Palestine ala 1947? There wasn't one.

How old is modern western democracy? Not very.

Why dont you just agree with the beach owner on the rules of trade? Anyway, if he doesnt agree you can always just move in anyway, Im sure you probably had a great great grandfather who passed that way one time - thats enough of a basis to claim it anyway isnt it?

So what does the law, usually derive its power from? What is it that makes sure it gets its way?

 

[Apocalypse]

What democracy? You mean the one in Palestine ala 1947? There wasn't one.

I was speaking about Democracy in general, there was absolutely no reason to assume otherwise and believe that I was specific.

Why dont you just agree with the beach owner on the rules of trade? Anyway, if he doesnt agree you can always just move in anyway, Im sure you probably had a great great grandfather who passed that way one time - thats enough of a basis to claim it anyway isnt it?

Because the law is automatically involved in every form of trade, and indeed, is automatically involved in every part of our life.
That is how human society has been working for thousands of years now.

So what does the law, usually derive its power from? What is it that makes sure it gets its way?

As I said, in a Democracy, from the people.

 

[creation]

I was speaking about Democracy in general, there was absolutely no reason to assume otherwise and believe that I was specific.

Why should I care that you say you were speaking of democracy in general? What proof do you have to back this up?

Because the law is automatically involved in every form of trade, and indeed, is automatically involved in every part of our life.
That is how human society has been working for thousands of years now.

Does a lawyer sit with you on all your contractual arrangements? Prove it please.

As I said, in a Democracy, from the people.

And what of before democracy? As in the vast majority of mankind's time on earth and during the time leading up to the subject of this thread?

And what is it that the people do to make sure that their law gets their way?

 

[Apocalypse]

Why should I care that you say you were speaking of democracy in general? What proof do you have to back this up?

Because of the simple fact that I was not mentioning any specific entities.
When one is not being specific, he is being general.
It may be hard to understand at start but you'll follow.

Does a lawyer sit with you on all your contractual arrangements? Prove it please.

Prove what?
That the law is involved in forms of trade?

And what of before democracy? As in the vast majority of mankind's time on earth and during the time leading up to the subject of this thread?

Before democracy there were monarchies and other regimes that had their own laws.
The first documented book of laws is the Hammurabi law book, that existed thousands of years ago.
Before that, I believe, was anarchy, something that none of us intelligent beings want.

 

[creation]

Because of the simple fact that I was not mentioning any specific entities.
When one is not being specific, he is being general.
It may be hard to understand at start but you'll follow.

You didnt mention any specific entities but Im supposed to assume you mean in a democracy?

Prove what?
That the law is involved in forms of trade?

Yes, prove it. Prove one needs a system of law to arrange a contract, then of course disprove that it was ever done without.

Before democracy there were monarchies and other regimes that had their own laws.
The first documented book of laws is the Hammurabi law book, that existed thousands of years ago.
Before that, I believe, was anarchy, something that none of us intelligent beings want.

Quite, and how did those regimes enforce their laws? Indeed how does a democracy do so?

 

[Apocalypse]

You didnt mention any specific entities but Im supposed to assume you mean in a democracy?

No, you're not supposed to assume anything, just like you're not supposed to assume that I'm talking about a very specific democracy, as you assumed.

Yes, prove it. Prove one needs a system of law to arrange a contract

You can find it all here:
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_trade_law]Category:United States trade law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

The US given as an example.

then of course disprove that it was ever done without.

As I said, there were no rules and laws thousands of years ago, when the world was in anarchy, and none of us wants that again.

Quite, and how did those regimes enforce their laws? Indeed how does a democracy do so?

Police, Judaical system, etc.
Those who violate the laws will be arrested by the police and will stand to a trail and face their punishment.

 

[creation]

No, you're not supposed to assume anything, just like you're not supposed to assume that I'm talking about a very specific democracy, as you assumed.

What democracy did I assume if at all? In fact I assumed nothing. Neither, democracy, nor monarchy, nor constitutional monarchy etc etc

You can find it all here:
Category:United States trade law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The US given as an example.
As I said, there were no rules and laws thousands of years ago, when the world was in anarchy, and none of us wants that again.

Indeed, yet men still made contracts and traded in numerous quantities. Yet there were no rules and laws.

Police, Judaical system, etc.
Those who violate the laws will be arrested by the police and will stand to a trail and face their punishment.

Indeed, they use might, force if you will. See posts #98 and #103 and thanks for playing.

 

[Apocalypse]

What democracy did I assume if at all? In fact I assumed nothing. Neither, democracy, nor monarchy, nor constitutional monarchy etc etc

Creation said:
"What democracy? You mean the one in Palestine ala 1947? There wasn't one."

If that's not an assumption, I'm the Queen of England. :lol:

Indeed, yet men still made contracts and traded in numerous quantities. Yet there were no rules and laws.

And therefore there was a total anarchy.
Do you promote returning to those dark days?
To abolish the law of trade or the laws at all?
Do you really promote such barbarism?

Indeed, they use might, force if you will. See posts #98 and #103 and thanks for playing.

They use authority, they use support from the people and the state.
To say that they use "might" and control the people with "might" is silly, as the people were the ones to impose such control.
Thanks for playing. :2wave:

 

[creation]

Creation said:
"What democracy? You mean the one in Palestine ala 1947? There wasn't one."

If that's not an assumption, I'm the Queen of England. :lol:

Thats asking a question re a situation in which no democracy existed your Majesty.

And therefore there was a total anarchy.
Do you promote returning to those dark days?
To abolish the law of trade or the laws at all?
Do you really promote such barbarism?

Yet still there were contracts and trade. All you really need is an agreement between two people. Do you deny this?

They use authority, they use support from the people and the state.
To say that they use "might" and control the people with "might" is silly, as the people were the ones to impose such control.
Thanks for playing. :2wave:

:lol:

And how did they impose such control?

 

[mbig]

Page 9.

Your disagreement is dully noted without reasoning.
The land that one lives on =/= The land that one owns.

Thank you, as is yours duly noted.

Youve just provided the best justification for imperialism I can think of.

Of course here's where you Again (this time with Apocalypse) went of the logic trail/Evaded a point you couldn't answer as it would lose the day... and ergo into the usual Deflecting dogma-speak.
No facts, just gymnastics and link bashing.

His point was one doesn't necessarily own the land one lives on at any given moment.
Tenant/Renting/perhaps-immigrant farmers/Squatters aren't entitled to land they live on if sold.
If they lived on it at all for any length of time.
Resolution 181 creating Israel AND palestine involved not a single Arab losing his land.
The War the Arabs started, however, did create some refugees.

His example wasn't one of Imperialism, but simple legality.

Eight pages just today of semantic diversion/BS and Nothing on point.. first just to avoid conceding a point that would again betray your game here.
But I just did.

Creation feels no compulsion for rebuttal-- but is satisfied just to Bash Credible Links.

The Difference in the example he presented of him using 'PalestineRemembered' was I could and did rebut that site and it's assertions .. while he just emptily disses/Insults sources on the other side.
ie, Gordon in Jpost and Ozick in the WSJ.

 

[mbig]

Why?

I disagree. Their land, was the same as the land they were living on. The presence of British arms or Jewish refugees notwithstanding.

Not at all.
Let's use Facts (Ouch eh creation!)

2/3 of what became Israel was State Land. (most of that/½ of Israel, the Negev Desert owned by No arab)

Resolution 181 creating Israel And Palestine dictated NO land changing hands... just transferal of sparse State Land from [the Ottomans to] the British to the Jews.

The War the Arabs started Did then create some refugees tho.... ones it seems, after 17 Pages, NO one can even argue have a 'Right of Return'.
-

 

[Red_Dave]

Not at all.
Let's use Facts (Ouch eh creation!)

2/3 of what became Israel was State Land. (most of that/½ of Israel, the Negev Desert owned by No arab)

Resolution 181 creating Israel And Palestine dictated NO land changing hands... just transferal of sparse State Land from [the Ottomans to] the British to the Jews.

The War the Arabs started Did then create some refugees tho.... ones it seems, after 17 Pages, NO one can even argue have a 'Right of Return'.
-

Indeed state land that was used communally. I think this article handels the history quite well https://www.mises.org/journals/jls/5_4/5_4_2.pdf

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Thank you

Lets discuss bad form for a moment.

Here is what I said in post #68;



As you can see I am merely pointing out the other putrid vile comment that the sourced website also holds.
Is it strictly to do with the J post article presented? No.

However, when I quote from a site called Palestine Remembered, I'm unaware of you or anyone else coming to defend the use of this site when it is attacked.

Two different articles by different authors. You attempted to dispute the article with quotes from a different article. Not cool. That's all I'm saying.

 

[creation]

Two different articles by different authors. You attempted to dispute the article with quotes from a different article. Not cool. That's all I'm saying.

I believe I did comment on the article in question. Though Im within my bounds to comment on the source, if only for the reason that it seems to be common practice from the poster himself.

However, as Ive said in further posts. The PA has indeed spent much of its budget improving the lives of its citizens. This is something I would expect everyone to concede and not try to deny but surprisingly some do try.

So here is the budget for December 2008;

http://www.pmof.ps/news/plugins/spaw/uploads/files/table6b_eng_3.pdf

Problem?

As for Palestine economic development overall, the World Bank has more to say;

World Bank criticises Israel over Palestinian economy | World news | guardian.co.uk

 

[creation]

Page 9.



Of course here's where you Again (this time with Apocalypse) went of the logic trail/Evaded a point you couldn't answer as it would lose the day... and ergo into the usual Deflecting dogma-speak.
No facts, just gymnastics and link bashing.

Eh? I did answer it. Apocalyse just didnt like the answer.

I even offered compromise on the use of examples and in the end even offered a Yes answer exactly the way Apocalypse demanded. And all that without Apocalypse once answering any of my questions.

Please do not throw stones about link bashing from your glass house.

His point was one doesn't necessarily own the land one lives on at any given moment.
Tenant/Renting/perhaps-immigrant farmers/Squatters aren't entitled to land they live on if sold.
If they lived on it at all for any length of time.
Resolution 181 creating Israel AND palestine involved not a single Arab losing his land.

Indeed. Yet what if someone does own the land? What if their ethnic kind a re majority over the vast majority of the land? Do they then get to have their way?

Resolution 181 didnt deprive arabs of land, just a unified state forcing them into a minority and to cross a border to visit their relatives and friends in the same country. Oh yeah, and a large stetch of coast line all for a people who owned some 10% of it and 2/3's of which had come from europe on a boat.

Oh yes, and did we mention all the land expropriated by Israel after the war of 1948 in various ways? Hundreds of thousands of innocent people who's land was stolen and given to new settlers from europe.

Has similar population exchanges occurred in other places? Yes. And those expropriations were wrong too, but if the original owners dont claim it back then neither can anyone else argue for its return. However, regarding Israel/ Palestine that is not the case. Its expelled inhabitants did not accept the theft of their land.

The War the Arabs started, however, did create some refugees.

The Arabs didnt start anything, they just didnt agree to an imperial imposition.

His example wasn't one of Imperialism, but simple legality.

Eight pages just today of semantic diversion/BS and Nothing on point.. first just to avoid conceding a point that would again betray your game here.
But I just did.

A legality born of imperial imposition. Do you concede that?

Im not avoiding anything, I just dont dance to you or anyone's tune - just like you dont dance to mine. Ill answer any question you want, anytime you want - the trouble is you wont like the answers.

Creation feels no compulsion for rebuttal-- but is satisfied just to Bash Credible Links.

The Difference in the example he presented of him using 'PalestineRemembered' was I could and did rebut that site and it's assertions .. while he just emptily disses/Insults sources on the other side.
ie, Gordon in Jpost and Ozick in the WSJ.

Eh?
You rebutted on Benny Morris but wouldnt rebut the actual fact quoted from him.

You put Gordon and Ozick who both make statements without evidence and prove their considerable bias with the words they state - as I pointed out, the world does not 'want the Jews dead' (Ozick) and the PA has and does spend more than 'not one cent/ penny on improving the lives of its people'.

Youve been answered on the relevant thread already, why dont you respond there?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I believe I did comment on the article in question. Though Im within my bounds to comment on the source, if only for the reason that it seems to be common practice from the poster himself.

However, as Ive said in further posts. The PA has indeed spent much of its budget improving the lives of its citizens. This is something I would expect everyone to concede and not try to deny but surprisingly some do try.

So here is the budget for December 2008;

http://www.pmof.ps/news/plugins/spaw/uploads/files/table6b_eng_3.pdf

Problem?

As for Palestine economic development overall, the World Bank has more to say;

World Bank criticises Israel over Palestinian economy | World news | guardian.co.uk

I've said my peace on this. You are within your bounds to discuss the source. However, using other parts of a source, that have nothing to do with the article in question is NOT honest debating. You can certainly do it if you choose, but it would lend far more credibility if you did not. If you are going to attack a source...which is appropriate to do, you need to show a link from the source to the article in question, NOT just that the article was posted on that website. You did not do this.

Take this for what you will. I have nothing else to state on this matter.

 

[creation]

I've said my peace on this. You are within your bounds to discuss the source. However, using other parts of a source, that have nothing to do with the article in question is NOT honest debating. You can certainly do it if you choose, but it would lend far more credibility if you did not. If you are going to attack a source...which is appropriate to do, you need to show a link from the source to the article in question, NOT just that the article was posted on that website. You did not do this.

Take this for what you will. I have nothing else to state on this matter.

Thank you

Actually you are quite right, it is NOT credible debating to attack an article on the basis of the website in which it is held.

However, few here seem to care for honest or credible debating as we have all found out, nor does anyone, repeat anyone on either side take much pain to defend the other side. It is a disgusting situation of accusation and counter accusation formed in an ill-tempered and impolite atmosphere. In that regard all is fare in love and war as they say.

I can easily predict this moment that despite the obvious and continued rebuttals on a number of points offered here on posts #171 to #174 I will be accused of dodging this or dodging that. Of being a smart alec, or telling simple falsities, of making crass insult and of being part of a group of people who spread lies or assist bad men to do bad deeds while oppressing their wives and children.

It unfortunately is the last time youll speak on the matter but despite your absence in my defence in previous postings hopefully you will rush out to defend me on the use of source websites when I am next attacked as no doubt I will be. These threads need I suspect, not only your moderation but your contribution too.

 

[Gardener]

, or telling simple falsities, .

THe best way to avoid claims of simple falsities is to not engage in them.

For instance, in post 172, you said "The Arabs didn't start anything". The truth of the matter is quite something else.

Arab League Statement - 1948