How the Bible allegedly trumps the law

October 31, 2009 | By | 2 Replies More

In this 2007 video, an unrelenting reporter from the BBC exposes the entitled mindset of an illegal Israeli settler:


Tags: , , ,

Category: Law, The Middle East

About the Author ()

Erich Vieth is an attorney focusing on consumer law litigation and appellate practice. He is also a working musician and a writer, having founded Dangerous Intersection in 2006. Erich lives in the Shaw Neighborhood of St. Louis, Missouri, where he lives half-time with his two extraordinary daughters.

Comments (2)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Niklaus Pfirsig says:

    Another point is that the Israeli settlers are not native born, but are naturalized Israeli citizens. THe Israeli settler in the interview is American by birth. The Balfour declaration he refers to was a secret agreement that was in direct violation of an earlier treaty that promised autonomy to all indigenous people of the region, regardless of religion.

    Here's a big "What if" scenario:

    What if Mexico were a super power and the US wasn't. Now imagine Mexico "reclaiming" parts of Texas, Florida, California, New Mexico and Arizona by military force, going after the arable land and forcing the American families off their farms and into the swamps and deserts, while giving the captured land to Spanish speaking immigrants from Central and South America.

  2. Just a note on perspective here. Up until the 19th Century it was common, in fact largely expected, at least from a European perspective, that when two nations fought a war the loser gave up territory. That began to change and become a matter of treaty law, wherein minor territorial concessions might be made, but basically the loser had to pay off the winner. It all pretty much stopped after WWII because wars fought for land were seen as violations of human rights. We're still quibbling over the details.

    But Israel harkened back to an older ideal of war and they've been consistent. Since 1948 they've fought a number of wars and have won them all and kept the land they gained. It's a no brainer, really: "We won, this is ours. Don't like it? Tough, you lost."

    Enter the modern era of negotiating ends to such conflicts and we see territory being handed back.

    As far as the Israelis are concerned, every time they do this they're giving up something that in their view is there's by dint of being the winners.

    What makes the situation with the Palestinians awkward is that they are people without a country. They always get caught in a crossfire. Creating a Palestine would be exactly the same as creating Israel was.

    In the broader sense—and this is what makes this gentleman's defense ludicrous—no one lives where their forebears did 3000 years ago. People have been pushed around, moved out, conquered, assimilated, redistributed, and so forth, usually by virtue of wars of conquest or retribution. Right of Return is vacuous—who and to where? The Israelis are being ridiculous to base their claims on it. The Palestinians ought to get over it.

    That said, you have all these Arab states hell bent on forcing Israel to give the Palestinians back "their" land. If the U.N. decided to do a repeat of 1948 and create a Palestine, how many of these states would pitch in and cede a little (unused) territory for the job?

    Probably none, because their issue is actually not Palestinian rights, but antipathy toward Israel. Like dogs fighting over a bone. The bone isn't the issue, just who ends up on top.

Leave a Reply