The Wrath Posted December 14, 2005 Report Share Posted December 14, 2005 There seems to be general consensus among posters on this forum that Israel should reclaim Gaza and the West Bank. I fully agree. That presents a problem, however, in that Palestinians far outnumber Israelis. I'm not concerned with Israel losing its Jewish character, since a nation should never be based off of religion or ethnicity. I believe, however, that a voting Palestinian population would cause a huge problem for Israel, in that they would vote it into a situation that is just as bad ass, if not worse than, the one they have now. What do you think would be the solution to this problem? Here's my take: Let's just call the day that Israel reclaims the territories "D-Day." Until such a time that hostilities are essentially over (although, there will always be a few remaining crazies), anyone who lived in the territories before D-Day or was born to parents who lived in the territories before D-Day cannot vote. This includes any Israelis who might happen to live there. This prevents us from having to draw religious/ethnic lines. Furthermore, Israeli Arabs should be granted full citizenship and be allowed to vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaloNoble6 Posted December 14, 2005 Report Share Posted December 14, 2005 (edited) You don't grant sufferage to animals. Israel would have to return to the day when citizenship meant something, when it was earned. Take over the territories and enforce the rule of law and make them earn voting rights. What criteria should there be for earning citizenship? Well, for starters, you can't be an enemy of the state (which would disqualify most, if not all, Palestinians). Edited December 14, 2005 by Felipe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted December 14, 2005 Author Report Share Posted December 14, 2005 That sounds reasonable, but the problem is that there will be a lot of bad apples slip through the cracks...there will also be good apples who are needlessly denied suffrage. I still like my idea better, but yours is another reasonable alternative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaloNoble6 Posted December 14, 2005 Report Share Posted December 14, 2005 (edited) I think your solution doesn't bode too well against Acom’s Razor. Regardless, however, in terms of fundamental principles, it doesn't address the relationship between government and the governed. It has long been forgotten that there is no such thing as a right to citizenship. While indeed government, in a free society, rests on the consent of the governed, there is no such thing as the right to govern others. A vote is a power-wielding instrument that shouldn't be given away by birth or whatever--it should be earned. But do notions of consent between government and the governed apply in this instance? The situation with the Palis and the Israelis is not one of the consent. Back in the Roman times, when Rome was threatened by barbarian tribes, no one asked "Should we give them voting rights after we conquer them?" Anyone asking such a question would've been laughed at. Similarly, I find the plausibility of granting a barbarian enemy people rights upon conquest in modern times rather shameful. The question of voting rights applies to the people of a nation who have an interest in its preservation and the capacity to decide upon issues of political power. Edited December 14, 2005 by Felipe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturmgeschutz Posted December 14, 2005 Report Share Posted December 14, 2005 What criteria should there be for earning citizenship? Well, for starters, you can't be an enemy of the state (which would disqualify most, if not all, Palestinians). Make them prove that they are acting towards the collective good of Israel, and not toward's their own self interest? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaloNoble6 Posted December 14, 2005 Report Share Posted December 14, 2005 (edited) Being a member of an emeny people naturally places one under significant suspicion. I think people from an enemy nation must be treated as enemies until proven otherwise, at least in the immediacy. The question of how to determine whether they are viable candidates for citizenship is a matter of policy, not of fundamentals. But, the principle is that you don't conquer an enemy people and presume they are capable of citizenship in your nation until proven otherwise--that's suicide. Edited December 14, 2005 by Felipe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thales Posted December 14, 2005 Report Share Posted December 14, 2005 I think your solution doesn't bode too well against Acom’s Razor. Okay, Felipe, what is "Acom's Razor"? I've heard of "Occam's Razor" (which really comes from Aristotle, in my assessment), and Ayn Rand's Razor, but never "Acom's Razor". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaloNoble6 Posted December 14, 2005 Report Share Posted December 14, 2005 (edited) Grrr, I googled it and it showed up "enough" times. I suppose enough people misspelled it. That's what I get for spell-check-by-Google! You have me there. Edited December 14, 2005 by Felipe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thales Posted December 14, 2005 Report Share Posted December 14, 2005 Grrr, I googled it and it showed up "enough" times. I suppose enough people misspelled it. That's what I get for spell-check-by-Google! You have me there. Blast! I was hoping for a new concept to show off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted December 14, 2005 Author Report Share Posted December 14, 2005 Okay, fair enough, but what criteria determine if someone has earned citizenship? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.