Not sure where this falls on the old anti-semitism spectrum (if it falls at all), but there's a raging debate on the facebooks about whether Israel's post-Exodus entry into the promised land is a legitimate or illegitimate use of the occupy/possess distinction,* or something else entirely. If I were really to venture a guess on this one, I'd think God's gift of the land to Abraham precedes any Canaanite claims to the same land, or at least trumps them.
Either way, though, I feel it's safe to say that the alleged infraction happened long enough ago to have no moral relevance to any current state of affairs.
*ie, native Americans were displaced from their lands on the argument that though they occupied it in a perfectly legitimate fashion, they made poor use of it and so couldn't be said to possess it (which I think is approximately Locke's position--it's certainly not Grotius'); the distinction had wide play in the late-medieval/early-modern period as the justification for all sorts of colonial adventures.
"Thou shalt not extinguish thine anger, but shall master it,
that thy conscience may not be blunted by adjustment
to wrong causes."
-The Dutch Ten Commandments to Foil the Nazis
No comments:
Post a Comment