Acid Monkey wrote on Jul 26
th, 2008 at 1:20am:
Just curious Abu and Malik and hypothetically, in this modern and contemporary world, should Palestine invade and defeat Israel thereby absorbing its boundaries would you acknowledge the captured Israeli citizens if they are forced into servitude? Do you consider such legal (by your definition) practice are justified and relevant in todays enlightened thinking if they are forced into slavery?
I think you really don't quite understand much about what we consider slavery. People aren't forced into it, they have an option to either accept it or leave the lands without their possessions or stay in the lands if they wished but without any of their possessions. It just brings into question how they would survive without any wealth?
Allow me to further explain it to you below:
If Israel doesn't accept the Arab Peace initiative, which is:
Quote:1. Requests Israel to reconsider its policies and declare that a just peace is its strategic option as well.
2. Further calls upon Israel to affirm:
a. Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights to the lines of June 4, 1967 as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon.
b. Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194.
c. The acceptance of the establishment of a Sovereign Independent Palestinian State on the Palestinian territories occupied since the 4th of June 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza strip, with east Jerusalem as its capital.
3. Consequently, the Arab countries affirm the following:
a. Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region.
b. Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace.
If they refuse the Arab Peace Inititive which is just and fair on all sides and guarantees Israel peace and security and even trade deals and an Islamic State comes about, then the State should again call for the initiative to be accepted and do it's best to convince the Israeli's to accept it, if they continue to refuse than the Islamic State should fight Israel and if necessary, take the whole nation over just as Salahudeen Ayoube did against the Crusaders. In such a circumstance terms may be offered by the Israeli's which are mutually beneficial for both Arabs and Israeli's and Israeli's may be able to keep their wealth, but if no terms are met and they don't surrender then not only should Israel be wholly taken over, but the Israeli's possessions taken from them as reperations for the Islamic State having to go to war (reparations are commonplace after wars, with Germany having to pay reparations after losing WW2 and WW1, Italy after WW2 and Japan after WW2, even after the First Gulf War, 30% of the money for the oil for food program went towards reparations for the West's expenditure) and to compensate the Palestinians for more than 60 years of occupation and oppression where their lands and possessions were taken from them (just as individuals were compensated after WW2 from having to do forced labour). In such a case the Israeli's would have the option of either leaving the State and returning back to Europe where they came from. Staying in the lands, not necessarily as slaves, but it means they'd be without their possessions and wealth and if they don't accept servitude then they'll starve, at least under servitude they'd be able to rebuild their lives. If the West wanted to fund the Israeli's after they had all of their possessions taken from them that would be fine, there'd be no need for any slavery because the Israeli's wouldn't starve.