Tolerance, Intolerance and the Liar's Paradox

missing the point. the whole argument against the rockets attacks is people are afraid for their lives so the relative lethality is important. and your analogy sucks. rapists are bad because they rape not because they kill.

no they weren't. the palestinians aren't as much the agressors. that's bullshit proganda to help absolve israel of responsibility for its crimes. I have yet to see a rocker attack that wasn't provoked. that the US media claims it was unprovoked doesn't mean that's true. if you look at the evidence the rocket attacks always start after Israel breaks a cease fire or does some other act of aggression. so no their has never been a long period of peace that ended because the palestinians just started shooting rockets unprovoked. i challenge you to find one.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And cars are far more lethal than rapists. So by your definition people should not be afraid of rapists, because relatively speaking they are far less lethal. Very, very stupid definition.

But you just said the relative lethality is what's important.

Just as much bullshit as you trying to claim that Palestine is a bunch of choirboys.

By that measure, no Israeli action has been unprovoked.

The August 19th 2014 attacks, coming hours before the ceasefire they agreed to ended.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

CH is percieved rightly or wrongly as having strong ethnic biases, although these biases would also appear to be delivered against all ethnic groups.
The problem is in the selection of outcome. Many people - including a moderator at this forum - readily confuse ethical rights and wrongs with existing outcome. One cannot say "What happened to Charlie Hebdo is horrible but" any more than one can say "What happened to that woman who was raped but" with the understanding that the outcome is mitigated by the actions of the victim.

So the answer is really quite simple: the court of law, as biased as such things often are, is the place to deliver a response to the perceived insult. No one is required to respond with gunfire. The impulse to the latter is a result of a totalitarian, supremacist mindset. Those taking it up - or supporting those who do, tacitly or materially - expose themselves by so doing.

Of course, insults against religion are quite legitimate. There have been hosts of them against other religions, and no one was obligated to respond with bullets, and the usual suspects would certainly not have carried water for them in any sense if they had. I'd call that simple hypocrisy, or possibly bigotry.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The court and system of law of which you speak also originated in Judaic tradition.

Perhaps a joint judiciary (Palestine, Israel) would ease tension?

 

Jewish and Palestinian spy masters and under secretaries have been in covert talks with Saudi and Egyptian spymasters and under secretaries for quite awhile. Seeking common ground which hinges on a Jewish and Palestinian agreement as to statehood status.
The rest of the Sunni Arab world, it seems, no longer wish to have a war with Israel.
The goals of the Shiites, then come into play.
Whither hence?

 

The dispossessed are not the aggressors in the dispossession. Look at a sequence of maps of Israel, starting with it original claimed boundaries.

That appears to be false. Israel has been the usual first breaker of truces and the overwhelming provacateur -not even counting the blockades, etc.

Note that a blockade is itself an act of war - a provocation.

Helping one to abuse the other would be a bad idea, then, eh?

Oh, btw:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict August 19th is in the middle there somewhere.

 

If one could be constituted, agreed upon and respected, sure.

So, no on all three counts.

 

It would need to be constituted with respect to most Sharia and Judaic jurisprudence, and be capable of settling disputes without resorting to violence and without a bias toward the system of law of either party.

What if it had been possible to file a simple defamation lawsuit to be filed in France against Charlie Hebdo, for instance? Violations of an agreed upon truce, or exchange of political prisoners between Israel and Palestine? Don't imagine the need for judicial relief isn't there. It is. But it would take the political will of both sides to make it work and keep it working.

Not a perfect solution, to be sure, but a way to continuously air grievances and try to come to a more peaceful resolution seems like it would be a common sense approach.

To the best of my knowledge, nothing like this has ever even been tried. Where there are irreconcilable differences in the respective laws, an impartial arbitrator could be brought in. Both sides would need to sign agreements to respect any decisions of the joint court.

 

Well, this thread certainly anticipated world events.

I still think the differences in the Middle East can be worked out, but not if each side believes they have prophetic assurance that the other side is not to be trusted. What an old, tired comment that is on the state of human affairs. Did I mention that Hitler too was the subject of idol worship by his followers? How many times does this need to happen before folks finally catch on, idolatry is always bad? Pride may have its uses (in sport, perhaps), but in a political leader it is always worse than having none, because pride is self-idolatry. Need more bad examples? Just wait a few minutes and the next one will pop up somewhere.

 

Of course it has - it's been a standard part of the Two State solution proposals that Israel has been preventing and rejecting for seventy five years.

Israel was founded and is being continued in idolatry.

 

By which I assume you mean worship of the land Israel is currently occupying as though it were an idol? No. They have the right to exist as a state as a refuge from genocide, which has been internationally recognized by all but the Palestinians. If any group is claiming divine right to the land, that would be the Palestinians. This breaks several other teachings of Islam:

http://www.islam-usa.com/index.php?...rmation-in-quran&catid=60:articles&Itemid=145

The Palestinians and now Syrians attacking Israel are not islamists; they behave more like thugs and criminals in a zone with little or no enforcement of the rule of law, religious or otherwise. They will deny this of course, because liars, like criminals, have no problems lying about their crimes, or lying about lying.

And today's news item from France was predictable:

http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/27/7921463/google-facebook-accountable-for-hate-speech-france

Which bears out the idea that intolerance of intolerance only consumes its better offspring. No doubt, this thread will be censored there. It's not a perfect solution, but in many respects, it's a better one than what we did in response to 9/11. I seem to remember France supported us in the wake of that act of terrorism.

 

That's rather bad argument. There are just slightly more people in the world using fireworks than there are palestinians shooting rockets.

 

It's been recognized by the Palestinians as well.

What hasn't been recognized is Israel's right to expand, and take land and water from people, and fence the dispossessed into waterless blockaded apartheid reservations at gunpoint.

They are claiming human right to their farms, springs and wells, houses and olive groves, shops and houses and streets where they lived for generations. And the UN agrees - without the US handy to veto anything critical, Israel would have been censured by the UN many times now, for its aberrant and ugly behavior.

 

Currently as a not-state (which itself is ridiculous and outrageous), how can Palestine recognize Israel? Or did you mean individual Palestinians recognize the fact of its existence at a persoal level? The latter would seem deceptive, so I hope that's not what you intended.

Agreed. There is no justification for the 'settlement' programs; their fact is political (more votes) and military (more buffer for Israel against some future Arab offensive) but unacceptable and illegal. What the Israelis are doing now is what had been done - by two societies at least - to their ancestors. That doesn't excuse them but the mindset is clear. Their mass migration into the Levant was certainly, from some perspectives, politically exploitative. Then again, if they hadn't done so, they would still be living as second-rank citizens in the ghettos of the Levant: power springs from the barrel of a gun, ultimately, and certainly so in the ME. Here? Doubtful, though certainly social progress might be more inhibited, or not. Hard to say.

If the correct decisions had been taken at that time, there might be no such problem today. Then again, I'm sure the actors in the affair thought they were making the right decisions then, too. You'd think that the really socially aware of the region could sit down with their counterparts and say "all right, we're all here now and in the past we have committed some rather heinous social sins against each other; the Arabs in the past and the Israelis in the present - but in order to keep from bloodshed and the destruction of the land, we need to live at peace, the Israelis not to push settlements into Palestine and the Arabs to recognise the right of Israel to exist, so that never again is there war". Unfortunately, those people are probably not in power in the ME either, unless they're very very repressed. Ce qui était, sera.

 

The expulsion of Jews from Russia, Spain, and other European countries was effected either without compensation or other legal obstacles, such as making it illegal for Jews to own land. Most of these left their homes and businesses with only the clothes on their backs, if they were fortunate enough to leave at all.

On the front page of the Washington post this morning, a color picture of a Hamas sponsored Palestinian military training camp for young boys was heart wrenching. As young as seven or eight years old, taught to use guns and to hate Zionism.

The protocols of the elders of Zion is a propagandist fraud. The Jews never sought an empire, but were conquered or forced to immigrate or otherwise resist Greeks, Romans, ottomans, Mongols, Hitler's Nazis, and the list keeps getting longer.

The passion play is likewise a fraud. The Romans killed the Christian prophet, and it was the Vatican that attempted to take over Islam as well. It isn't very hard to find a scapegoat to hate for any reason. The Chickasaw and Choctaw nations are taking out full page ads in papers right now to ask that the U.S. government restore their respective nations, instead of thanking their deities that more of them weren't killed on the long march. Want someone else to hate? Just take a look in a mirror.

 

I mean the overwhelming majority of officially recognized political authorities - the people Israel is claiming to have been negotiating with, and those it refuses to negotiate with, and those who refuse to negotiate with Israel again, elected and unelected but in military command, representing every major political faction among the Palestinians, consistently over the past fifty years (more than a full generation),

in the original Palestinian reservation area, and in each of the ever smaller and divided and fenced and blockaded ghetto districts that have succeeded the original territory granted , and in the refugee camps to which they were driven by war and confined by force,

have publicly stated that Israel exists and has a right to continue existing.

Like this: http://www.nytimes.com/1988/12/08/world/arafat-says-plo-accepted-israel.html

Nobody living under the apartheid enforced by Israel needs to be taught to "hate Zionism". The rebellion of the abused against their abusers is as old as abuse itself.

The basic problem is that Israel, for a variety of reasons, has been unable to simply kill the Palestinian Christians and Muslims and other long term residents of the lands it has been expanding into since its founding, or scatter them far away, or have them die of disease and impoverishment. Thus it faces the problem the Boers faced in South Africa, and the Mongols finessed in China, and the Scotch Irish had taken care of for them by disease and other parties in Ohio. As Machiavelli warned, a Prince must not dispossess rivals and leave them alive in the neighborhood, because the injury is continually visible and deeply motivating. ('A man will sooner forget the death of his father than the loss of his patrimony', or something like that).

 

Machiavelli's works are not admired in the West. To quote Wikipedia: "Machiavellian" is often associated with deceit, deviousness, ambition, and brutality." The lessons it teaches were never intended to be something admired or emulated by anyone. Neither was Carroll O'Connor's portrayal of Archie Bunker in Norman Leer's 'All in the Family' television series from the 1970s. Perhaps it was because somehow it desensitized a nation of bigots to their own repulsive character flaws.

Your comparison of Israel's struggle agains the Palestinians to Apartheid in South Africa is interesting. There probably are similarities, but there are also important differences. When Apartheid ended, there was finally peaceful coexistence and political equality, not genocide or the equivalent of a long march. It is a worthy vision.

 

Do you have a link for this recognition? What I found on-line is a kind of back-and-forth depending on political body and season.

http://rt.com/news/210099-abbas-recognize-israel-state/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/26/us-palestinian-abbas-talks-idUSBREA3P08820140426

That's the PLO. I don't think any agreement was ever signed.

And here we are today.

Economics is certainly part of what's going on now.

 

Nor does it give the Palestinians the right to try and finish what Hitler and his Nazis could not.

If Palestine is determined to have WWII play out again, they can have it their way. The Palestinians could also just peacefully immigrate to some place else, couldn't they? What exactly is stopping them, other than a demonstrated inability to get along with neighbors, that is?