Tolerance, Intolerance and the Liar's Paradox

That's no excuse for violating his precepts and maxims, when they so obviously apply. He was a very intelligent and thoroughly experienced man in what Israel is engaged in. It's foolish to ignore his excellent advice for successful subjugation and expropriation of other people's lands and possessions.

And the Zionist shows his hand.

That's what he wants: a land without people for a people without land.

? I linked Arafat, which others are you curious about?

The goofiness of this entire issue - whether so-and-so has said Israel "has a right to exist" - is the real point. The multigenerational multiply failed effort to get Israel to recognize a Palestinian State has never foundered on whether Israel gets to be one too.

A reasonable overview of the relevant history leads to an almost inescapable conclusion - Israel does not want to be recognized by a Palestinian government until it has expanded its boundaries still farther. Recognition fixes the borders of Israel, possibly even shrinks them, and there is desirable land and water still to be gained.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Any legitimate and formal recognition of the nation as such. (You saw the links I posted, which clearly indicate that Palestine has not recognized Israel, as have a number of Islamic nations, though Egypt and Jordan have done so.) For instance: what concord currently exists to which Palestine is signatory to that recognises Israel? What agreement are they working under?

Are you saying this as a student of Machiavelli? Formalised statements of the right of Israel to exist - in short, recognition - would presumably provide Israel with the limited international legal protection that other nations enjoy of each other. Future invasions of Israel - either by organised armies or even as not-quite-independent rocket attacks would presumably be somewhat restrained in the mind of the offenders by the fact of their commission of international crime. Or do you assumethat their neighbours are also students of Machiavelli, so that their concession could be discarded at will? I suppose that's possible.

Please provide evidence from the literature leading one to conclude support for this reasonable overview.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Israel doesn't have the right to exist. no country has the right to exist. the idea of the right to exist is in fact mutually exclusive to the very idea of the right of self determination. that you repeat that claim only shows your ignorance about the conflict. the palestinians have recognized Israel. more than once actually. your link proves nothing of the sort. espeacially considering judi ruderon(SP?) craptastic reporting on the issue. so your supporting a lie for your own typically nefarious reasons.

 

In 2008, the CIA assassinated the Hezbollah leader who was responsible for car bombing the Israeli embassy in Argentina (where many Nazi war criminals immigrated). I may have had social contact with one of their daughters, who spoke Spanish without a German accent.

It doesn't matter where else Jews would go. Militant members of organizations like Hezbollah would still seek them out with a genocidal agenda.

 

Interesting. Presumably to you, then, neither does Palestine, the United States, Russia, or Pakistan, just as examples. I must assume this is some kind of lateral statement about the practical vindication of Machiavelli - but while it might be true that power flows only out of the barrel of a gun, is that right? By which I mean morally right.

I repeated a claim that "the right to exist is in fact mutually exclusive to the very idea of the right of self determination", which is then crap? Your first and second sentences here do not agree, logically, unless this is an argument you intend to have with yourself, as if your own personality was offended by a dialectical bent which seemed lacking to the rest of it. I await your confirmation or denial - probably, admittedly, the latter - but if you really do intend to have an argument with yourself, I must say that I could not encourage you further. Have at it.

Where? When? Do you have any evidence of this statement, whichever pj I'm talking to? Please provide it.

Links actually. But let's examine this: the articles illustrate that Palestine has not done so yet, unless they plan to serially recognise Israel over say a decade or two, doing so repeatedly in a way that I've just missed, or if they did so in the last several months since those articles. So what Palestinian political body has recognised Israel? I would be very interested to see that this was so. I will say that the present government appears interested in doing so - or at least now that the Arab League conference date is passed. Still, Riyadh and Tehran are only a telephone call away. Which hand will the Palestinians bite? What a position to be in, Myuu alive.

BTW, I have no idea who "judi ruderon(SP?)" is, or why her reporting should be considered "craptastic". Let me know if you figure out the "SP". And what are these nefarious reasons? The interests of peace? I grant you that would certainly be considered nefarious to some people.

 

All good answers everyone. Honesty is at least a start. Many thanks.

 

correct. I don't get why you people keep referencing the prince. its was a work of satire.

since we both know your not actually that stupid I'm going to have to ask you to not be so intellectually dishonest. we both know exactly what claim of yours i was referring to so please try and keep you inherent tendencies to be a troll at a minimum.

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.579701
is an Israeli newspaper enough proof for your intelectual dishonest ass?

link again
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.579701
really even the general propagndistic Israel media acknowledges palestine has recognized Israel so why can't you.

Judi Ruderon is the New York Times jerusalem bureu chief. she has been heavily criticized for slanting news in favor of Israel. and for having some level of conflict of interest. and SP is a shorthand for spelling check. fairly standard stuff.

knowing you just derail topics because you take a rather infantile delight in being a troll.

if your so interested in peace why aren't you demanding the aggressors stop. you couldn't give to shits bout peace. all you give a damn about is causing problems.

 

Yeeees, the satire of tyranny and intrigue.

Was this unclear to you on reading it?

PJ, one of the expectations on the forum is that the ideas expressed therein are done in comprehensible English - and, failing that, at the least in a language mutually comprehensible to the debators. I don't speak gibberish, so I expect that you present your ideas in a comprehensible manner. Sort it out.

Now, discussing what I interpret to be your claim: so no nation has a right to exist, and all morality therefore flows from the barrel of a gun. Palestinians, as Chompers says, cannot and will not accept Israel's right to exist. And there's the end of peace. Done. Admittedly, the way you two are conducting this debate is a bit more Mao than Machiavelli, but whatever. I'm curious, though: where there are other borders in dispute, do you also tacitly support this "Maochiavellian" process? Might makes right? In Bangladesh, Kashmir, Chechnya, Korea, Tibet - where?

Speaking of intellectual dishonesty: that's an opinion article. A couple things here: could you cite from the article the dates on which Palestine has 'recognised' Israel? Does the article discuss recognition by the other Arab nations? Syria, Turkey? I know Jordan and Egypt have.

My link here indicates that, as of March 2014, Palestine had not recognised Israel - but mind the last paragraph:

So, has Palestine recognised the existence of Israel? We can drop "right to exist", if you like. Mere existence will do.

Lastly, I'm putting in a complaint about the insult. Sorry - I can accept them from people I respect, but not from people I don't. The argument doesn't require them. Don't do it again. Thanks.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Because I don't follow the issue with slavish devotion? Because my sense of self is not predicated on my outrage over a conflict at which I am at loggerheads? There are so many possible answers to that question.

So is actually checking the facts before you post something.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Instead of splattering whatever all over the screen, why not educate yourself? It's easy!

I am demanding the aggressors stop. I'm sorry your memory - selective or otherwise - seems a bit thin on this topic. BTW: it's only a derailing if you have some ultimate goal in mind, rather than a discussion of the facts. Food for thought.

 

Apply it to the side of the discussion involved in the insults.

Thankyou.

 

you and bells keep referring to it as if it was his beliefs on the subject.



[

???? my views on the subject are fairly well known I wish for international law to be applied where applicable. I don't know where you getting this idea i support might makes right as a moral basis? considering the fact I have criticized spider for actually advocatiung such a viewpoint?

You mean september 9th 1993?

as i pointed out to you the new york times isn't really a reliable. here the Jerusalem Bureu chief has come under fire for incorrect reporting on the issue.

yes 20 years ago.

i fully expected you to do. that is your modus operendi.

but it does require a certain level of intellectual honesty.

you misunderstand me geoff. I'm not asking how you came to your conclusion. I'm asking why your pushing it when even the side your defending doesn't even push such an argument.

i did

your the presenting inacurate information. or at least confusing different terms. not really your fault as you've stated you aren't that well versed into the conflict as I am though your understanding of my motives is woefully poor. recognition of Israel, recognition of Israel as a jewish state, and recognition of Israel "right" to exist are all different ideas. you conflating them which isn't surprising given the most readily available media to you does so but they aren't one and the same.

repeating the propaganda of Israel is not demanding the aggressors to stop.

 

He is the author of the work. I never said he approved of it, or even engaged in it. He commented on it. I don't think it was ever meant as a manual. If one calls a thing 'Machiavellian' it does not mean Machiavelli was a tricky bastard. His ghost should take no insult from my words.

Well, you have a choice here: either Israel has as much right to exist as any other nation, including Palestine, or it does not. Chompers cannot pick and choose at which country has such rights in context of their actions - or else nearly no nation has any rights to exist. Consider his false dilemma here:

The question is: Are you biased against Israel? There’s a simple test: Do you think that Israel should have the same rights as any state in the international system? No more, no less. That’s neutral. That’s what it means not to be biased against, say, Luxembourg. Well, nobody asks that, because the answer’s going to be 100 percent agreement in the Middle East departments of the universities and the media and so on, so therefore that’s not a good answer. What lies behind it is the belief that Israel, the U.S. offshoot in the Middle East, should have rights far beyond those of any state in the international system. That’s called unbiased.

And that’s what mainstream opinion is: Israel should have what’s called the abstract “right to exist.” No state has a right to exist, and no one demands such a right. For example, the United States has no such right. Mexico doesn’t respect the right of the United States to exist, sitting on half of Mexico, which was conquered in war. They do grant the U.S. rights in the international system, but not the legitimacy of those rights.​

And yet the nations around Israel at one time engaged in war against it on the grounds that it did not exist. And other powers, of the same bent but a little further away, felt the same - and still do. And they back the Palestinians with money for weapons. So: recognition is important, or could be, providing it made any difference in the mind of the Ayatollah, he no rock-and-rolla. It provides at least the screen of international law in the event of incident. But let's also consider: Palestine may recognise Israel, but Iran never will, allowing the latter the charade of acting against a nation they pretend doesn't exist and avoiding thereby the shame of international interference, not that it really stopped them (or anyone else) before. It matters only internationally, in the arena of shame. Politics is a complicated game.

This concept “right to exist” was in fact invented, as far as I can tell, in the 1970s when there was general international agreement, including the Arab states and the PLO, that Israel should have the rights of every state in the international system. And therefore, in an effort to prevent negotiations and a diplomatic settlement, the U.S. and Israel insisted on raising the barrier to something that nobody’s going to accept. Certainly, the Palestinians can’t accept it. They’re not going to accept Israel’s existence but also the legitimacy of its existence and the legitimacy of their dispossession. Why should they accept that? Why should anyone accept it?​

Chompy's a little off-base in spirit here: of those nations that don't recognise Israel, most are Arab and/or Muslim. The PLO did, at Oslo. I don't recall that the Arab states agreed Israel should get a chair at the UN: it might even be true. But anyway, Chomsky is setting up an interesting false dilemma: accept Israel's right to exist, like a good neutral might do, and you accept all the wrongful things it's also done. But if you reject any of those, you surely must reject its right to existence (never mind those pesky Accords; a piece of paper is no shield, as Cirsei might have put it), since, you know, it's done bad things. Unlike Mexico and Jordan and the United States and Russia and... well, the list goes on. So there are no nations but that which force enforces, since no one's hands are clean. How about Palestine itself? Maybe it will be the only nation that Chomsky sees as factual. Anyway, it's Machiavellian-Maoist, really, and while I think Chompy would be thrilled at the latter comparison, I wonder what he'd think of the former. Nations ought to have a moral right to themselves also. Communist I, I am still no party to Mao's extremism on this subject. There is right, and there is wrong. And shades within, of course. We accept that you exist since we cannot arrange it otherwise. That's Machiavelli, that's Mao. Power alone, moral right notwithstanding. Why should the Jews of Palestine have accepted their ghettoization? Does Chompy ask that question? If not, why not?

As to why such dispossession should be accepted: well, get used to it. Aggressors often suffer the loss of territory in war. If Israel had been overrun in 1948, 1967 or 1973, I doubt we'd be having this discussion. Now, as to further dispossession, that is untenable. Simply tie arms shipments to the end of settlements. Done.

What Chompsky does not say - I don't know whether he was asked about the new demands for recognition as a Jewish state, although it sounds from that cutting like he did - is that the other factor is the religious one: of course no Islamic nation is going to recognise Israel as a Jewish nation, excepting perhaps the most secular or secular-controlled Islamic nation (Egypt, one day, perhaps?). That would run just a touch counter-current to the sensibilities of religious conservatives, who generally occupy a solid plurality to a healthy majority in such nations, or more in some cases. Is that provocation by Israel and the US, or the declaration of the culture of an independent nation? Tell you what: table up for me all the times Chompsky's gone off on Saudi Arabia or Iran for the temerity of their theocracies and near-theocracies and we'll see how the numbers stack up.

This is fascinating, although I don't recall referencing the NYT on this issue in this thread in aid of anything I've said so far. I thank you for your kind advice about 'Madame SP', however.

Op! And after the warning too. That'll be a second complaint. You're calling me inherently dishonest, which is as reeking a pile as I can think of. What ends do your ad hominem serve: argument or ego?

Which argument? Right to exist? The Israelis are certainly pushing for such a right - indeed, by the sound of things, for a further modified version of such a right - so your comment is incorrect, and I think I've made the flaws in your stance evident.

I have demanded that Israeli aggression via settlements stop many times. I think I even did so in this thread. I'm not sure how supporting the concept of Israel as a nation, or even a Jewish nation, constitutes "propaganda", but I'm sure you have a handy explanation.

 

Uh, you do realize that there is no such thing as the State of Palestine, right? There are no signed concords at all between "Palestine "and anybody. Israel has seen to it that there cannot be.

As far as recognizing Israel formally, numerous Palestinian leaders and elected local government folks and so forth have offered to do so - Israel has so far prevented that from happening, by refusing to fix its boundaries with any proposed Palestine, or remove its military from what would then be somebody else's country, or even desist from interfering with the local governments of Palestine to prevent political unity and negotiating power. Egypt did not recognize an Israel with a blank check on its border with Egypt, neither did Jordan.

Israel already enjoys all such protections - the UN has not mounted a military effort to lift the blockades, or remove the settlements, for example. Israel has received international military support to defend itself against even the amateur Palestinian rockets, Palestine has received no such military support against the far more destructive and lethal Israeli air raids. Palestinians have nothing to lose, and much to gain (land, water, travel on the public roads, medicine and supplies for what was once a quite respectable medical care system, not getting their children shot by foreign soldiers, etc), by Israel agreeing to fix its borders - even at the Israeli-favored locations where the latest UN compromise with Israel's expansion says they should be - and remain behind them.

 

Well, procedurally a number of bodies have recognised the Palestinian State, although I am unsure under what auspices or exactly how that works, independently, or how it works functionally. In Israel there is informal not-acceptance, and acceptance, and Netanyahu claimed that an independent PS was the preferred solution.

Actually, the PLO recognised Israel at Oslo. The question is whether it's recognised as a 'Jewish state' now, apparently.

It does not enjoy the recognition of all Arab nations in the region, certainly, this being the point. I don't know that it requires acknowledgement as a Jewish state specifically, but then again I don't think any of those countries would do so anyway. It would appear too much like a submission to the members of their own conservative religious populations, which are not insubstantial. Perhaps this is the long game of the Israelis: to force the local theocracies to abandon some corners of religious supremacism, particularly where it concerns anti-Jewish hatred. At least, it's what I'd do.

Internationally, Israel is well-recognised. Not so among the nations who make the region their client interest: Iran, specifically. Un-cynically, I suggest that recognition by that nation and those behind it would represent at least some kind of diplomatic acknowledgement related to their defense. Cynically,

Agreed.