Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Post questions or suggestions here.

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Sun Jul 12, 2009 6:13 am


Now that's typical for modern politics: promising what is already the case! Anyone slightly in the know already realizes that Iran doesn't want one, nor does it allow itself one.

No sign Iran seeks nuclear arms: new IAEA head

The incoming head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said on Friday he did not see any hard evidence Iran was trying to gain the ability to develop nuclear arms.


The underlying conflict is about something completely different: the balance of cloud in the Middle East. In the political world however a facade is preferred.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 4955
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Sun Jul 12, 2009 6:48 am

Talking Alex,

... to remodel means to neutralize recalcitrant pockets of resistance to the inevitable forces that determine the role of the region. If one understands that this is the bottom-line power-reality (realpolitik) ...

Realpolitik certainly won't entertain vague notions as "inevitable forces". There are only immediate concerns, no meta-physical or global concerns attached. Or if there are, they are interchangeable; mutable.

All power-structures are involved in exACTLY the same game, Diebert. All of them.

Not really, unless you want to make the dead-beat remark that power plays for power.

In politics, it seems, it is the narrow viewpoints that win the day. Meaning, the defined, basic, 'sensible', practicable.

But such narrow focus has not much to do with grand ideologies or "inevitable forces" or what-not.

Any structure of view, and any structure of view that is moulded into policy, is by definition ideological.

While I can appreciate your emergency exit from the discussion (implying that all ideation or idealization is ideological) your statement is of course hardly true (it being normally defined as a "set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system".) Real-politics never adheres much to system nor doctrines. It does what needs to be done to prevent complete collapse, to gamble for a chance on limited, local growth.

The ideological views that underpin American post-war design of a world system have provided a platform for an astounding period of cultural growth and achievement.

No, that is in itself ideology. In the more reality-based communities of thinkers one only asserts opportunity, circumstances: a complex combination of internal and external causes. That people want to claim signs of success and kneel before an altar of their choice to bring thanks (or point blame), that is of all ages: the religious function.

a pretty goddamned sane world out of some pretty frightening circumstances and chilling alternatives.

Baseless assertion. At the same time a very understandable and tempting viewpoint from any position that has a lot to lose.

These universal values are: to flourish within a defined structure, one that (through political machinations) all the players agree on, basically. The underpinning is purely 'Roman' but all sorts of nice things can be overlayed on top of that basic (brutal) structure.

No matter if you wave Obama or Chomsky around, the reality of the situation moved on. Meanings shifted and changed globally without most people even noticing. It's that same power structure that will do what it always does: what it's designed to do: to go against these changes, first to deny them, then ridicule and fight them, drain itself in the process and finally accept them as inevitable and pretend it was the goal all along!

Demented Netanyahu and his hastily sewn together mish-mash of a dysfunctional government is increasingly destroying its credibility worldwide. Get the bugs out in the open before stepping on them, yeah! Who will be Israel's Obama?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 4955
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Talking Ass » Sun Jul 12, 2009 9:02 am

Realpolitik certainly won't entertain vague notions as "inevitable forces". There are only immediate concerns, no meta-physical or global concerns attached. Or if there are, they are interchangeable; mutable.
I don't agree with you on this. Returning to Chomsky, he includes many (then) top-secret documents outlining internal policies (of the US as it constructed the post-war world). In the tone of those planning documents there is a clear sense of the power the US to mold history (a sentiment as old as the Republic and utterly American, de Toqueville noted it). It is brimming with ideological certainty and a kind of inevitability of the US to be able to impose its plan, and to deal with whatever problems and obstructions arise. I think this way of thinking---this American way of thinking---is indeed ideological.

There are only immediate concerns, no meta-physical or global concerns attached.
Don't get too hung up on the term 'realpolitik'. I use it as interchangeable with practical. But, all of us who read, say, the Wall Street Journal, the journal of practical people, are also motivated by ideological assumptions, concerns and 'faith'. If I am not mistaken, it is this ideology that is severely critiqued by its opponents. If you think I mean that it is not ideological in the sense that Marxism is ideological, or Evangelical Christianity, then I think I agree with you. I see it as having an ideological base but being pragmatic in execution.

Not really, unless you want to make the dead-beat remark that power plays for power.
All power-structures, from the large ones to the small ones, function along similar, selfish and self-interested lines. What is common between them is this or these characteristics. That is why a manual for a prince---the Discourses---have proven so relevant and of enduring value through time. In the Machiavellian sense, power serves its own power and that is a primary law. A power-grouping or polity that does not serve its own interests (or is divided or weakened in the pursuit of its interests, an area of focus in the Discourses) falls prey to other powers that seek to profit opportunistically. I would suggest that this is one of the plain truths of terrestrial life and one known, instinctively, by all people.

But such narrow focus has not much to do with grand ideologies or "inevitable forces" or what-not.
I said that the narrow focus wins the day, and by that I meant to clear, practical route to a goal. That is pragmatism. It is also practicality. And as you know I use the term interchangeably with 'realpolitik'. It seems to me that Washington, generally speaking, has stated its goals in fairly clean and direct terms since the end of the Second World War. Apparently, it did explained itself first in uncirculated policy documents in terse, direct language with little ideological icing. It used other means of expressing itself in the business journals (according to Chomsky: ideological underpinned but quite frank), and it used another style of structure of communication in its PR or propaganda. In that sense it created inevitability, a sort of manifest destiny I suppose. Judge it as you wish: it has moulded and remoulded the world in the post-war era and has structured the world as we know it now. Like it or hate it, it is a pretty awesome attainment. When I reexplain these things you misinterpreted, does it help you to understand better what I was saying? Shall we go into a third round? (Seven and seventy rounds are my limit, however).

While I can appreciate your emergency exit from the discussion (implying that all ideation or idealization is ideological) your statement is of course hardly true (it being normally defined as a "set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system".) Real-politics never adheres much to system nor doctrines. It does what needs to be done to prevent complete collapse, to gamble for a chance on limited, local growth.
I hope I made myself clear about the subject of 'ideology'. The term is used non-technically these days, so you will forgive me a little its use? I think that you are right: a true realpolitik will abandon as it needs to a specific tenet of ideology if it sees that its over-all interests will be served by doing so. But, a political policy is still administered by men, and men are informed by greater or lesser degrees of ideology. Said another way, I don't think there exists a man who is free of all ideology and I would be suspicious of one who said he was. It is in the 'shadow' of our denials that the more powerful demons lurk, is that not right?

No, that is in itself ideology.
Very true, it is ideological. And that is my view at this point. I have determined that in a general and over-all sense I support the goals and aspirations of the West in imposing a vision of what can and shall be on the rest of the world. I am saying that I basically accept what has been achieved, and that is in the light of a sort of hindsight, looking back over the last 50-60 years. I said: "The ideological views that underpin American post-war design of a world system have provided a platform for an astounding period of cultural growth and achievement." If that is ideological, you master psychologist and stunning rhetorician, then you have caught me in the enunciation of the view I wish to present. (Duh!) I suppose, then, that I accept some of the view of so-called neo-conservatism (because that is the view that I am supporting). By that I mean that the view is considerable and has merits that can be considered. I guess it also means that I accept that change may occur within an overarching structure, but the structure will---and must---remain. The structure is an imposition, and if you will the core and essential violence. In a sense, the existing structure of things is my body, and the reining force that moves through the body is my blood. Now, I offer you my body and my blood in a solemn sacrifice that is mystical participation in the Way Things Are. Come, drink! Come, eat!

Baseless assertion. At the same time a very understandable and tempting viewpoint from any position that has a lot to lose.
No, it is simply an existential fact. Overall, I am pretty happy to see what has emerged in the post-war period. A period of amazing progress and prosperity. A period that has its place in the annals of history, something that will be talked about, appreciated. Many things that I appreciate and admire are wedded to this time-frame, they are inextricable from it. Things could have gone in very different directions during the war and after it. I see---of I choose to see---that American ascendancy was a 'good' outcome. The good-guys (as opposed to some pretty awful bad-guys) won out. And they used their time well in constructing and building the world they saw fit. And their work is there to look at and consider. We live in it and from it.

And from the look of it, that initial work is moving into another phase (a global phase). Apparently, this was a constructed platform, and the American 'designers' as Chomsky likes to call them, had a great deal to do with this. I know that there are many 'alternative narratives'---I have spent a part of my life in them---but now, 'under the spreading chestnut tree', as I gaze down on the creation from my vantage in a pastoral barn, I sometimes recall these poetical words, and my heart swell with pride: The Village Blacksmith

No matter if you wave Obama or Chomsky around, the reality of the situation moved on. Meanings shifted and changed globally without most people even noticing. It's that same power structure that will do what it always does: what it's designed to do: to go against these changes, first to deny them, then ridicule and fight them, drain itself in the process and finally accept them as inevitable and pretend it was the goal all along!
This is just your interpretation, and one with its own ideological agenda. This is you sort of exiting from the conversatrion under a pretense. It is a different world, that is true, and new elements emerge every day, new 'realities' take shape. But that does not negate my point,
fiat mihi
User avatar
Talking Ass
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Mon Jul 13, 2009 6:39 am

Talking Ass wrote:Don't get too hung up on the term 'realpolitik'. I use it as interchangeable with practical.

That's not the way it's normally used. It specially addresses the motives of the actions, their lack of being married to ideology. For example, a ruler can believe he represents the most powerful nation on Earth but his actions can still be based on the reality that his nation isn't (yet). There might be ideology in the background but it isn't reflected in realpolitik actions while it still might be present in what is presented to the home-audience or how.

But, all of us who read, say, the Wall Street Journal, the journal of practical people, are also motivated by ideological assumptions, concerns and 'faith'.

Who would claim WSJ is not ideological but "practical" or for "practical people"? That's far out! If you'd said Stratfor, perhaps...

I see it as having an ideological base but being pragmatic in execution.

Execution is always sort of pragmatic, LOL.

Not really, unless you want to make the dead-beat remark that power plays for power.
All power-structures, from the large ones to the small ones, function along similar, selfish and self-interested lines.

Yeah, you're repeating me: with dead-beat I meant bloody obvious.

Said another way, I don't think there exists a man who is free of all ideology and I would be suspicious of one who said he was. It is in the 'shadow' of our denials that the more powerful demons lurk, is that not right?

The question here is if all actions, or events in the geopolitical or historical arena need to be stemming from someone's ideology or even conform to it. Ideology is the way we interpret events, mapping it to a system of reference, a symbolic exchange.

I have determined that in a general and over-all sense I support the goals and aspirations of the West in imposing a vision of what can and shall be on the rest of the world.

Or course, you're sharing the dream, mixing up most likely effects and causes in the process.

. Overall, I am pretty happy to see what has emerged in the post-war period. A period of amazing progress and prosperity. A period that has its place in the annals of history, something that will be talked about, appreciated. Many things that I appreciate and admire are wedded to this time-frame, they are inextricable from it. Things could have gone in very different directions during the war and after it. I see---of I choose to see---that American ascendancy was a 'good' outcome. The good-guys (as opposed to some pretty awful bad-guys) won out. And they used their time well in constructing and building the world they saw fit. And their work is there to look at and consider. We live in it and from it.

It's amazing what can be discovered by examining each detail of this line of thought. Probably you won't allow yourself to, but I can assure you that the causality is not like you have been taught. The picture that would emerge is of an incredible complex of circumstantial reasons why things happened the way they did. Some of it was plain geography, some of it due to things set in motion in forgone ages (pre-war in this case) by other players with other intentions, some causes originate from what is seemingly luck, a haphazard arrangement of personal ambitions that did or did not pan out.

Out of this immense web of interrelated accidents it's tempting to assess the "winning" side as good or that the winner is "always right" in terms of strategy and foresight. But rarely is this the case: for each winner there are many losers for who it just "wasn't their time". Assuming one can agree what it means to be winner here. There's always something sacrificed.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 4955
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Talking Ass » Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:48 am

*Yawn* (Realpolitik)

It's amazing what can be discovered by examining each detail of this line of thought. Probably you won't allow yourself to, but I can assure you that the causality is not like you have been taught. The picture that would emerge is of an incredible complex of circumstantial reasons why things happened the way they did. Some of it was plain geography, some of it due to things set in motion in forgone ages (pre-war in this case) by other players with other intentions, some causes originate from what is seemingly luck, a haphazard arrangement of personal ambitions that did or did not pan out.
Yeah, and you could take down your Tarot deck too and cast a spread for each 'line of thought'. Heh heh. As far as self-examination, I've done a fair amount of it, just like all of us who are products of post-war radicalism (you are there in this too, of course). There is a million different considerations and, to be truly sensitive, one must take all of them into consideration. Then, oppressed with all that weight, you have to do ten laps at the local pool. You won't get far though.

In reality, you are mind-fucking yourself, Diebert. I find this interesting because I sense in you a complete unwillingness to let Israel survive, grow and prosper. You are a classical 'naysayer'. Is it the vitality of the place and the people that rubs you wrong? You are a little too inclined to stick up for Israel's enemies and I find this baffling. The weird, labyrinthian narratives you construct, their 'purpose', is to hog-tie Israel and 'men of action'. I don't know how you reconcile your ideas with a hearty reading of Nietzsche, but I'm sure it is interesting and (labyrinthian). Bit by infinitesimal bit we learn veeeeery slowly who is this Diebert fellow. All revealed information is carefully doled-out, and yet the fundamentals always seem to be held in abeyance, at least I've never perceived them in a straightforward manner. In the end, though, your concerns are more squeamish than I'd ever thought.

"Not how I've been taught". Huaaar huaaar! Where do you come up with these lines? What I was 'taught' by is just about all of the counter-narratives that exist. You see, we wanted to see ourselves as righteous, we rebellious youngsters. Turning against our fathers was de rigeur. And some of that self-criticism and self-recrimination is necessary and good, but when you are induced to turn against yourself, well, that is another story. Maybe all of us who read here need to examine the post-war radicalism that has influenced us all, the very structure of our perception. But again (there remains 5 and 70 'agains', brother Diebert!), I think I really do grasp that 'America' was an opportunity seized, opportunities exploited, a seizing of the day, all of that. All those considerations are part of American ideology.

What may be of far more interest is the nay-saying of our European friends, a veritable chorus of ever-ready criticism, all this 'taking into consideration', all these nuances that must be considered. All these 'female' concerns, to put it bluntly.

Out of this immense web of interrelated accidents it's tempting to assess the "winning" side as good or that the winner is "always right" in terms of strategy and foresight. But rarely is this the case: for each winner there are many losers for who it just "wasn't their time". Assuming one can agree what it means to be winner here. There's always something sacrificed.
Nah. Too complex. People came, people saw, and they got off the starting line with clear guiding ideas and they didn't look back. Many fell by the wayside---so what? The nature of achievement is to set forces in motion in strong terms. Additionally, there was a great deal of excellent and relevant thought that was part of the original formulation. You could also come up with a whole list of criticisms, and many have (and do). It is all relevant, IMO.

What is left is up to the individual, his own personal frame of reference, to be able to judge all this as good or bad. Not many appear to be able to arrive even here, though.
Well, they will get there by and by. The inspirational value of Obama in Africa was enough of a good reason to have voted for him. These images are very fitting for him:

[16th Hexagram of the I-Ching, 'Enthusiasm']

ENTHUSIASM. It furthers one to install helpers
And to set armies marching.

The time of ENTHUSIASM derives from the fact that there is at hand an eminent man who is in sympathy with the spirit of the people and acts in accord with it. Hence he finds universal and willing obedience. To arouse enthusiasm it is necessary for a man to adjust himself and his ordinances to the character of those whom he has to lead. The inviolability of natural laws rest on this principle of movement along the line of least resistance. These laws are not forces external to things but represent the harmony of movement immanent in them. That is why the celestial bodies do not deviate from their orbits and why all events in nature occur with fixed regularity. It is the same with human society: only such laws as are rooted in popular sentiment can be enforced, while laws violating this sentiment merely arouse resentment.

Again, it is enthusiasm that enables us to install helpers for the completion of an undertaking without fear of secret opposition. It is enthusiasm too that can unify mass movements, as in war, so that they achieve victory.
fiat mihi
User avatar
Talking Ass
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Talking Ass » Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:55 am

I guess I am not going to see any criticism of my story outline anytime soon, eh? ;-)
fiat mihi
User avatar
Talking Ass
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:00 am

Talking Ass wrote:I sense in you a complete unwillingness to let Israel survive, grow and prosper. You are a classical 'nay-sayer'. Is it the vitality of the place and the people that rubs you wrong?

You might have misunderstood. As I see it Israel is a "project" that unlike any strong nation can and will not prosper without the extraordinary support of a few benefactors. It apparently cannot create a stable security for it citizens to exist in without rampant militarism. In that sense it's hardly better off than lets say Iraq.

Actually I'd dare Israel to grow and prosper using reality-based approaches, meaning minimizing the ideological dimension (eg the state as having only a "jewish" identity). Of course that will mean that the pipe-dream of some will be wiped of the pages of history. But the "greater" Israel, in spiritual sense, would finally start to take form.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 4955
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Talking Ass » Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:26 am

Ah yes, I remember all your multi-layered musings. You want something to occur that will not occur. Yours is a very resistant imposition on reality. You want things to be a certain way, but they aren't, and they won't. Open up and say 'aaah'. I try to present you with antidotes but you keep spitting them out. What if you rationally decided to operate within the structure of the conditions of the present? Hmmm? What might come from that?

Actually I'd dare Israel to grow and prosper using reality-based approaches, meaning minimizing the ideological dimension (eg the state as having only a "Jewish" identity). Of course that will mean that the pipe-dream of some will be wiped of the pages of history. But the "greater" Israel, in spiritual sense, would finally start to take form.
Well, I'd have Yahway come streaking through the sky in a fancy-ass interplanetary vessel, and he'd toss flowers down to the awed multitudes! Then, all the world would clasp hands and they'd sing Michael Jackson hits! (I'll likely get my fantasy before you'll get yours...)

Again, it is more becoming to a manly intellect like yours to start from a reality platform, and suggest possibilities that will actually have effect on the present. Any of this getting through, old chum? Start with what Israel is right now, and the conditions in the surrounding countries.

And when do I get the commentary I asked for, hmmm? What do you think, this is like a free-time session for you or something? Get to work! ;-)
fiat mihi
User avatar
Talking Ass
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Tue Jul 14, 2009 6:03 am

Taking Ass, the problem with your adoration and fascination of power in Machiavellian sense (which is also the reason why Nietzsche didn't want to write his books in German, if at all) is the pure banality of power, a variant on the banality of evil. The grand schemes and plans to transform and convert the nations are a front for a pit of petty attachments and afflictions.

To get an idea, read Uri Avnery's column: Matter of the Heart because it gets close to the issue I raise. Total incompetence, little vats overflowing with liquor they're too under-aged to even buy.

The problem I have with these dwarfs in the corridors of power is not their Machiavellian lusting. It's more their smallness, their submission to what is completely bonkers but sold as holy moly. Even those otherwise razor sharp minds and educated souls all crawl together on the same shitty floor when it comes to certain topics. No surprise your crooked instinct informs you to defend it against all costs!

How is that for a multi-layered musing?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 4955
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Talking Ass » Fri Jul 17, 2009 7:15 am

fiat mihi
User avatar
Talking Ass
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Tomas » Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:02 am



Yup, if the International Monetary Fund says it's so, it must be true.

The road to hell (the grave) is paved with good intentions.

PS - How many billions did Barack promise to the IMF?
Don't run to your death
User avatar
Tomas
 
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Talking Ass » Fri Jul 17, 2009 1:38 pm

fiat mihi
User avatar
Talking Ass
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Carl G » Tue Jul 21, 2009 3:37 pm

Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Title of the thread got me wondering if any Ottoman furniture is actually still made in Palestine.

Indeed there is. Nice stuff, too!
User avatar
Carl G
 
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Aristogenics » Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:31 am

No land is the inherent property of a particular race of people. The rightful proprietor is whoever has the power to defend it from foreigners. Therefore, the land of Israel belongs to the Jewish race.
Aristogenics
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 1:07 pm

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Tomas » Tue Sep 22, 2009 8:31 am

Aristogenics wrote:No land is the inherent property of a particular race of people. The rightful proprietor is whoever has the power to defend it from foreigners. Therefore, the land of Israel belongs to the Jewish race.

Lemme get this straight. Are you saying that the Jews are a race .. and not a religion?

If so, where did they begin? Adam & Eve? .. Sammy Davis Jr. converted to Judaism, is/[was] he then of the Jewish race?

Furthermore, the Land of Israel encompasses a heckuva large area. And, who gave the 'Jewish race' the title to the land, in perpetuity? You, the United Nations, USA, Poland, Britain, or Dan Rowden?
Don't run to your death
User avatar
Tomas
 
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Wed Sep 23, 2009 2:32 am

Aristogenics wrote: The rightful proprietor is whoever has the power to defend it from foreigners.

Fair enough then, that makes Israel the 52nd state of the United States of America. Since without the dedication and protection of the US (especially through the UN security counsel as well as military aid) that state wouldn't last long in its current incarnation.

How did Israel secure this power? Hardly by their own doing even while some like to believe it. It's just about a weak spot shared by conservative-neo-Christians and neo-conservatives who have been riding the beast half a century. The whole thing represents the main fault in their worldview.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 4955
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Ataraxia » Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:30 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:How did Israel secure this power? .
by applying slave morality.
Ataraxia
 
Posts: 592
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 11:41 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Leyla Shen » Tue Sep 29, 2009 8:02 pm

Aristogenics wrote:No land is the inherent property of a particular race of people. The rightful proprietor is whoever has the power to defend it from foreigners. Therefore, the land of Israel belongs to the Jewish race.


Well, here's just one consequence of this, your supreme act of logical reasoning, "Aristogenics." See if you can spot the true and false premises:

1. Land is [an] inherent property of race.
2. A rightful proprietor of land is that race that has the power to defend that land.
3. The Jewish race has the power to defend Israel.
4. A diaspora results from the expulsion of a people ("race") from land.

Therefore, if 1, 2 and 3 then a Jewish diaspora is and always has been both impossible and a lie.
Last edited by Leyla Shen on Tue Sep 29, 2009 8:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Between Suicides
User avatar
Leyla Shen
 
Posts: 3722
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Leyla Shen » Tue Sep 29, 2009 8:03 pm

Which, of course, would also mean the Jewish holocaust never happened. :)
Between Suicides
User avatar
Leyla Shen
 
Posts: 3722
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Leyla Shen » Tue Sep 29, 2009 9:03 pm

Enshrined in the modern constitutions of the world as a right is the fundamental contradiction in the idea that an individual man has an inalienable right to act in his own private interest, without the right to infringe against another's right to do the same. To achieve this, man splits himself into two; the member of civil society (comprising his private life) and the citizen (comprising his political life). Specifically, he abstracted himself from religion and, as a citizen, became an atheist in the abstract only to secure the right to be religious; the freedom to choose religion. Therefore, when he acts as a human toward his fellow men he acts so only in the abstract as a citizen and in all his real relations, he acts as the private individual; from ego.

The Jew thus conflates his religious existence with his political existence. He can claim both to be religious and non-religious - a race and a religion - but always a Jew; he can make the claim that Israel is a secular state and his nationalism both religious and irreligious. He stands today as the quintessential proof of this contradiction and as evidence that political emancipation has absolutely nothing to do with the emancipation of man from himself.
Between Suicides
User avatar
Leyla Shen
 
Posts: 3722
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Tue Sep 29, 2009 9:27 pm

The Turk wrote:Well, here's just one consequence of this, your supreme act of logical reasoning, "Aristogenics." See if you can spot the true and false premises:

1. Land is [an] inherent property of race.


Didn't Aristo wrote: "No land is the inherent property of a particular race of people"? It seems having the power to fend of others makes right in his scenario. The ultimate conclusion here would be that genocides and ethnic cleansings like in WW2, the displacement of Poles, Jews and many others would be justified. The odd thing being: Isreael was founded with the very particular rejection of the morality of the Holocaust by the rest of the world thereby enabling the possibility of Israel to exist. Although many Zionists I heard saying they don't blame the Nazis: they blame themselves for not being able to protect themselves! In some ways Israel still lives in the 1940's, they want to repeat it but now with them having the power!
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 4955
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Leyla Shen » Tue Sep 29, 2009 9:35 pm

Hi Diebert:

Why, yes. So he did. Nevertheless, it was a great expose! I'm sure I can come up with another one. :) Give me a moment...
Between Suicides
User avatar
Leyla Shen
 
Posts: 3722
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Leyla Shen » Tue Sep 29, 2009 9:38 pm

In some ways Israel still lives in the 1940's, they want to repeat it but now with them having the power!


In some ways, sure. I'd have pegged them for the most part at a few hundred BC, myself.......
Between Suicides
User avatar
Leyla Shen
 
Posts: 3722
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Tue Sep 29, 2009 9:40 pm

Leyla Shen wrote: Therefore, when he [the individual man] acts as a human toward his fellow men he acts so only in the abstract as a citizen and in all his real relations, he acts as the private individual; from ego.

The contradiction of the Jews is thus the contraction of modernity in a nutshell? One could also suggest Jews in general have a harder time acting in the abstract as a citizen, like in the West is attempted. Israel's whole civic society "must have a Jewish identity", which is by definition no abstract, defying the historical and current realities of the place. Genocide being the ultimate consequence and "solution' to the conflict they themselves generated. Dependence on some degree of international standing is the only thing keeping things in check, I guess.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 4955
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today

Postby Leyla Shen » Tue Sep 29, 2009 9:47 pm

Take two:

1. No land is the inherent property of a particular race of people.
2. The rightful proprietor is whoever has the power to defend it from foreigners.
3. Therefore, the land of Israel belongs to the Jewish race.

It's pretty easy, really. If 1 is true, then 3 is actually false. What simply follows is that land doesn't belong to any "race," but is only defended by prejudice through force.
Between Suicides
User avatar
Leyla Shen
 
Posts: 3722
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

PreviousNext

Return to Help Desk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 7 guests

cron