Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
#144–Brain==thank you. I feel privileged by your response. I must admit I am a bit gun shy to point out you didn’t actually address the question after the short initial direct response? No desire to hurt your feelings by disagreeing or by not understanding your position. You might check this blog once a week or so. Israel/Muslim issues appear about that regularly. Could be of interest how the outside world misreads your circumstances so totally: as I will now demonstrate.
The main body of your response goes to the secular roots of Israel. The question is however a moral one, usually the stuff of non-secular dogma: why is Israel so “kind” to its sworn enemies? All with the pragmatic effect of making their situation worse==but you already did agree with that idea, so there not any disagreement, just a curiosity as to how all the correct secular history applies to the analysis?
In your historical review, I found it instructive that the “peaceful” relationship of Muslims to the Jews was still as variable as you note. Just a little thought allows this to be about as expected? I assume “the occasional pogrom” was of limited scope?
If you do make it back to the blog and have the time, I have the same question Phydeau does: how will Israel avoid the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from its occupied territories, or the forming of de jure apartheid, or both? Your historical review highlights the fanatical refusal of muslims to give up their claim to lands ever occupied. “Eventually” I don’t see how you avoid being eaten by your own morality=one way or the other. Your future is nothing but bad choices. Whats the fantasy solution?
Bobbo, Benjamin, I would think that no explanation is necessary. I was pointing out the climate in which Israel is operating.
Don’t settlers from Germany, Poland, Russia, Europe in general and America come to Israel continuously. Jewish immigrants come to Israel where they receive money and a house in a illegal settlement. Helen Thomas should not have apologized, she did a great service for the American people by speaking her opinion.
#143–Cursor==you rogue!! Out of character to make a direct response/challenge. Normally you just flit irrelevantly around? Again, I feel privileged. And Again, don’t want to hurt anybody’s feelings by pointing out their logical/factual errors but you make a common one.
My observation: “Land is gained and kept by force of arms. Everything else is irrelevant.”
Your observation: “That means bobbo thinks Might makes Right.”
I could say read what I said. The idea that “Might makes right” is categorically renounced when I say “Everything else is irrelevant.” Can you see how that works?
My observation is just that. Not my desire. Not my desire. Not my objective. Just my observation and its totally a tautology. An iron clad one too as all the real ones are.
But, I will use your challenge to quibble. If one countries occupation of another is seen by too many as some kind of moral outrage then yes the claimed morality of the situation may cause others to unite and invade the immoral occupier under a claim of moral right. But the end result will still be the tautology and the tautology remains intact. The “Might make Right” issue is just one of how bumpy the ride will be, not the end result of the ride itself.
You conclude with: “Anyone who truly understands life at all knows both policies are the road to destruction.” /// How retarded of you. Here’s a nice exercise: lets take out the world map and mark with black crayon the geography that was taken by force. If there is any white area left after you have gone thru this exercise: then read a book.
Heh, heh. but thanks for playing.
#154–Fusion==good to see you posting again. Busy? Bored?
I disagree with your position on Helen Thomas. Freedom of Speech is no bar to Freedom of Association and the press community does not want the association of someone so out of touch. Freedom of Speech does not include the Immunity from Consequences for being Totally Out of Touch.
I think Helen could have been forgiven for making such a clownish statement but isn’t her space better occupied by someone who actually might form a better critique of Israel Policy than the nonsense she spouted? I would hope so.
#152 Mr. Fusion said, “Videos are the easiest method of propaganda. If you want to believe a video, taken by the same people that murdered nine people in International Waters by those who did the murdering and hijacking then feel free. It only shows how easily you can be fooled.”
Apparently you don’t want to look at any videos because you made up your mind already. I also found it ironic that Reuters had to crop the terrorists’ knives out of the photos: http://blogs.reuters.com/gbu/2010/06/07/cropped-photos/
#150–Phydeau==Let’s see how this goes. You say:
1. For someone claiming to be totally impartial, bobbo, you’re pretty one-sided. /// I did not claim impartiality. I did claim I did not care if Israel existed or not. I do claim land is held by force not by color of moral authority. If there is a “side” in those opinions, you’ll have to point it out to me. Being rational? Is that a side??
2. What do you expect anyone to do when a killer is on about their business? Both sides are killers, bobbo. /// Well that is “true” in only an irrelevant sense. History provides break points where people are allowed to rest, breath deeply, assess their position and then decide what to do next. The palestinians/arabs have been soundly beaten in WAR about what 5-6 times now? How many times do you have to be beaten in WAR before you might look at giving up? If I have been beaten in war, sue for peace, and then begin rocketing my victor, I say the blood is on my hands. Israel has every legal excuse to form a wall of tanks along the Gaza border and push the entire population into the sea on the next provocation. As USA wiped out the indians, there won’t be any more bloodshed after the enemy is totally wiped out. History shows us thats the only way to conduct war. Nasty business.
Blood on the hands, on all sides. You said yourself, force is all that matters. The Jews used force to win and now they have to use force to keep their victory. They have no moral high ground. The Palestinians lost, for now, and they’re fighting to win. /// Correct. I will quibble and point out that “Neither Side” has moral high ground. When that is the case, the “high moral ground” is pragmatism. The moral person does not fight if they can’t win because that puts their life, their future, into the hands of the enemy instead of themselves. Its trying to kill the enemy while asking for charity at the same time. Morality may be the wrong word here, but there is a lot of morality in being logically consistent and oriented to the realities of a situation?
Your analogy is bogus. There is no reason to expect the side that is currently losing to just give up and accept the other side’s victory. Your bogus analogy attempts to give the Israelis some moral high ground, when they have none. Give it up. /// Repeat of above–if morality doesn’t control then ability to apply force does and I don’t go into a boxing ring against Randy Coultour and expect him to hold his punches, nor expect sympathy from the crowd when my nose gets broken. I could have stayed in the lobby selling tee shirts.
It’s funny how some otherwise liberal/progressive people can be so irrational about Israel. Oh well. /// What you talkin’ about Willis?
Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to [the state ideology], and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.
#156–Mickey==I see that. I apologize for thinking just the opposite. Are your posts usually so ambiguous because of their brevity, or is that your intent? Put a little bit more of yourself into your posts, its a good tonic.
#161 It’s called asymmetrical warfare nowadays bobbo. The Israelis have an overwhelming military advantage over the Palestinians so the P’s have to fight accordingly. Reminds me of a story from The Battle of Algiers, if I remember it correctly — read it long ago. An Algerian leader was asked how his people could do such horrible things as plant bombs in marketplaces. He explained that they were fighting a war, and the other side had tanks, planes, and bombs, his side didn’t, so they had to make do with what they had. If someone would be willing to give them tanks, planes, and bombs then he said they would be glad to fight a more conventional war and stop blowing up marketplaces.
If my opponent was much stronger than me, I would use whatever subterfuge I could, and that might include suing for peace while planning to fight on. (Diplomacy is the art of saying “nice doggie” while looking for a bigger stick.)
One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. We celebrate our “terrorists” in America because they won. The Israelis condemn the Palestinians for their tactics, when as I recall, the early Israelis like Menachem Begin did some terrorizing themselves. But now that they have the bigger military, the tactics they used to employ are evil (when employed by their opponents).
So, again I repeat, your claims of moral high ground for the Israelis are bogus.
And I’m not claiming the Palestinians have the higher moral ground either. Plenty of blame and plenty of blood to go around. But when one side fights with jets and bombs and tanks, and the other fights back with rocks and IEDs and RPGs, it’s easy to fall into rooting for the underdog, even if the underdog is no saint. The Israelis might want to consider that from a PR perspective.
How many times do you have to be beaten in WAR before you might look at giving up?
Easy for you to say when your side has won (temporarily). No, I don’t believe your claims of impartiality.
Phydeau: what do you think you are gaining by attributing false positions to me? I have constantly and uniformly without exception said that “Land is gained and held by might. All else is irrelevant.” Where do you get a moral hierarchy from that whereas my intent is to reveal the total lack of morality???
OTOH–what difference would it make if I or P is moral or not? Or greater in military weapons, tactics, information or in asymmetrical appeals? What you say just doesn’t make any sense.
The rule applies. All else is irrelevant. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. Have I ever said the Borg were morally superior? Heh, heh.
I think simply by Murphy’s Law, if the P’s keep struggling as they have, eventually, one day, the I’s will kill them all. That is the Tiger by the Tail the P’s have. Just as such action may remove USA’s support because of the reasons that bear.
I feel sorry for the P’s trapped by history and circumstance as they are. Just as I feel sorry for Americans, caught in the corruption and failed democracy we face. Just as I feel sorry for sub-Sahara Africans and the loss of the salt trade. Things can always be better or worse. I tend to be sorry for what I see as could be better, take too little comfort in how it could be worse? How does one best get by in a world made of societies that don’t care that much about individual/family self actualization?
Its funny you PROJECT the idea of morality onto my completely amoral proposition and back it up by further more detail moralizing/blame. If the tanks, jets, and bombs ultimately fail against the rocks, IPG’s, and RPG’s then Israel will be no more and I will say: “land is claimed and held by force and all else is irrelevant.”
I guess then you will say I think the P’s are morally superior?
Silly Rabbit. Moralizing on issues of Nationhood.
I don’t have a side other than reality. Yes, my side has won and always will. Another tautology against your PROJECTION.
So, Phydeau, “since we mostly agree”==what would you recommend for both sides?
There are lots of decision points, but I’ll choose 1-2 simple ones.
If I were Israel, I would look for the two state solution that left me safe against attack and provided a buffer against the arabs as well as a place to deport all Israeli born/living Muslims. Pushed hard enough, I would initiate formal land grabs to further eliminate the enemy==pushing them into the sea, or into Egypt/Syria as the situation might require/allow. Its what all Nation States do.
If I were the Palestinians–I would agree to any two state solution the I’s were dumb enough to allow. That would be the camel’s nose under the tent, providing a base of operations for what the future might bring. I would work for economic success and a better future for my kiddies ((isn’t that what life is all about?)). If god is particularly vicious, he would provide me with a way to wage continued war against Israel from this advantaged point. If god is merciful, he will kill me off asap and allow my kiddies the fruit of their labors and a less fanatical self destructive notion of self preservation to become the norm?
Nice little social experiments possible there. We have a lot we could learn from the Jews controlling their rabid Muslim adversaries given we will face the same in generations to come. I might have my own crimespot blindness to championing my own survival over others, moral or not.
#165 Your comment in #93 appears to make a case for the moral superiority of the state of Israel:
#93 Its a famous saying now, do you disagree with it: “If the Palestinians laid down their weapons today, there would be peace tomorrow. If the Israeli’s laid down their weapons today, they would be gone by tomorrow.” or somtin’ like dat.
Was this not what you were doing? Sure looks like a description of peace-loving Israelis and war-loving Palestinians.
I think simply by Murphy’s Law, if the P’s keep struggling as they have, eventually, one day, the I’s will kill them all. That is the Tiger by the Tail the P’s have. Just as such action may remove USA’s support because of the reasons that bear.
If the I’s do indeed somehow ethnically cleanse and kill enough P’s, they might win the war but will in the process lose their souls, becoming just like the Nazis who they struggled against.
Personally, I think the war will be won demographically by the P’s, after a few more decades of bloodshed.
#166 Nice little social experiments possible there. We have a lot we could learn from the Jews controlling their rabid Muslim adversaries given we will face the same in generations to come. I might have my own crimespot blindness to championing my own survival over others, moral or not.
How about the rabid Jews building settlements in Palestinian territory because “god gave us this land”? Funny how you only mention the rabid people on one side. Almost looks kind of biased.
As far as a solution… I don’t really think there is one. I think they will kill each other until the Palestinians become a majority in Israel, then it will cease to become Israel, then they will flip sides and the Jews will become the terrorist minority, and they will continue killing each other into the indeterminate future.
The only hope I see is if the children growing up at some point reject the warlike and bloody religions of their parents. On both sides.
Phydeau–your interpretation is reasonable. WRONG but reasonable. That statement to me means just what I keep saying. Land is kept by force of arms. If the I’s give up their arms/their force, they will be killed by the P’s. No morality–just reality.
I agree with your war by demography conclusion, but not believing in souls, and firmly believing in the drive to self preservation==yea, there is trouble coming. It could easily go the other way==simple ejection of all Muslims from Israel under a National Security impulse all to let them starve to death in some gaza death camp. Thats why I’m interested in what Brian may have to say on that.
Big difference in using such apartheid methods when your own existence is not at issue versus when it really is? Very Darwinian: survival of those who will to survive?
I should have added to above that I also feel sorry for the Jews. Wouldn’t wish their history, past present and future onto anyone. How they maintain their minimum response in face of the provocation is beyond me. One day, I think they are going to break down and start giving back a little more Christian eye or an eye.
Define Rabid: permitting only your own religion and killing others because they are not of your religion–ie==muslims when they have the balance of force to do so.
Saudi Arabia==no non Muslim places of worship allowed by law.===rabid. If they didn’t have oil, they would be a pariah state, just as they will be when the oil runs out.
Rabid: demanding peace when offering only death.
#169 Yes, the Israelis could do the ethnic cleansing/genocide thing. And as I said, they’d be losing their souls if they did to another group exactly what was done to them, that drove them to form their own country. The bitterest of irony. If that’s the only way that they can ensure the survival of their country, then it’s a country that’s not worth preserving.
Re “rabid”: I think doing things that make other people suffer solely because “God told us to” fills that definition too. Because if you’re God’s chosen people, then you can do anything you want to anyone who isn’t. We’ve seen plenty of that throughout history.
I used to think that a solution was to carve a Jewish homeland out of Germany. But after reading #39, maybe a solution is to carve a Palest….
Re: Gaza blockade. Good interview of Kevin Neish today at rabble.ca –or click my handle.
Brainoflondon,
Thanks for that post. A historical viewpoint on dhimmi I had not considered in this context. Very well thought out and presented. Thanks!
Bobbo, also a very good post. Completely thought out and rational. My great complements to you that this is no surprise.
You’re absolutely right that war is WAR! No rational people start a war they don’t believe they can win.
Ergo, the Gazans either are not rational, or they believe they can win. I think they believe they can win, because Israel constantly pulls it’s punches and Hamas (probably rightly so) believes that Israel will eventually so enrage the Arab community that the Arab community will have no choice but to take another military action.
Hence the “Humanitarian Aid Flotilla”.
It’s so simple that even Phydeau might understand. Send a flotilla, get it boarded, hopefully have a death or two, repeat. (Expect a convoy next, then an airdrop, etc.) Keep hammering at Israel until the Arab states HAVE to do something. Not to mention the Arab population within Israel.
And time is with Hamas, unless Israel acts swiftly and quickly.
To elaborate: I don’t know that much about Judaism. Would that religion accept the massive killing and displacement of non-Jews to preserve a Jewish state? If so, how can anyone support such a religion? If not, how can the Israelis call themselves observant Jews?
If Judaism accepts this, it becomes a killing religion, just like they accuse Islam of being. Another bitter irony.
A successful religion’s primary purpose is to propagate itself, thru any means necessary. Enlightenment of its followers is only secondary.
Oh Lord, save me from your followers!
#173 So Ah_Yea, you’re on board with Israeli genocide and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, I see. How nice for you.
Wingnuts have always had a problem understanding irony.
*rolls eyes*
Phydeau–I think your are confusing human emotions regarding religion with human emotions regarding patriotism and jingoism with the human genetic inheritance of wanting to keep alive no matter what. Sometimes these things can be in conflict. What predominates wins?
I recall another expression about war: its not about who is right or wrong but rather whats left. Again, a non moral analysis.
I also don’t know much about Judaism although I have often said if I HAD TO pick a religion, it would be jewish. Not because of their stupid food rules, snappy clothing, and phlegm clearing mellifluous language but because they seem a group among the few religions that actually acts as they profess to believe AND they don’t evangelicalism their religion. In view of all their persecution, when allowed to do so, they leave other people alone happy to live their lives separate from non-Jews. I don’t know how they are within their own tribe with non-believing jews but seems like they are tolerant?–No honor killings (eg==Rabid!) and women treated well if not the men are treated poorly? (joke!==but I don’t know how true it is?)
Well the fun thing about being moral, or having a soul==you have to be alive to feel guilt. When push comes to shove, its normally everything else subservient to the will to survive. Justifications to follow.
Yes, Phydeau. I didn’t expect you to understand, and you didn’t disappoint.
The unhinged left, of which apparently you belong, seems to believe that it’s better to stand in front of a tank and let it run you and your family instead of defending yourself.
How convenient. But then again, it’s easy to criticize others for defending themselves.
But of course, we went over this already. See #73. (How about getting caught up on the conversation before jumping in?)
So, what exactly is this “moral high ground”, and just exactly how does Israel cede this “thing..” to the Palestinians if they are trying to keep themselves from death?
Be specific. Get informed read post #39, then read the followups. So how is Israel ceding the “moral thingy you talk about”?
Or, if you can do no better than amodedoma, do us a favor and follow post #127.
Ah_Yea, what part of “slaughtering the people trying to slaughter us makes us no better than them” don’t you understand?
I don’t think a country like Israel based on a religion is sustainable. Doesn’t matter how pure the motives are in the beginning, if you end up needing to ethnic cleanse and/or genocide the people opposing you, it’s wrong.
As you point out in #74, it really sucks to be Jewish in a world filled with antisemitism, and I sympathize with their plight. But to commit the same crimes against humanity that were committed against them? We put the people on trial who did it to them.
Seriously, does being a victim of genocide in the past give you the right to commit genocide yourself?
I’m right back to puking again.
Wow, is this your response to a definition of morality?
I have noticed that all the unhinged left on this post constantly refer or allude to this “moral high ground” yet are entirely unable to state just what is it.
As far as I can tell, it’s an excuse to stop thinking. It’s going from reason to dogma, and then laying back and saying “so there!”
For example, your position is laughingly wrong for incredibly obvious reasons.
How can you have the gall to equate the holocaust, which was a true genocide, to the current situation, which is a declared WAR with the stated intent of another Holocaust against the Jews?
Let’s see is you can get past your particular version of moral relativism and answer these questions.
YES or NO:
Did the Jews declare war on Germany?
Did the Jews specifically state their intention to destroy Germany and all within?
Has Hamas and Gaza declared war on Israel?
Has Hamas and Gaza declared their intention on destroying Israel and all within?
How about when the US bombed Germany or Japan? Entire cities full of innocents were killed. Was that right?
If not, then why not?
And please, PLEASE, stop you insipid moral relativism and actually answer these questions.
#178–Phydeau==you really are making a couple of gross logic errors in your posting. Hope that doesn’t make me Pro-Israel?
You say:
Ah_Yea, what part of “slaughtering the people trying to slaughter us makes us no better than them” don’t you understand? /// Defending oneself is entirely different than initiating an attack?
I don’t think a country like Israel based on a religion is sustainable. /// How “based on a religion” is Israel? Is the Vatican Catholic? The USA Protestant? All the Arab Countries Muslim? Japan Shinto. and on and on. Why not say Israel can’t exist because it is based on forming new intellectual property companies? Trying to hang a country with all the complex things going on pursuant to a single label is retarded.
Doesn’t matter how pure the motives are in the beginning, if you end up needing to ethnic cleanse and/or genocide the people opposing you, it’s wrong. /// Ethincally cleanse because they are ethnic is one issue. Cleansing a people because they are your sworn enemy is completely different. Its like saying illegal immigration in the USA is a racist program because the illegals are Mexican.
As you point out in #74, it really sucks to be Jewish in a world filled with antisemitism, and I sympathize with their plight. But to commit the same crimes against humanity that were committed against them? /// Not the same crime. Lots of people getting killed is not the same crime. You have identified some “similarities” between two situations but you really gotta look at the differences too.
We put the people on trial who did it to them. /// Correct because it was unjustified and racially motivated.
Seriously, does being a victim of genocide in the past give you the right to commit genocide yourself? /// Of course not, not even when you falsely apply that analogy.
Big Fail–an amodedoma fail. Hard to stop the up chuck.
#179 You typed a lot of words there but not much
Let’s try some basic cause and effect reasoning here, sport.
There would be no Palestinians clamoring for the death of Israel if the Jews hadn’t created Israel over the objections of the Palestinians in the first place. Got that?
Any war the Israelis are facing, they have brought on themselves. So spare me the BS over the Israelis whining about the mean old Palestinians trying to hurt them. It’s all about power. The Jews seized the place from the Palestinians, and the Palestinians are trying to get it back. What part of that don’t you understand? Neither size is more moral than the other. It’s a power struggle. Both sides will try to rally world opinion to their side by painting themselves as the victims. You seem to be buying the Israeli line more than the Palestinian line.
There’s plenty of fault to go around, on both sides. But you have to admit that the Jews started it by forming the country in the first place. We’ll see who has the last word.
But my point about ethnic cleansing is about Israel’s demographic problem: Muslims are breeding faster than Jews in Israel, and if the Jews don’t want to be outnumbered in their own country in a few years, they will have to do some ETHNIC CLEANSING, i.e. driving out the Muslims from Israel. Much like Jews have been driven out of countries all over the world. Are you OK with that? Do you not see the irony? Wipe that puke off your face and try to think!
#178, so you think Israel should just sit back and let Palestinians lob missiles and import parts to build more missiles.
“I don’t think a country like Israel based on a religion is sustainable.”
Israel is not based on religion; it has a secular government. Its society has Christians, Arabs, and Jews and that includes the halls of its Parliament. It’s a Western Democracy in the mists of dictatorships and monarchies, all of who wish to kill them.
The Palestinians are the ones who want a religious government based on Sharia law. They wish to kill or enslave all of Israel. That cannot be allowed.
The purpose of government is too preserve the freedoms of its citizens against foreign aggression and to preserve the freedoms of its citizens against each other. The rule of law takes care of the later, but a strong defense is needed for the former. Every government in the world does this.
The Israelis have a right to defend themselves. The right of self defense is absolute as long as there is an enemy trying to kill them.
Phydeau, proving the unhinged left is alive and well.
Wow, you are truly uninformed, and apparently like it that way.
You are also Wrong, WRONG, WRONG!!
Obviously, you still didn’t actually read the posts. Everything you said was already answered. Start with #6 and go from there.
Please, PLEASE stop wasting our time!!! If you want to play with us adults, at least read what has already been posted.
And by the way, we have all noticed you didn’t answer any of my questions.
Of course, that is expected.
#180 bobbo, you either knowingly or unknowingly are taking the 100% Israeli line here.
Ah_Yea, what part of “slaughtering the people trying to slaughter us makes us no better than them” don’t you understand? /// Defending oneself is entirely different than initiating an attack?
Uh, dude, ask the Palestinians and they’ll say the Jews initiated the attack by creating the state of Israel over their objections, and they’re just fighting back. Try to back off and see something other than the Israeli perspective.
Doesn’t matter how pure the motives are in the beginning, if you end up needing to ethnic cleanse and/or genocide the people opposing you, it’s wrong. /// Ethincally cleanse because they are ethnic is one issue. Cleansing a people because they are your sworn enemy is completely different.
And why are the Israelis the sworn enemies of the Palestinians? Was it something the Palestinians started? No, the Jews came in and created their country over the objections of the Palestinians. Not so different, pal. And in order to keep their Jewish country Jewish in the future, the Israelis will somehow have to get rid of the non-Jews. They’ll have to cleanse their country of the people who are not ethnic Jews. Sounds like ethnic cleansing to me!
I don’t think a country like Israel based on a religion is sustainable. /// How “based on a religion” is Israel?
Please. Spare me. Don’t even try, you’ll look ridiculous.