The United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict will issue a report today accusing Israel of “actions amounting to war crimes, possibly crimes against humanity” during its military incursion into Gaza from December 27 to January 18. The mission headed by respected South African judge Richard Goldstone is a major development in the controversy and could put the United States in a very difficult position.
The 400-page report was written without the cooperation of Israel, which insisted that the body should have considered “the thousands of Hamas missiles attacks on civilians in southern Israel that made the Gaza Operation necessary.” There is no question that those acts are crimes themselves and are relevant to any reviewing of the cause or justification for the invasion. However, this investigation focused on how the invasion was carried out — a separate issue.
Goldstone, who is Jewish, has previously indicated that the group found clear evidence of violations of international law in the invasion.
The UN found that Israel failed to minimize casualties, used white phosphorous in civilian areas, intentionally fired upon hospitals using high-explosive artillery shells, and did not effectively warn civilians of attacks. It also accused some Israeli soldiers of using civilians as human shields and attacking food supplies for civilians.
The mission does call on the Palestinians to investigate war crimes by their side and to release soldier Gilad Shalit.
In the most worrisome part for Israel, the mission calls for an investigation by the International Criminal Court for possible war crimes prosecutions. Goldstone previously denounced Hamas for war crimes.
If Israel defies such an investigation, it would be in the same position as Serbia and other rogue nations. This could further isolate the country at a time when it has allowed the controversial “natural growth” of settlements in occupied areas.
With the hardline government of Binyamin Netanyahu, there will be a considerable effort to oppose any war crimes prosecution and he will likely look to the United States to help block that effort. The government has already denounced the findings as “propaganda,” here. After dismissing the Obama Administration’s demands for a halt to the settlement construction, it will be an awkward moment for Netanyahu to demand the U.S. use its power to stop an investigation. However, there will be many in Congress who will likely assist in that effort.
Of course, Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder are already limiting any domestic investigation into war crimes committed by our government in its torture program.
For the story, click here.
Bob,
Slipped in another one while I was writing. You just crank these missives out. In truth you are seeming somewhat hysterical in your latest production and you are even less capable of actually engaging in a back and forth. No axe to grind Bob?
ps: the was one too many “solution is the only answer” in my last post.
“No Mike, I said you probably weren’t conscious of what you were writing (implicit in the thought being that you’re as accustomed to arguing this topic as you are driving a car).”
An insult by any other name is still an insult. A blatant rationalization of an insult by any other term is still a blatant rationalization.
“And if you were wise and wanted to stop putting your foot in your proverbial mouth, you’d stop with the anti-philosophy rants; because with this last round of yours didn’t need my commentary to show how dumb they were.”
Bob, I’m every bit as erudite as you are and I think Philosophy as provided by its’ “Great Minds” like Kant, is the production of people with an overblown sense of their own self importance and a minimal impact, except as justification, or in retrospect by people trying to excuse their actions. Your constant hawking yourself as a devotee of Kant strikes me as both superficial and silly. I think for you morality is an intellectual exercise that allows you to
keep your emotions at bay. To me morality is visceral and as a follower of Gestalt Philosophy, I trust my gut and feel that
people tend to use overblown intellectual bullshit to escape their true feelings.
“Mike, I offered the Nuremberg simile as a part metaphor and premise to a larger argument. Did you follow the metaphor or the argument? No. Instead you chose to misrepresent a premise in my argument by changing my simile to inject your own meaning into it via a whimsical aside as to how you find the Nuremberg trials an exercise in hypocrisy.”
Bob, come off it you offered the Nuremberg Trial as a debate gambit, wrongly seeing in me that I would give what you think is the generic Jewish response. It was used to find another way to trap me into admitting what you see as my immoral support of Israel. There was nothing whimsical about my reply, that is what I truly believe and it’s really too damn bad that you haven’t given any thought in your life to my points about them, because they really were a hypocritical travesty.
Mike,
Is it your contention that I must continually re-argue points which you already assented to?
You’re a funny guy.
Mike S.: “You are so convinced of your infallibility and morality that you just dash these missive off willy-nilly. Again bob, what proof have you offered besides yours and Jimmy Carter’s opinion. This is the essence of your dishonesty…”
Stop right there. Did I miss something?
Bob: “And speaking of ‘other countries,’ how many other countries besides South Africa, have been accused by an ex-president of carrying out policies of apartheid?”
Mike S: “I’m not a fan of Jimmy Carter’s, but for reasons other than Israel. What he pointed out is valid and it is why consistently on this site I have stated that the answer to this problem is for Israel to vacate the West Bank, remove all of the Israeli settlers there and provide a slim connecting corridor between that and Gaza. for Israel to continue with its’ occupation would create an apartheid situation and not only do I find that morally intolerable as a Jew, but politically not viable as a supporter of Israel remaining a Jewish State. I would think that is not quite the defense of Israel you expected from me, but if that is the case you haven’t really been reading my ongoing comments on the issue. Nevertheless, I anticipate I have to fully lay out my position here, or my beliefs will be misread, and/or open to further dissection.”
Come again Mike?
To edit:
“I’ve given evidence to support my claims, you’ve simply restated yours”
Bob,
To reiterate, just because one says something doesn’t make it so. He was rejecting a term, not commenting on the people it applied to. No matter how much you try to make it otherwise. I’ve given proof that supports my claim, you’ve simply reiterated yours.
Please explain how you can accuse someone of dismissing a people that he went into great detail about their suffering and history.
As an aside, please don’t try and play word games with me, you may be more verbose, but don’t take that to mean I’m less aware of what words both denote and connote. You’re correct in saying that you didn’t say he judged the people. You implied it. Being dismissive of a people by it’s very nature involves judging them as “not worth it,” whatever “it” may be. I could bring out the dictionary to prove my point, but I’m sure you’re able to look up words as well as I can.
“Mike S.: “Just what proof have you offered as to Israel’s “apartheid” policies.”
And your earlier comment about agreeing with Carter was about what?
Why not scream “do-over” while you’re at it?”
Bob,
You are so convinced of your infallibility and morality that you just dash these missive off willy-nilly. Again bob, what proof have you offered besides yours and Jimmy Carter’s opinion. This is the essence of your dishonesty and I am at a loss to deal with it, simply because I do not represent an
immovable position, can admit when Israel is wrong and you represent a smug confidence in your moral stance. You therefore feel free to take complex issues and run them through your Kant machine to come out as moral certainties. Would that the world really ran like that.
“Like I said Mike, I had three fucking points and no god damned axe to grind.”
Bob you are full of shit and this quote from you early on proves it:
“AND, this one is truly my pet peeve, how many other countries bombed the infrastructure of an entire country on the basis of the alleged detainment of two soldiers?”
Sounds like an axe grinding to me. Also is a moral judgment that is based on your determination of moral equivalencies.
The soldiers were detained, not alleged and there is a long history of Israeli soldiers being tortured and beheaded. Besides that there were other constant attacks being made. Somehow though, to you and the rest of the world blowing up thirty people here, forty there and twenty another place has little weight and for Israel to reply they must not reply too much. How is that judged in Kantian terms, Bob. What is the adequate response to thirty killed and a hundred wounded at a marketplace or restaurant. How easy it is to sit in moral judgment, smug and self satisfied.
No also referring to axes to grind is this statement on its’ face:
“Mike, I chose to have an argument with you.”
Also this one which I heartily endorse:
“First, I’m not a trial attorney.”
A smart career choice judging by your argument style.
Bob, why don’t we end this by cutting to the chase so that everyone understands the real basis of the argument which I believe is unspoken. Do you believe that Israel has the right to exist as an independent Jewish State and that a two State solution and return to the 1967 borders is the best way to do it?
solution is the only answer
Sorry, badaman, but your information is bogus, again.
There was no denial of the motion to dismiss.
There was just a modification of the docket.
Birfer Charlton is leaping to conclusions.
This is all over the bither web already. Take a look at
http://www.politijab.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1899&start=3275
Mike S.: “Finally, you are once again projecting your own foibles on to me claiming I wrote that without much thought at all.”
No Mike, I said you probably weren’t conscious of what you were writing (implicit in the thought being that you’re as accustomed to arguing this topic as you are driving a car).
Get over it.
Furthermore, if you want to retain an ounce of integrity by accusing me of insulting you all the time, then you should refrain from doing the same. Otherwise, you’re wasting bandwith.
Finally, if you’re looking for a psych work-up on why I react the way I do, you may find some insight in the Myers-Briggs descriptions of INTP’s and INTJ’s. I think there’s something in there about INTP’s being very affable people until someone steps on a PRINCIPLE.
An exposed weak side? Hardly.
Hate to break up your discussion
Judge Carter Denies Motion to Dismiss, in Barnett vs. Obama!
October 7, 2009 by John Charlton
COURT ORDER FINALIZES SCHEDULE FOR TRIAL!
by John Charlton
(Oct. 7, 2009) — Today was published the Court order resulting from the Oct. 5th hearing in Barnett vs. Obama, issued by federal judge, David O. Carter, in the Southern Division of California.
The order, reads as follows:
On September 8, 2009, the Court previously set tentative case management dates. The Court now orders those dates be made final.
Case Management dates are as follows:
Motion for Summary Judgment Hearing — December 7, 2009, at 8:30 a.m.
File Motion for Summary Judgment — November 16, 2009
Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment — November 26, 2009
Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment — November 30, 2009
Final Pretrial Conference — January 11, 2010, at 8:30 a.m.
Jury Trial — January 26, 2010, at 8:30 a.m.
The implication of the Court’s order finalizing the dates is obvious: you do not finalize dates unless there will be a trial. And there would not be a trial, unless the Motion to Dismiss requested by the Defense was in whole or in part DENIED!
http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/
Mike S.: “Just what proof have you offered as to Israel’s “apartheid” policies.”
And your earlier comment about agreeing with Carter was about what?
Why not scream “do-over” while you’re at it?
Mike S: “Where is your substantiation for the belief that critiques of Israel have been “taboo” for non-Jews? Who made that topic taboo?”
Why do you feel the need to take a personal observation of mine and represent it as if it were part of an argument?
Mike S.: “Bob, you asked me for an explanation of my position and I gave it. It is obvious that you either haven’t read what I’ve been posting about Israel for a long time, or just forgot it. This is important because rather than argue with me you argue with your generic straw man.”
You’ll have to excuse me for not keeping up with and memorizing your posts here; I had no idea it was a condition precedent to having a discussion on this topic. Shall I refer you to my previous discussions on morality so you can research them as well? Considering how much you’ve obliged me to be familiar with your earlier posts with other people, are we limited to just this website? And just because I haven’t read your earlier posts, or that you allege I’m not reading your arguments here, it doesn’t follow that I’ve been misrepresenting your position. Your position has been far from clear and I’ve been pointing to your inability to reconcile your arguments. Further, you yourself said you’d need to write a book to make your position clear. Maybe if you ceased arguing with me as if I were arguing against the right of Israel to be a state we’d get somewhere.
Mike S.: “Not only is your characterization of me in your original sentence above a false reading of my beliefs, but the second accusation of intellectual dishonesty is again your projection of your own argument patterns on to me.”
Mike, I offered the Nuremberg simile as a part metaphor and premise to a larger argument. Did you follow the metaphor or the argument? No. Instead you chose to misrepresent a premise in my argument by changing my simile to inject your own meaning into it via a whimsical aside as to how you find the Nuremberg trials an exercise in hypocrisy.
What’s that fallacy called Mike?
Mike S.: “The simple human beings are the people with consciences Bob, it is the self proclaimed moral men who use their philosophical cant as persiflage to justify themselves and in the process falsely imagine themselves as being in on truth no one else has. By the way I understand there are a number of Kant Secret Decoder Rings on sale now on E Bay. Just what a philosopher-phillic person needs to feel superior to his fellow man, the great unwashed who never bathed in the spiritually cleansing intellectual waters of the Great Man. In the alternative Philosophy = fundamentalism for the non-religious.”
Would you like a Kleen-ex?
Mike S.: “Examine yourself Bob and your own behavior in this discourse. For those already bored by this long interchange I ivite you to read through the many posts and draw your own conclusions. I for one am tired of being dealt with in a patronizing, dismissive and ultimately intellectually dishonest manner.”
Oh, I did examine myself; thus my reluctance to post for a few days here. I’ve had three points; that’s it. And you’ve assented to nearly all of them. Yet I’m still trying to clarify why you keep coming back at me as if you were arguing with someone who doesn’t think Israel has a right to exist. Your posts are rife with that form of subtext; yet you accuse me of not reading what you write and projecting…
Like I said Mike, I had three fucking points and no god damned axe to grind.
You want to brag about your self-honesty? Take another look. I’m arguing three points and you’re arguing with me as if the state of Israel lay in the balance.
And if you were wise and wanted to stop putting your foot in your proverbial mouth, you’d stop with the anti-philosophy rants; because with this last round of yours didn’t need my commentary to show how dumb they were.
everytime during those days
“Instead of talking about people suffering under apartheid policies hidden from the world in the penumbras of holocaust slack, we’re just chatting about the byproducts of a ‘PR stunt.’”
Bob,
Just what proof have you offered as to Israel’s “apartheid” policies. None actually except for your own opinion, but after all you’re a Kantian and so your opinion is ipso facto logical and moral. Secondly, as usual with you and I too am quite familiar with your “debate” methods, you only want the debate to be on your terms and you ignore or develop blind-spots when people don’t go along with you.
“Instead of talking about people suffering under apartheid policies hidden from the world in the penumbras of holocaust slack, we’re just chatting about the byproducts of a ‘PR stunt.’”
I can’t tell you how gratified I am to see that I’m not the only one that you use the “ignoring game” with. I thank Gyges for his providing a partial list of my quotes condemning the treatment of the proto-Palestinians, but in your response to him you totally ignore those quotes and return to the same assertions. I’m not there quite yet, but I’m beginning to have the suspicion that the real problem here is that Bob, like GW Bush, simply can’t see or admit when he is wrong. Since you have felt free to question my morality and also accuse me of self-deception, I claim the same right of critique for myself and in my judgment you are exposing a side of yourself that is highly insecure emotionally and therefore must always be right.
“I honestly think Mike tossed in that ‘footnote’ as you call it without much conscious thought at all.”
Another insult Bob, you really seem to be beginning to lose it and that gives me no pleasure. Since you have Kant and his logic I guess words only mean to you what you choose them to mean, morally of course.
Words do mean a lot to me because they have been used through the centuries to disparage Jews and denigrate them. To wit”
Old Testament = Christianity replacing Jews in God’s favor.
Semitic = A racially inferior group of people.
Palestinian = A meaningless term coined by Romans to take the Jew out of Israel. Later redeveloped by the Saudi’s to de-legitimize any Israeli claim to the land and to pretend that there ever was a Palestinian people.
When people such as yourself use these terms ignorant of their meanings I correct them and have always done so. That is not an irrelevant action considering your arguments and you ridiculing my fears about anti-Jewish feeling again arising in the US.
Finally, you are once again projecting your own foibles on to me claiming I wrote that without much thought at all. Bob that is you dashing off you missives without bothering to look back to check the accuracy of your statements. My last post addressed at you took 2 1/2 hours to write because I pondered every word and kept referring back to this entire dialogue. Looking incidentally to see where I might have been wrong. You see Bob, I’m not Kant powered and so I do recognize my possible fallibility, it seems that with you not so much. Gee whiz, I wish that when I grow up I can be the example of moral rectitude that you are in your own smug estimation.
Gyges: “Just because you say it’s something doesn’t make it that way. Personally, knowing Mike and his writing style, I’d say it serves the purpose of a footnote.”
And I, also familiar with Mike and his writing style, respectfully disagree. That footnote poisons the well as to how the reader perceives the group of people under discussion. Instead of talking about people suffering under apartheid policies hidden from the world in the penumbras of holocaust slack, we’re just chatting about the byproducts of a ‘PR stunt.’
Furthermore, you’re confusing me with the poster who’s been continually falling back on the ‘my reasoning is sound because I say so no matter what you think’ fallacy.
Gyges: “It’s pretty clear from the context of the conversation Mike’s rejecting the term “Palestinian people” and not passing judgment on the treatment of those people in question.”
I never said he passed judgment, I said he used connotatively dismissive language to describe them. Passing judgment is a conscious action; I honestly think Mike tossed in that ‘footnote’ as you call it without much conscious thought at all. A stock aside thrown around during his usual discussions on this topic if you will.
Gyges: “Read that post, after that brief aside that you find so objectionable, he goes into length discussing the history of the people in question, and using language that decries their treatment. If you want his actually thoughts the treatment of the people, all you have to do is stop ignoring all but a portion of his responses and other comments he’s made”
I’ve not only read them and re-read them, but I’ve also commented on his inability to reconcile his positions:
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/09/29/u-n-report-israel-committed-war-crimes-in-gaza/#comment-83936
If you’re looking for more intersubjective validation of my point, (i.e. who else saw the elephant in the living room) look at what Buddha had to say.
“This reminds me of a time when we were discussing the rights and responsibilities of nations. I forget the exact context – it wasn’t argument fatal – and we were quibbling on a point. But I recall you saying that your thinking on that particular point was colored by your (I think the wording was) “tribal relation”. Since it was not fatal to the argument and a certain amount of tribalism is (I think) wired in with the Savannah survival skill set in our genes, I didn’t begrudge or push the point as error but rather took it as a simple fact of human nature. I’m proud to be Irish (mostly) and will be until I become something else. I don’t expect you to feel any different about your tribe. That’s unrealistic.
However, I suggest in this instance that Bob may have a point.
“In a de-nationalized, non-denominational analysis of the actions of one party against another, there is a fair case for war crimes against Israel.”
Buddha, who is to make that determination between two entities warring for all these years? What are the equivalencies between rocket attacks, suicide bombings and one side declaring perpetual war on another and reactions (over reactions?) made by that side? Is it to be the UN, which has a majority of Muslim States? Is it the major powers of the G20 who are economically tied to mid East oil? There is no de-nationalized, non-denominational determination to be made. There is ultimately only a settlement to be made, or not made.
“Their behavior goes beyond anything that can be blamed on a few bad actors. It’s systemic and rapidly becoming (if not already) chronic. You have no issue at rising above your sense of nationalism as an American to say that you think the US is guilty of war crimes using an a priori framework. I’ve seen you do it. The problems in the US have systemic roots too. In this instance it does indeed make it appear that you have taken your hand off your ethical rudder when it comes to looking at the actions of Israel.”
Seriously Buddha, on what do you base this judgment of “their” behavior, especially in light of the amount of money and oil on one side of the equation? I know you don’t believe every bit of news you get, or the sources of same, So how are you so convinced in this climate that you know what is really going on?
I can judge the US actions because I’m a citizen and I’m here and I see the information. I’ve never been to Israel and probably will never go, unless the shit hits the fan. Frankly I could never afford it. My children have spent extensive time there as have my grandchildren. They are as moderate as I am regarding Israel, but because they speak Hebrew they’ve got a good sense of the feeling there. The people are tired, most want a settlement and yet like every other place in the world there are fundamentalist crazies and right wing true believers.
“Rename all the parties and religions involved and tell me it doesn’t paint an ugly picture. Just as ugly as Gitmo. Yet you seem distracted(?) from your faculties in making that equivalent abstraction of the patterns of behaviors that I know you are capable of from discussion about torture. Could part of that distraction may be the tribal relationship itself? Is it not true in therapy that self-diagnosis frowned upon because the doctor is simply too close to the patient to be objective? Could there be a root of denial holding you back? Bias is only correctable if one first recognizes it but one cannot recognize it if one does not question apparent inconsistencies. Bias is not always a club that hits you on the head. It can be insidious. It can even be inadvertent and/or subconscious.” Most importantly, it can be corrected. Bare logic can be a skeletal creature, but it runs better lean. I’m not saying anything more than maybe it’s something to think about.”
My cup runneth over with people so concerned with my psyche that they want me to re-examine myself to dissect my tribal prejudice, from my better reasoned half. It really is insulting Buddha, that you are so certain of the correctness of your position that you question mine as to what in effect is an aberration. Buddha, I hate to say this, but you and Bob force me into it so despite the bragging entailed I must. There are few people I’ve met in this life who have had the intellectual honesty to self examine every premise they hold as I do. I’m someone who really listens to counter arguments and who honestly examines if I’m wrong and they have merit. I think my time here has shown this.
In the end it really comes down to this and that is that I believe that Israel has won the right to have a Jewish State. That its’ standing is as legal (whatever that means) as that of any other Nation. I also believe that due to the years of hostility and fighting they have encountered, the people, always by a close margin, have chosen some disastrous leadership. By the same token I believe these hostilities have been extended by the Saudi’s primarily and that the US has acted as a Saudi agent thus far. I believe in a two state solution and I believe all settlements on the West Bank by Israeli’s should be vacated, with force if necessary, to enable this solution. However, for their part Hamas, Fatah, etc, must accept Israel’s legitimacy and stop their terrorist attacks.
Now you and Bob may think this is wrong, or disagree with any part of it you choose and that is you right. Your doing so would not be deemed by me to be anti-Jewish, because I believe neither of you are bigots. I know, however, that if that was your belief I wouldn’t argue it by claiming you have an irrational attachment to calling out Israel for war crimes. I respect each of you too much for that. Apparently, that respect is not mutual.
Bob,
Just because you say it’s something doesn’t make it that way. Personally, knowing Mike and his writing style, I’d say it serves the purpose of a footnote. It’s tangential to the discussion in general, but important enough to Mike that he felt it needed clarification. As other examples of this sort of behavior I point to his frequent explanations of his rejection of the terms “Semitic” and “Old Testament,” there are other examples I’m sure, but I don’t really feel the need to scan every one of his posts for examples.
It’s pretty clear from the context of the conversation Mike’s rejecting the term “Palestinian people” and not passing judgment on the treatment of those people in question. Read that post, after that brief aside that you find so objectionable, he goes into length discussing the history of the people in question, and using language that decries their treatment.
If you want his actually thoughts the treatment of the people, all you have to do is stop ignoring all but a portion of his responses and other comments he’s made (These do include statements about their treatment by countries other than Israel):
“I support Israel and yet I have no doubt that they have done some very bad things in Gaza.”
“Israel has earned its’ being targeted for opprobrium,”
“I would consider you being on target exactly, rather than off base, if you think differently then you are misreading me. One of the great problems the Israeli’s have is that they react the same way that your sister does and I give them no credit for it and believe it actually exascerbates their problems.”
“for Israel to continue with its’ occupation would create an apartheid situation and not only do I find that morally intolerable as a Jew,”
“have the proto-Palestinians been screwed royally for all these years and deserve sympathy? Absolutely”
“They thus were treated horribly for years and confined to in effect Concentration Camps.”
“Sorry about the delay, but your last post on this topic contained enough ipse dixet to give me pause.”
You dismiss what I have to say by terming much unspecified argument as being without substantiation. It is easy to cast aspersions, as you are doing, without pointing specifically to that which arguments you are referring to.
“While I enjoyed arguing a topic that’s considered taboo for non-Jews, I even had one person warn me of being accused of being a ‘Jew-hater’ for what I wrote,”
Where is your substantiation for the belief that critiques of Israel have been “taboo” for non-Jews? Who made that topic taboo? I know that is your underlying premise, but where is your substantiation, considering that criticism of Israel by non-Jews has been more than a cottage industry for many years, without any harm to those criticizing. I can give you literally thousands of examples of this, but I’m sure you can easily Google them there are over 13 million entries right now.
Now do certain Israeli defenders use this tactic, of course they do. However, Bob you are arguing with me and not AIPAC, which I’ve denounced. I have stated before that you seem to be arguing with someone other than me and that is unproductive and disrespectful. Part of the reason I don’t like to get drawn into this is because I’ve found that even regulars, who purportedly have read my writings, have confused me with what to them is generic Jewish opinion (an oxymoron if ever there was one) and I am forced to continually restate positions I’ve already made clear, to differentiate myself from the “generic Jew” mindset.
“I made two of my points directly and the third (Lebanon) implicitly. So what was left to argue?”
Ipse dixet goes both ways. Your first two points represented your unsubstantiated opinion and surmises. Your third point assumed that Lebanon was a “War Crime” because many people say it is, without an explanation of why that was so. In truth you accuse me of what you yourself are guilty of. You give an anecdote about your sister (who knows if it is true and your like/dislike of the woman?) and extend it to Israel in the sense that many defenders of Israel use their continued state of war with the PLO as a justification for all of Israel’s actions.
I agreed with that premise, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t historical precedents and continued hostility that explain the mindset for this reaction on the part of some Jews (All of us and the Israeli’s specifically I must remind you are not monolithic in thought.) and I disagree with the mindset BECAUSE I believe it is a weak argument and that there are better cases to be made. You took that as my totally agreeing with your premises and that is the direct result of reading into my posts that which you expect to be there.
“As I thought about it off and on over the past few days, I kept hearing a recurring theme. Here it is: Mike S.: “Why should I care what the world’s “vernacular” refers to if I think it is wrong and the product of a well funded PR campaign? I may not believe in philosophy Bob, but I do have a strong sense of my own morality and my own ethics and frankly it’s of no moment to me if the “whole world” sees it differently.”
“As a psychologist, I’m sure you’re aware that minimizing the identity and objectifying a group of people, e.g. seeing them as nothing more than the result of a PR stunt, makes it far easier on the conscience to look the other way from said apartheid policies. I could give you examples in history from South Africa to 20th century Europe, but … oh, never mind.”
First of all as I have made clear often I’m an Institute-Trained Gestalt Psychotherapist and Social Worker degree wise. Secondly, do you even bother to read what I, not other Jews write? As far as your statement re” objectification to leading to minimization, you again ignored this and many other statements I’ve made regarding my distress at the plight of these people.
“have the proto-Palestinians been screwed royally for all these years and deserve sympathy? Absolutely, but just who screwed them is not as easy as it looks.”
Bob, argue with me, not some Jewish straw man you’ve set up.
“Mike S: “I would think that is not quite the defense of Israel you expected from me, but if that is the case you haven’t really been reading my ongoing comments on the issue. Nevertheless, I anticipate I have to fully lay out my position here, or my beliefs will be misread, and/or open to further dissection.”
That is why I laid out my conception of the background of all of this and needed to correct you on your incorrect usages of Semitic and Palestinian. I was proved correct in this need by your following statements:
“While I appreciate the history lesson, I must inform you that this line of argument leads no where but to an irrelevant dead end per the topic of Israel’s self-perceived moral immaculateness.”
“Whether or not I read your earlier posts bears no relevance to the handling of the terms here.”
Bob, you asked me for an explanation of my position and I gave it. It is obvious that you either haven’t read what I’ve been posting about Israel for a long time, or just forgot it. This is important because rather than argue with me you argue with your generic straw man.
“Mike, as a Kantian, I’m constrained to inform you that true morality is rooted in the non spacio-temporal concept known as principles. Morality, as a general rule, is not a product of His-Story.”
Ipse dixet? Bob, Kant developed his closed system of logic and morality, based on his suppositions of truth. To me that is merely his statement of opinion, unsubstantiated and your belief in his system. Your words could be used in the following manner and I wonder if you would then accept them as paens of truth:
“Mike, as a (Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist Hindu, etc.), I’m constrained to inform you that true morality is rooted in the non spacio-temporal concept known as principles. Morality, as a general rule, is not a product of His-Story.”
Same stuff Bob and actually in almost all cases would fit just as well. Statements of belief do not substantiation make, except it seems for you.
“You’ve already assented to the resolution that Israel has been carrying out apartheid policies towards a group of people the world, ‘not you,’ call Palestinians.’
Bob, you continue to read into my words that which you imagine to be there. My statement:
“I have stated that the answer to this problem is for Israel to vacate the West Bank, remove all of the Israeli settlers there and provide a slim connecting corridor between that and Gaza. for Israel to continue with its’ occupation would create an apartheid situation and not only do I find that morally intolerable as a Jew, but politically not viable as a supporter of Israel remaining a Jewish State.”
The statement “would create an apartheid situation” is not by any stretch of the imagination “carrying out apartheid policies.” You misread me and you misstate what I’m saying”
“You’ve also assented to the resolution that the comparison between my sister’s said behavior and Israel’s.
My response actually was:
“I would consider you being on target exactly, rather than off base, if you think differently then you are misreading me. One of the great problems the Israeli’s have is that they react the same way that your sister does and I give them no credit for it and believe it actually exacerbates their problems. They are a country that has literally constantly been on a war footing for more than 60 years and their citizenry has reacted in a manner commensurate with that. That is why thugs like Begin got elected in the first place and Bibi is in now. They promise “tough” action and a war weary population has voted its’ fears and in my opinion voted badly.”
“Mike, would you consider me ‘off base’ in seeing an incredible similarity between my sister and Israel?”
I answered you honestly, unaware that your real meaning was:
“I must inform you that this line of argument leads no where but to an irrelevant dead end per the topic of Israel’s self-perceived moral immaculateness.”
Your original post was unclear that this was your true point, which considering your later writing is a general attitude that Israel can’t be criticized, which is untrue, unsupportable and easily disproven. How some of Israel’s defenders react to criticism is what is really irrelevant here unless you can provide proof of its’ chilling effect.
“Yet you exhibit an inability to reconcile the foregoing with your beliefs & boilerplate arguments about Israel that normally suit you well.”
I have reconciled them Bob, you just disagree with my reconciliation and beyond that continue to argue with your belief in what I believe, rather than what I’m actually saying.
“(See also your comment on needing to write a book) You appear so emotionally entrenched in your beliefs and stock arguments that the reasoning you offer for reconciling the positions you assented to above leads us to little more than ‘They reconcile because I say so.”
So uh..Bob, tell me how this isn’t patronizing. The writing a book comment was to point out the complexity of this issue and the nuances entailed. As for being “emotionally entrenched” in one’s beliefs I think that in your continued assertion of Kant to back up all your points, you are projecting your own traits upon me.
“Telling yourself that you can reconcile the immoral acts discussed above by sweeping it under the ‘every nation has done it in the past’ and other self-deceptive stances ain’t working so well. And to be brutally honest, breaking up my similes regarding one issue on the basis of an entirely different issue isn’t the peak of intellectual honesty either.”
Not only is your characterization of me in your original sentence above a false reading of my beliefs, but the second accusation of intellectual dishonesty is again your projection of your own argument patterns on to me.
“Above all, don’t lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others.”
A man can do that by using the tenets of a philosophy to justify his arguments. You intentionally insult me and yet you lack the awareness to see those selfsame characteristics in your own discourse.
“Who cares “what the world’s “vernacular” refers to if I think it is wrong and the product of a well funded PR campaign?” The world does Mike. And as long as you stick to stock arguments and anecdotes like the one you use to describe the Palestinians as nothing more than the product of a PR stunt”
Once again Bob you put words into my mouth and credit me with ideas I haven’t expressed.
“the more you move away from your vision of yourself as a moral man and towards a simple human being bereft of conscience; part and parcel of that ‘lying to yourself’ phenomena.”
The simple human beings are the people with consciences Bob, it is the self proclaimed moral men who use their philosophical cant as persiflage to justify themselves and in the process falsely imagine themselves as being in on truth no one else has. By the way I understand there are a number of Kant Secret Decoder Rings on sale now on E Bay. Just what a philosopher-phillic person needs to feel superior to his fellow man, the great unwashed who never bathed in the spiritually cleansing intellectual waters of the Great Man. In the alternative Philosophy = fundamentalism for the non-religious.
“The sad irony here is that your best hope of reconciling your own morality with that of those who rule Israel is to climb up past the clouds to the clearer skies of the apriori principles of a well grounded metaphysics of morals; a path you sadly reject out of hand.”
Gee Bob, I’ve had people sort of say the same thing to me about Jesus and to my mind they were just as smug and self congratulating as you are.
Now once again I’ve answered you point by point, as I’ve done on all my posts on this thread. You have been picking and choosing from my posts that which you deem pertinent and ignoring that which either clarifies or defends my positions.
You have patronized me and you have called me intellectually dishonest. Examine yourself Bob and your own behavior in this discourse. For those already bored by this long interchange I ivite you to read through the many posts and draw your own conclusions. I for one am tired of being dealt with in a patronizing, dismissive and ultimately intellectually dishonest manner.
Gyges,
It all began with this:
Mike S.: “First, there are no “Palestinian” people except for the Israeli’s and never were until 1964 and a brilliant Saudi Arabian, or hired, Public Relations man started calling the people dispossessed by Israel’s war of independence Palestinians. Up until that point the Israeli’s were alternatively called Palestinians all over the world and in the media. THe PR guy was brilliant because by giving this group of displaced Arabs a name, the name being used for the Israeli’s alternatively, it created the ability to make them into a martyred people.”
Instead of engaging the moral issue as to how people should be treated, i.e. Palestinians being included among the group of ALL PEOPLE, Mike offered up an anecdote showing ‘Palestinians’ as distinct from the group of ALL PEOPLE, i.e. a sub-set of people who are merely the by product of a PR Stunt.
That Gyges, is the means-end reasoning. What other possible purpose, Gyges, does this anecdote serve in a discussion regarding the morality behind the treatment of a certain set of people?
I’ve made many remarks regarding this connotatively dismissive anecdote regarding the ‘Palestinians’ such as:
“As a psychologist, I’m sure you’re aware that minimizing the identity and objectifying a group of people, e.g. seeing them as nothing more than the result of a PR stunt, makes it far easier on the conscience to look the other way from said apartheid policies. I could give you examples in history from South Africa to 20th century Europe, but … oh, never mind.”
Bob,
Mike is more than capable of defending himself, but for some reason your Palestinian comment bugged me. I don’t know how you get from “I don’t like the term Palestinian” to “okay with seeing and treating ‘Palestinians’ as a mere means to an end?”
To be fair, you’ve been arguing quite a bit that his refusal to argue on using your choice of terms means that he supports actions he’s rejected from the get go. I don’t know why it was worth commenting on this time and not others, but it was.
Mike S.: “do you think that I haven’t used my brain all these years to have my own thoughts and conceptions of moral issues?”
Categorical Imperative Metaphor:
Little Bill: “I don’t deserve this…to die like this. I was building a house!”
William Munny: “Deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it.”
So, morally speaking, when you say
“Why should I care what the world’s “vernacular” refers to if I think it is wrong and the product of a well funded PR campaign?”
you’re okay with seeing and treating ‘Palestinians’ as a mere means to an end?
Morally speaking, exactly how do you reconcile the maxim you employ in your means-end reasoning with regards to Palestinians as opposed to the other maxims you employ in your every day dealings with human beings?