🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Apr13.054206.5584@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
>   In article <JIME.92Apr13001541@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu> jime@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) writes:
>   # Now that we have pretty much delimited the two poles of the argument,
>   # the true state of affairs must lie somewhere in between.  Both the
>   # Palestinian rock-throwers and the Israeli policy for dealing with the
>   # intifada are responsible for the deaths.
>
>	   Wrong.  The Israeli policy for dealing with the intifada is a
>   result of the activities of the intifada (which includes the stone
>   throwing).  That makes those responsible for the stone throwing
>   responsible for the Israeli response.   One consequence of this is
>   that those Arab parents who are responsible for the stone throwing are
>   responsible for all the deaths (inclduing innocent Arabs, many of
>   which are children) and they therefore should be put on trial for such
>   acts.

This sort of logic leads nowhere.  The intifada is a result of the
Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.  The Israeli
occupation is a result of the 1967 war, started by the Arab powers.
The 1967 war is a result of the 1948 formation of the state of Israel
and the subsequent war.  The 1948 formation of the state of Israel is
a result of Zionist settlements in Palestine, sympathy for the Jewish
people in the wake of the Holocaust and pogroms, and Zionist
terrorism.  This sort of logic leads to infinite historical recursion,
and the result depends on where you stop the recursion.  The intifada
is, like many historical developments, an emergent phenomenon, which
has no single cause, and for which no single blame can be assessed.

The same logic that drives your assignment of 100% of the blame of the
shootings of the Palestinians on the victims would also assign the
blame of the deaths of the Jews in the 1929 riots on the Jews
themselves.  They did not, after all, have to riot.  They invited
their own deaths.  This is a nonsensical argument.

The correct logic is to develop a policy that leads to a solution of
the problem.  This solution must lie in the context of history, of
course.  The present policy of shooting rock-throwers does not fit
that model.
--
=Jim  jime%atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)