🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <JIME.92Apr13111632@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu> jime@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) writes:

# 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.

	Only if you do not understand it, as it is the case here.

# The intifada is a result of the
# Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

	Oh really.  Then how come it took so long.  Ho come it fizzles out
from time to time.  How come there have been others who have really
suufered for no fault of their own who would not even contemplate an
intifada.  How come ...

# The Israeli
# occupation is a result of the 1967 war, started by the Arab powers.

	At least you have this right, so why do not you lay off the
Israeli "occupiers" until a solution is found that will ensure that
will never happen again?

# The 1967 war is a result of the 1948 formation of the state of Israel
# and the subsequent war.

	Wrong.  It was the result of Nasser's meglomania.

# 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.

	This may be true in principle, but since none of your facts are
wrong, it does not apply here.  At any rate, it would not yiled to
infinite recursion, since there has to be a bottoming out case.

# The intifada
# is, like many historical developments, an emergent phenomenon, which
# has no single cause, and for which no single blame can be assessed.

	This is not true.  The intifada is a cheap (the only price is the
destroyed lives of Arab children), at least in the mind of Arab
adults, way of generating sympathy.

# 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.

	Yours is nonsensical.  The Jews did not deserve any kind of
response in 1929.  The intifada certainly deserves a response.

# 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.

	The policy of using rock throwers does not either.  At any rate,
there is no realistic model without divine intervention.
--

David Makowsky
makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu