🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Apr14.055734.25544@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
>   In article <JIME.92Apr13111632@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu> jime@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) writes:
>   # 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?

Because there is a real and present injustice in the Israeli
occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights.  A
possible future war must be guarded against, but it does not justify
the present injustice of the occupation.

>   # 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.

Which was fed in part by the 1948 founding of Israel and subsequent war.
Nasser didn't start the 1967 war by himself.

>   # 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.

Huh?  Your response is illogical.  When you agree with my facts, they
don't apply?

>   At any rate, it would not yiled to
>   infinite recursion, since there has to be a bottoming out case.

Where?  Your sort of historical reasoning leads only as far back as
you wish.  Someone else might stop elsewhere, leading to different,
and possibly opposite conclusions.  This shows the fallacy of the
technique, as it leads to contradictions.

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

But your logic would demand that the Jewish rioters of 1929 be
punished somehow.  Mind you, I am not equating the Palestinian
rock-throwers of today with the Zionist rioters of 1929.  But your
stated logic is so crude as to be unable to distinguish between the
two cases.

>   # 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.

So until God Almight strikes them down, the Israelis will continue to
shoot the rock throwers?
--
=Jim  jime%atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)