🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <JIME.92Apr14121818@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu> jime@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) writes:

# 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 "occupation" itself is one of the few things preventing
another war.  The "old" Israel is just too dificult to defend today.
As it is, considering the hatred that exists between Arab Jew, the
fact that instances of what would really be obscene (not what you
consider obscene) by Israel is remarkable.

# >   # 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.

	Then Nasser would just have found something else to feed his ego.
At any rate, the Arab hatred/killing of Jews has nothing to do with
Israel.  It started well before there was an Israel.

# Nasser didn't start the 1967 war by himself.
 
	It certainly was his unilaterl actions that started the 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.

# >	   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?
 
	It was obviously a typo.  I was tired when I wrote it.  "None"
should be changed to "some".

# >   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.

	Nope.  It leads as far back as a reasonable interpretation of the
facts allows, and no further.

# Someone else might stop elsewhere, leading to different,
# and possibly opposite conclusions.  This shows the fallacy of the
# technique, as it leads to contradictions.
 
	Not if they were reasonable.  Not all acts cause other acts just
because there was some sequential sequence in time.  However, there
are times when A causes B and B causes C.  Then A does cause C.  I am
not arguing, as you seem to want to make me out to be arguing, that if
A preceeds (but does not cause) B and B causes C, that A causes C.

# >   # 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.

	What Jewish rioters?

# Mind you, I am not equating the Palestinian
# rock-throwers of today with the Zionist rioters of 1929.

	While you are not equating them, you are still being ridiculous.
How can you equate two things where one of the two does not exist?

# But your
# stated logic is so crude as to be unable to distinguish between the
# two cases.


	Then, as I stated previously, you just do not understand what is
being discussed.

# >   # 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?

	Wrong.  I though my iews on this were pretty well known.  Oh well,
here it is again.  For several reasons (and the blame goes all
around), peace is impossible without divine intervention.  I though by
"model" you were referring to approaches to peace.  All I meant to say
was that without divine intervention, such a model is impossible.
--

David Makowsky
makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu