Izrael, Palestina i arapske zemlje

[iDemo]

Ne mogu objasniti, ali mislim da na tim osnovama treba tražiti rešene. U fazonu nekog ustavnog suda koji mora imati neku vaninstitucialnu snagu koja nije utemeljena na sili.

To mislish kad altruizam bude vladao svetom...

[Gandalf]

Ne mogu objasniti, ali mislim da na tim osnovama treba tražiti rešene. U fazonu nekog ustavnog suda koji mora imati neku vaninstitucialnu snagu koja nije utemeljena na sili.

to se onda svodi na Andurilovo checks & balances, koje su super stvar i treba ih nekako stvoriti. kako i ko?

 

jebiga, problem je sto je checks & balances genericki odgovor koji ne znaci ama bas nista. nesto kao mir u svetu.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Gandalf

[iDemo]

to se onda svodi na Andurilovo checks & balances, koje su super stvar i treba ih nekako stvoriti. kako i ko?

 

jebiga, problem je sto je checks & balances genericki odgovor koji ne znaci ama bas nista. nesto kao mir u svetu.

mislim da je kljucna rec ono "snaga koja nije utemeljena na sili"... ili vec nesto u tom smislu...

[Roger Sanchez]

Da više ne trolujemo antreligiozni topik... ali isuse, koji je ovo gad..i tool. I gad.

The Israelis have successfully minimized the consequences of Palestinian terrorism—building the Wall, for instance, and creating the Bantustans you object to—and now you are holding this very success against them as an unconscionable act of provocation. The game is rigged. You can’t say that Israel’s success in containing the terror threat posed by Hamas and other groups is evidence that they need no longer worry about this threat.

Madrfakeeer.. Lik je filozofski opravdao™ u krajnjoj liniji i nacistički logorski sistem, a da toga nije ni svjestan. A i ako je, tim gore.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Roger Sanchez

[Turnbull]

Upravo, a poledaj samo kako insistira na razlici između genocida i etničkog čišćenja, objašnjavajući kako bi eto, neki Izraelci samo malo etnički da počiste Palestince, a samo one koji neće da idu bi pobili... Valjda nesvestan da su i nacoši počeli sa istim projektom, pa tek kad se ovaj izjalovio prešli na fizičko uništenje.

 

Inače mislim da nije trolovanje na atesitičkom topiku, jer je ključ Harisovog katastrofalnog nerazumevanja upravo u njegov naivnoj new atheist mantri da sva zla sveta dolaze od religioznog fundamentalizma, ergo, borba protiv religioznog fundamentalizma jeste sekularni Armagedon u kojem su sva sredstva protiv armije zla dozvoljena.

 

 

Harris: No, that’s not fair. I would say no such thing. And we must deal with the point you just raised about the deputy speaker of the Knesset. I saw your blog post on that where, in a very inflammatory way, you distorted what was actually being said on the Israeli side. You accused this man being a “genocidal bigot.” You noticed how uncanny it is for a Jew to be suggesting “concentrating” a civilian population within “camps”—leaving the reader to marvel at the irony of the oppressed becoming the oppressors. But this was just a play on words. The man was not suggesting that Israel build concentration camps of the sort we saw under the Nazis. He was suggesting moving Palestinian civilians into camps so that IDF could fight Hamas without killing noncombatants.

Sullivan: In order for them to be subsequently expelled from the region.

Harris: Granted—the man was articulating an extreme view—but that’s still not genocide. You can call it “ethnic cleansing,” but moving people from one place to another, however unjustly, is not genocide. Genocide is when you herd them into gas chambers.

Sullivan: It’s ethnic cleansing.

Harris: Fine. But I don’t want us to slide off this point. Go back and read your blog post. You call it genocide, and you draw the concentration camp implication in a way that does not differentiate between the Jewish version, designed to get civilians out of the way, and the Nazi version, designed to reduce them to ash.

Sullivan: But the idea that anybody would come close to that is horrifying.

Harris: They’re not close at all. This brings me back to the other topic I mentioned at the top of this call, regarding why it’s so damn hard to talk about this issue in the first place. We have to be honest about the plain meaning of words. When you use a word like “genocide” to describe a person’s intentions—

Sullivan: I didn’t.

Harris: You do in your blog post. Just go back and look at it.

Sullivan: I’m looking at it right now.

Harris: Do a keyword search for “genocide.”

Sullivan: I’m not good at doing that kind of thing.

Harris: Just type control-F, or command-F, and then “genocide.”

Sullivan: I see now: “Genocide and ethnic cleansing.” You’re right. But he does believe in killing every civilian in Gaza who resists—

Harris: Andrew, he does not believe in killing every civilian in Gaza. He’s talking about combatants. I only know this person from your blog, but I read what you wrote, and I read what you quoted. The man wants to separate the civilians from the militants so that the IDF can bomb the hell out of the militants.

Sullivan: No, but how can you say that and then not admit that he wants to take these people, completely annex Gaza as part of Israel, Judaize it, remove all of its Arab inhabitants who don’t accede to the new order, and “exterminate””—his words—anyone still resisting.

Harris: I’m not defending this person, and I’m not defending his military strategy. I’m defending the meaning of important words—words like “genocide” and “concentration camp.”

Sullivan: Genocide can mean the intention to kill a whole race—rather than the actual successful attempt to do so. The former chief rabbi of Israel, spiritual leader to many Middle Eastern Jews, said among other things that the Palestinians should “perish from the world.”

Harris: Andrew, you are changing the topic. Stick with our man in the Knesset. I have no doubt that you can find a genocidal rabbi who’s going to liken the Palestinians to the Amalekites and deem them fit for slaughter.

Sullivan: The chief rabbi of Israel, whose funeral was attended by 800,000 people, is not some fringe figure.

Harris: I’m happy to excoriate the ultra-Orthodox as much as you want. But the question is, how many Jews in the world does this rabbi speak for? As I make clear in my post—

Sullivan: —the chief rabbi of Israel. Or how about the former head of Israel’s National Security Council who wants all Gazans, including women, to be thought of as enemy combatants and therefore to be killed.

Harris: Are you alleging that a significant percentage of Jews have genocidal intentions toward the Palestinians? Is that the punch line here?

Sullivan: I’m saying an alarming and growing number of Israelis hold those views. And it’s not a punch line.

Harris: Okay. Then let’s get our intuitions in order. If given a magic button to push that would annihilate the Palestinians—not just Hamas but all men, women, and children—what percentage of Jews do you think would push it?

Sullivan: I’m talking about the evolution of Israeli society in a very, very nationalistic, almost fascistic direction.

Harris: I totally agree that there is a problem here. As I said in my article, I think Israel is being “brutalized”—by which I mean being made brutal—by this conflict.

Sullivan: They have no choice in the matter?

Harris: Not much. I think this is just what happens to people who are living in a continuous state of siege and fear.

Sullivan: Which they chose.

Harris: Well, up to a point. They didn’t choose the legacy of anti-Semitism. They didn’t choose having half the Jews on earth fed into ovens in Europe.

Sullivan: Well, neither am I saying that.

Harris: But that’s the context. Again, we can’t leave the problem of language unresolved. You’re using words in such a way as to make the intentions on both sides of this conflict appear equivalent. I will grant you that you can find some genocidal maniacs on the Israeli side. What you cannot find is an entire culture that has been transformed into a cult of death—where children are routinely brought up to be martyrs. Nor can you find a significant percentage of the population that would sanction a genocide. That is an enormous distinction.

Sullivan: Again, I’m not saying they’re as bad as Hamas. I am not. I am saying that a remarkable and growing number of people in Israel seem to paint the Palestinians as a general threat in a way quite similar to what Hamas does with Israeli Jews. And when you have several wars, continuous wars, in which the civilian casualties of Palestinians dwarf anything on the Israeli side, it begs the question: When you have ethnic settlements continuing on and on, what is the project here? What is the project for Israel?

Harris: That’s exactly my interest—what is the project? What project would either side accomplish if it could accomplish its aims? And insofar as your fears are borne out, and the Israelis become indistinguishable from Hamas in their intentions, then there would be absolutely no moral distinction between the two sides. I don’t have an intrinsic bias for the Israelis, and I have no fondness for ultra-Orthodox Judaism. I’m simply saying that if you find a rabbi who talks about the Palestinians as Amalekites who should just be wiped off the face of the earth, that person speaks for the tiniest extremity of the 15 million Jews on earth. When you find an imam in Gaza or Beirut or London speaking that way about the Jews, he is speaking for at least tens (and probably hundreds) of millions of people.

Sullivan: Even though he was the chief rabbi?

Harris: Well, yes. I’d have to research who you’re talking about. I’m simply taking this story on your authority. However, it is a fact that most Jews are secular—and secular in a way that one can’t currently imagine in the Muslim world. I fully grant you that the ultra-Orthodox in Israel are a real problem, but their views do not reflect the aims of Israel as a nation or the aims of most Jews. The picture changes utterly when we’re talking about anti-Semitism on the Muslim side. Anti-Semitism is so well subscribed among Muslims that they basically drink it in the water—and much of it is eliminative, which is to say, genocidal.

Sullivan: And I’m not denying that, but I have to say that I think that it’s gotten worse because of the way in which Israel has behaved. It has not helped itself in any way.

Harris: I agree, for the most part. But you could also make the case that many of Israel’s enemies understand and respect only strength—i.e. violence or its credible threat. Reasonable concessions, and just basic human decency, aren’t always interpreted in the way that one intends.

 

Edited August 27, 2014 by Turnbull

[yolo]

slavuj slavujski za mondoweiss

 

 

svrš svrš

[Agni]

Upravo, a poledaj samo kako insistira na razlici između genocida i etničkog čišćenja, objašnjavajući kako bi eto, neki Izraelci samo malo etnički da počiste Palestince, a samo one koji neće da idu bi pobili... Valjda nesvestan da su i nacoši počeli sa istim projektom, pa tek kad se ovaj izjalovio prešli na fizičko uništenje.

 

Inače mislim da nije trolovanje na atesitičkom topiku, jer je ključ Harisovog katastrofalnog nerazumevanja upravo u njegov naivnoj new atheist mantri da sva zla sveta dolaze od religioznog fundamentalizma, ergo, borba protiv religioznog fundamentalizma jeste sekularni Armagedon u kojem su sva sredstva protiv armije zla dozvoljena.

 

 

Harris: No, that’s not fair. I would say no such thing. And we must deal with the point you just raised about the deputy speaker of the Knesset. I saw your blog post on that where, in a very inflammatory way, you distorted what was actually being said on the Israeli side. You accused this man being a “genocidal bigot.” You noticed how uncanny it is for a Jew to be suggesting “concentrating” a civilian population within “camps”—leaving the reader to marvel at the irony of the oppressed becoming the oppressors. But this was just a play on words. The man was not suggesting that Israel build concentration camps of the sort we saw under the Nazis. He was suggesting moving Palestinian civilians into camps so that IDF could fight Hamas without killing noncombatants.

 

Sullivan: In order for them to be subsequently expelled from the region.

 

Harris: Granted—the man was articulating an extreme view—but that’s still not genocide. You can call it “ethnic cleansing,” but moving people from one place to another, however unjustly, is not genocide. Genocide is when you herd them into gas chambers.

 

Sullivan: It’s ethnic cleansing.

 

Harris: Fine. But I don’t want us to slide off this point. Go back and read your blog post. You call it genocide, and you draw the concentration camp implication in a way that does not differentiate between the Jewish version, designed to get civilians out of the way, and the Nazi version, designed to reduce them to ash.

 

Sullivan: But the idea that anybody would come close to that is horrifying.

 

Harris: They’re not close at all. This brings me back to the other topic I mentioned at the top of this call, regarding why it’s so damn hard to talk about this issue in the first place. We have to be honest about the plain meaning of words. When you use a word like “genocide” to describe a person’s intentions—

 

Sullivan: I didn’t.

 

Harris: You do in your blog post. Just go back and look at it.

 

Sullivan: I’m looking at it right now.

 

Harris: Do a keyword search for “genocide.”

 

Sullivan: I’m not good at doing that kind of thing.

 

Harris: Just type control-F, or command-F, and then “genocide.”

 

Sullivan: I see now: “Genocide and ethnic cleansing.” You’re right. But he does believe in killing every civilian in Gaza who resists—

 

Harris: Andrew, he does not believe in killing every civilian in Gaza. He’s talking about combatants. I only know this person from your blog, but I read what you wrote, and I read what you quoted. The man wants to separate the civilians from the militants so that the IDF can bomb the hell out of the militants.

 

Sullivan: No, but how can you say that and then not admit that he wants to take these people, completely annex Gaza as part of Israel, Judaize it, remove all of its Arab inhabitants who don’t accede to the new order, and “exterminate””—his words—anyone still resisting.

 

Harris: I’m not defending this person, and I’m not defending his military strategy. I’m defending the meaning of important words—words like “genocide” and “concentration camp.”

 

Sullivan: Genocide can mean the intention to kill a whole race—rather than the actual successful attempt to do so. The former chief rabbi of Israel, spiritual leader to many Middle Eastern Jews, said among other things that the Palestinians should “perish from the world.”

 

Harris: Andrew, you are changing the topic. Stick with our man in the Knesset. I have no doubt that you can find a genocidal rabbi who’s going to liken the Palestinians to the Amalekites and deem them fit for slaughter.

 

Sullivan: The chief rabbi of Israel, whose funeral was attended by 800,000 people, is not some fringe figure.

 

Harris: I’m happy to excoriate the ultra-Orthodox as much as you want. But the question is, how many Jews in the world does this rabbi speak for? As I make clear in my post—

 

Sullivan: —the chief rabbi of Israel. Or how about the former head of Israel’s National Security Council who wants all Gazans, including women, to be thought of as enemy combatants and therefore to be killed.

 

Harris: Are you alleging that a significant percentage of Jews have genocidal intentions toward the Palestinians? Is that the punch line here?

 

Sullivan: I’m saying an alarming and growing number of Israelis hold those views. And it’s not a punch line.

 

Harris: Okay. Then let’s get our intuitions in order. If given a magic button to push that would annihilate the Palestinians—not just Hamas but all men, women, and children—what percentage of Jews do you think would push it?

 

Sullivan: I’m talking about the evolution of Israeli society in a very, very nationalistic, almost fascistic direction.

 

Harris: I totally agree that there is a problem here. As I said in my article, I think Israel is being “brutalized”—by which I mean being made brutal—by this conflict.

 

Sullivan: They have no choice in the matter?

 

Harris: Not much. I think this is just what happens to people who are living in a continuous state of siege and fear.

 

Sullivan: Which they chose.

 

Harris: Well, up to a point. They didn’t choose the legacy of anti-Semitism. They didn’t choose having half the Jews on earth fed into ovens in Europe.

 

Sullivan: Well, neither am I saying that.

 

Harris: But that’s the context. Again, we can’t leave the problem of language unresolved. You’re using words in such a way as to make the intentions on both sides of this conflict appear equivalent. I will grant you that you can find some genocidal maniacs on the Israeli side. What you cannot find is an entire culture that has been transformed into a cult of death—where children are routinely brought up to be martyrs. Nor can you find a significant percentage of the population that would sanction a genocide. That is an enormous distinction.

 

Sullivan: Again, I’m not saying they’re as bad as Hamas. I am not. I am saying that a remarkable and growing number of people in Israel seem to paint the Palestinians as a general threat in a way quite similar to what Hamas does with Israeli Jews. And when you have several wars, continuous wars, in which the civilian casualties of Palestinians dwarf anything on the Israeli side, it begs the question: When you have ethnic settlements continuing on and on, what is the project here? What is the project for Israel?

 

Harris: That’s exactly my interest—what is the project? What project would either side accomplish if it could accomplish its aims? And insofar as your fears are borne out, and the Israelis become indistinguishable from Hamas in their intentions, then there would be absolutely no moral distinction between the two sides. I don’t have an intrinsic bias for the Israelis, and I have no fondness for ultra-Orthodox Judaism. I’m simply saying that if you find a rabbi who talks about the Palestinians as Amalekites who should just be wiped off the face of the earth, that person speaks for the tiniest extremity of the 15 million Jews on earth. When you find an imam in Gaza or Beirut or London speaking that way about the Jews, he is speaking for at least tens (and probably hundreds) of millions of people.

 

Sullivan: Even though he was the chief rabbi?

 

Harris: Well, yes. I’d have to research who you’re talking about. I’m simply taking this story on your authority. However, it is a fact that most Jews are secular—and secular in a way that one can’t currently imagine in the Muslim world. I fully grant you that the ultra-Orthodox in Israel are a real problem, but their views do not reflect the aims of Israel as a nation or the aims of most Jews. The picture changes utterly when we’re talking about anti-Semitism on the Muslim side. Anti-Semitism is so well subscribed among Muslims that they basically drink it in the water—and much of it is eliminative, which is to say, genocidal.

 

Sullivan: And I’m not denying that, but I have to say that I think that it’s gotten worse because of the way in which Israel has behaved. It has not helped itself in any way.

 

Harris: I agree, for the most part. But you could also make the case that many of Israel’s enemies understand and respect only strength—i.e. violence or its credible threat. Reasonable concessions, and just basic human decency, aren’t always interpreted in the way that one intends.

 

 

Tupcha. Sadasnji picvajz je dobio zamajac kada su pukli pregovori u martu ove godine, a pukli su u osnovi zato sto je Izrael, povladjujuci svojim nacionalisticko-verskim fanaticima, odbio na produzi moratorijum na izgradnju naselja na okupiranim teritorijama - i najavio izgradnju 14 000 novih stambenih jedinica. Uticaj verske desnice u Izraelu je u tom smislu i te kako poguban i doprinosi produzavanju sukoba.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Agni

[Turnbull]

Ali u Harisovoj reiligiometriji, ipak pobeđuju islamisti, tako da eto, kad se to stavi na kantar, jasno je.

[kim_philby]

haris bi mogao prvo da procita neke definicije genocida.

 

na primer:

 

 

Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. (Article 2 CPPCG)  

[Gandalf]

Mi govorimo isto s tim sto ti izgleda hoces da kazes "logicno" a govoris "racionalno". Ja ne kazem da nije "logicno" al' svakako mislim da nije nimalo "racionalno"... Rat k'o rat.

Sto bi rekli - ima smisla sve dok nije moja kuca na CNNu...

Zelim da kazem da je racionalno. Naime, i jedni i drugi imaju mogucnost izbora, a u zavisnosti od izbora onoga sto zele da urade se namecu prihvatljive i manje prihvatljive alternative.

 

Izraelci imaju izbor izmedju nastavljanja okupacije & kolonizacije, i odustajanja od velicanstvenog projekta jevrejske drzave koja bi ukljucivala skoro ceo mandat Palestina. Izraelci biraju okupaciju. Palestinci imaju izbor izmedju predaje i laganog odumiranja (ili robovskog statusa), i otpora. Biraju otpor.

 

Takvim izborima, alternative se same namecu. Ako zele da nastave sa okupacijom, a suoceni su sa stanovnistvom koje odbija da se preda, Izraelci i nemaju puno alternativa sem davljenja i ubijanja. Ako Palestinci biraju otpor, alternative su izmedju oruzanog i mirnog, a pitanje je procene sta ima vece sanse da uspe.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Gandalf

[Turnbull]

haris bi mogao prvo da procita neke definicije genocida.

 

na primer:

 

Ma šta ima da čita, taj već sve zna. Onomad ga mrzelo da čita filozofske rasprave o slobodi volje kad je pisao o - wait for it - slobodi volje. Koja ne postoji btw.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Turnbull

[Agni]

Zelim da kazem da je racionalno. Naime, i jedni i drugi imaju mogucnost izbora, a u zavisnosti od izbora onoga sto zele da urade se namecu prihvatljive i manje prihvatljive alternative.

 

Izraelci imaju izbor izmedju nastavljanja okupacije & kolonizacije, i odustajanja od velicanstvenog projekta jevrejske drzave koja bi ukljucivala skoro ceo mandat Palestina. Izraelci biraju okupaciju. Palestinci imaju izbor izmedju predaje i laganog odumiranja (ili robovskog statusa), i otpora. Biraju otpor.

 

Takvim izborima, alternative se same namecu. Ako zele da nastave sa okupacijom, a suoceni su sa stanovnistvom koje odbija da se preda, Izraelci i nemaju puno alternativa sem davljenja i ubijanja. Ako Palestinci biraju otpor, alternative su izmedju oruzanog i mirnog, a pitanje je procene sta ima vece sanse da uspe.

 

Da li su otpor izabrali Palestinci ili Hamas?

 

Hamas nije pobedio na izborima na platformi borbe do zadnje kapi krvi, nego insistirajuci na ekonomskim i drustvenim problemima, sa dosta ublazenom retorikom prema Izraelu.

[Gandalf]

Ma šta ima da čita, taj već sve zna. Onomad ga mrzelo da čita filozofske rasprave o slobodi volje kad je pisao o - wait for it - slobodi volje. Koja ne postoji btw.

Ma, nema covek vremena da se zajebava citanjem. Morao bi da pocne minimum od Epiktetusa, mnogo je.

[Roger Sanchez]

haris bi mogao prvo da procita neke definicije genocida.

etničko čišćenje ipak nije genocid, osim ako protjerane steriliziraš.

[Turnbull]

Nije, ali nije u tome stvar, pogledaj onaj odlomak iz razgovara sa Salivanom pa ćeš videti da uopšte nije lako prelomiti šta je tu u pitanju.