So even war on terror (i.e. against Islamic Jihadism) in the middle east was a political strategic move not just a compulsive reaction, as much as NATO expansion in Europe and inclusive economic globalization (especially addressing potential competitors like Russia and China). All of them were long-term strategies testing the US hegemonic capacity of shaping the world order through hard and soft power, even if it ultimately wasn’t planned and dosed well. Democratization (and economic growth) seemed the best way to go to normalise relations, preserve peace and quell historical grievances (as it happened for Germany and Japan) so the US, after the Cold War, in the unipolar phase, had the time window to think big and take greater risks.
Even terrorist attacks of Islamic jihadism, including the 9/11 attack, aren’t just isolated punitive operations against some past grievance, but steps toward more ambitious ideological goals
“Property” as a legal term presupposes a legal system. Israel doesn’t acknowledge the Palestinian legal system. But it acknowledges to some extent the international legal system, so to that extent, Israel may be compelled to abide by what international law establishes for Palestinians
So now we see what happened, it’s not difficult, it’s not complicated.the international status over Palestine was the one proposed by the UN resolution 1947 which the Palestinians rejected. So Israel forcefully imposed its rule with the main support of the US at the expense of the Arab/Palestinian aspirations in that region.
So why exactly should we acknowledge historical “occupation” starting from the time the Arabs/Muslims turned to be the majority after oppressive colonisation of lands originally occupied by Jews?
I saying that their right to the land they are living on is due to their living on and owning the land on which they lived.So why exactly should we acknowledge rights to land to people (Arabs and/or Jews) prior to the end of the British Mandate?
Well that’s a legal argument and I conceded that point.. So why exactly should we acknowledge rights to the land to a nation whose identity is rooted very much in this fight for land ownership with another nation whose identity precedes such conflict?
I’m not going to get tied up in legal definitions, something that you were delving into in your response to SSU. My volumes on international law are on a high shelf and I have back ache.What a surprise.
So your only position then is limited to a concern for any broader geopolitical considerations and possible developments.In other words, my position is that, given my understanding of the status of the geopolitical game in that area, I think there are STILL strong reasons to see Israel as a valuable strategic ally of the West (I qualify myself as a Westerner) and act accordingly even in the current circumstances
I go back to your assumptions about that. Your assessment of my understanding of the situation appears to be based on the following of a philosophical style which you approve of.I prefer to focus on my and my interlocutors’ limited understanding of the situation beyond personal interested perspectives.
Yes, Netanyahu chanted the narrative of how they will remove the Palestinians his whole life. And then with the increased settler activity over the past couple of years and heightened rhetoric, found himself sleep walking into it. I saw his face on tv in the hours following the attacks of October 7th. He looked as if he’d seen a ghost. A trance like state, or even a rapture.The US is now just going along with Netanyahu's war, which has no political ends in sight. (Haas remarks that "it's as if Clausewitz hasn't been translated to Hebrew.) And this is interesting as Noah Hariri made the same point.
The UK is currently 6.5% muslim and it's already causing massive social upheaval.
I can see that, where will they go?And if Hamas were to be eliminated I can assure you Israel has no intention of annexing Gaza and absorbing all of those Gazans into Israel.
I couldn't consider living in the UK (was last there in 2022, was actually standing in the Tower of London at the moment the Queen passed away.) My perception of the UK at the moment is that it's pretty frayed around the edges, and has a lot of dreary towns.
Apparently we are going to have to wait until the rest of civilization catches up with Canada's progressive cannabis laws before we can think about going anywhere. My outlaw days are past.
Now, does Israel try this? No. It's a homeland for the Jews and others just can fuck off. And that's why in the end it is an Apartheid system, because it has at it's core that similary hostility towards the others, similar to what the white Afrikaaners had in their system for blacks.
And where did I make such extraordinary claims exactly? Can you quote me verbatim?
But I’m realising that you are not committing to a position on these questions. You’re just shooting down what people say. I ask for a counter argument and none is provided. You comment on some issue, but thats not making claims.You mean that the burden of proof is all on me and you have to do nothing other than making claims? You didn’t even offer a clarification of what you mean by “Apartheid state”.
looking at your discussion with SSU about what apartheid is I’ll give it a miss for now.Sure, if you suspect a disagreement between us over the notion of “state” or “human”. The point is that YOU feel compelled to call Israel an “Apartheid state” and want me to agree with you since you suspect a disagreement (and rightly so).
Sorry it’s something about the website that I haven’t got around to working out. Something to do with the quote feature I think.P.S. For some reason, I do not get notifications from you, even if you reference my nickname.
Dude, really? Is that the most you can do?
You mean that the burden of proof is all on me and you have to do nothing other than making claims? You didn’t even offer a clarification of what you mean by “Apartheid state”.
But why do you believe that if Hamas surrenders, the people of Palestine will be plunged into an even more oppressive situation? What evidence do you have? What reasons?
I will stop when you agree with me about that. Or demonstrate that it is not the case.Yes you said that so many times. And the first time was already one time too much.
You proposed a confederated solution. My point was that such a confederated solution would amount to another form of apartheid by a different name.What is your argument here? The Jewish psyche? You should suggest Israelis your therapist, I guess.
Does what you are saying imply that horrors of the war (like the ones we see in Gaza) or demand for unconditional surrender constitute a strong argument against durable peace in the region? Because history shows also that one can demand and obtain UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Potsdam-Declaration) and have prospects of a durable peace after enough devastation (including civilians, kids, cities) and even after heavy bombings and nukes.
For example, my understanding is that Netanyahu is going to destroy Hamas (and other militant groups’) military capacity and identified combatants in Gaza as thoroughly as possible and impose a West Bank regime in Gaza. Maybe complemented with some agreements with Egypt to accept and keep refugees in Sinai as long as needed.
Eastern thinkers are more adept at recognizing nothingness as if it was like a western substance, but they avoid substance talk by leaving things more mystical and less defined (as nothingness would have to be less defined)
Maybe the approach could be to reflect on the concepts of import (to a given individual) from the western perspective (since same is unavoidable, like thinking in English is to me), and then, from there, find the parallels in Eastern traditions.
Yes an interesting parallel. The Western academic tradition seems to be stuck on a circle, or wheel of logic, like samsara from which it cannot escape and which is abstracted from the real world.One eg., upon my own reflections, I come across the problem of Mind and conclude, on my own, from within my western narrative, that Mind might not have any corresponding Being, or Reality, "driving", "grounding" or "behind" it, and that it might just be structured by empty signifiers. Comparing that to eastern philosophies, I find the principle of Sunyata (emptiness of Reality). While I believe that the Mahayanists might have gone too far, and that Sunyata applies only to the constructed reality of human experience, yet still, there is a workable parallel.
Yes, I would expect there to be a lineage stretching back over the millennia derived from sources further east. In a sense the Western tradition is a recent, more modern metricated system of thought based on the reductionism of Aristotle. While leaving behind the more reflective philosophies. Perhaps it is time for thinkers to walk backwards and pick up from where they left off.We are all humans, East and West, drawing upon the same nascent constructions input into all of us, and developed collectively throughout the generations. It wasn't just Schopenhaur who first incorporated the East into Western philosophy. I may not be best suited to demonstrate this, but I feel it is not unreasonable for an historian of philosophy to find what is traditionally thought of as eastern patterns weaved through western thought and vice versa, since the presocratics, and likely much earlier.
Yes, it is the curse of materialism.Your "obstacles" 1 to 3, (which I know you are exposing and not endorsing) are ways in which we "deliberately" construct barriers out of prejudice.
I was thinking more of a test within academic circles. There is no way to anchor the theory of a “spiritual realm” into philosophy. There is the theological tradition as I mentioned, but this seems to have been disregarded. Philosophy is happy to talk about the spiritual, or the divine. But it is increasingly seen as nothing more than a hypothetical, a flight of fancy. (Although I would accept that there is a creeping sense of something else to reality, but which is undefined.)1. "test" it? arguably the east has a better test, doing, i.e. yoga and meditation. If mind's conclusions are admittedly questionable (hence, phenomenology), what better test than to silence mind?
Yes, very much so. A module dedicated to being a being, absent the mind. The acceptance that a being isn’t just a mind, there are other layers, realities, experiences, more immediate, more real than thoughts.2. "physical world?" arguably sitting in meditation for the purposes of silencing the chatter and perceiving the world through the Body for a change, is exactly approaching reality through the physical world. What is more empirical than what your body tells you without interference of concepts?
Forgive my Theosophical terminology. What I am referring to is the notion that a being can become a pure still being absent the mind. When the mind is banished, the being has not been banished, the being is still present. The word “soul” has a lot of baggage, a better word might be something like Atman, the atmic, or something.3. "subjugation of mind to soul?"
Yes, they were already stuck on the wheel of mind by that point.Firstly, that is the problem I see with western metaphysics in the traditions of Plato, Descartes, Hegel etc. Moreover, Mahayana blatantly denies the "soul." The subjugation part, the so called goal to reach Satori/Kensho or Moksa, is intended to liberate you from the mundane chattering of the Subject Self. Descartes tried to do the same but got stuck in the chattering and gave privileged status to the Subject Self, I (see Heidegger's ontic, everyday vs ontological Being, which I think, he ultimately remains in the ontic everyday, but that's another discussion).
So mind is fully there, but still I ask the question and wonder if I can see one distinct feature about "mind" that is there. And we have nothing.
Either way, it's possible that Western Philosophy "proper" (with some exceptions) only avoids these schools because of prejudice concerning connections with religion. And that, to the former's detriment.
With the support of Egypt. The Arab countries don't want them in either due to their history. Whether "prison" is an appropriate term is debatable. Gazans can certainly get out of Gaza and there are beautiful homes there. Ultimately, no one really trusts them with their borders... and who would? I'm sorry, but national security comes first. Tons of aid has come to Gaza. By letting them control their own border and imports that creates a serious national security threat. It's not just Israel -- none of their neighbors want them having unfettered access to their borders where they'll be able to import whatever.
And that's the most compelling argument you could offer, so far.
I thought this was quite a good analysis.Besides I’m not playing any geopolitical chess.”
“I know, but you have been using it as a hammer.
Sure, they are not the only ones to live in refugee camps. And it is reported that they aren’t even listed in the five largest refugee camps in the World:
Yes, of course please continue, I would like to myself on occasion. But I am short of time and level of concentration at the moment due to other commitments. Also I am more someone who looks for the root of things, or bigger picture in current affairs.As I said, I’m interested in conceptual analysis, so if I can’t split hairs here, in a philosophy forum, where else can I? Besides I find it a worthy exercise as long as it helps better understand things.
You seem to impugn me here, (this is not the only time.)You do not seem able to provide a compelling argument for why it wouldn’t possible to separate moral case from a legal case.
This doesn’t need to be framed in human rights terms, not even for the international law:
I know, but you have been using it as a hammer.Besides I’m not playing any geopolitical chess.