Discussion on Arab/Israeli conflict, split from {Islam doesn't condone terror]

[razeontherock]

That B happening to A is a consequence of A doing something does not imply that A is liable for B happening. The Holocaust too was a consequence of choices made by the Jews.

Sorry but NO!!!!!

The Jews did not choose to go to war against Hitler. I outta just impose Godwin's law - you're really out of bounds here. Sickeningly so.
Following your little analogy, "B" = LOSING A WAR. "A" = Palestinians. Newsflash: the Palestinians LOST. Losing wars has consequences. Yes, they are liable. They thought they would, you know .. WIN. They didn't. You don't like it. That is the sum total of everything you have said.

Military victory is a consequence of being stronger, more determined and more capable than your enemy. It is in no way dependent on, or a proof, or determinant of, your aims being just. Therefore, the idea that Israel is entitled to anything because of its victories (and the facts on the ground it has been able to create because of them) is utterly antithetical to justice and to be rejected by any moral person.

In other words, you'd like to pretend there was no military defeat or even engagement, and just call a do-over. Life has never worked that way! The above quote also pretends all military effort is inconsequential, including terrorism. We could wish for that, but that's all it would be.

I have no idea of where I have come off as a terror apologist, I'd like to know that. Really, you dishearten me. I joined this thread because it seemed to me that your query in the OP was in good faith. I still hope it is.

My "query" was actually a statement, if you read the title. It is in good faith. I actually expected it to be swarmed more by those who are rabidly anti-Islam, and am glad to see it hasn't been, and we have good-hearted Muslims participating.

I also hope you are NOT a terrorism apologist or sympathizer, so let's break down how you could be perceived as "coming off that way:"

1) Saying Jews brought the Holocaust upon themselves. (That is SO far out of bounds! Either that or you have some earth-shaking news the rest of us have missed. BTW I had relatives serve and survive that war, and have known many Jews with the tattoos from the death camps)

2) Claiming that going to war to defend land rights and losing that war should just be swept under the rug. Do you not see how this paints you as one who would support the ongoing and disorganized attacks by Palestinians against Israel? It seems any defense you could raise would only be a thin veneer, but I'm listening.

I mean, if you really think this, how far is it to agree with Iran's leader that Israel should be wiped off the map? Or less extreme, that Palestinians should force Israel into concessions.

From where I sit, the history look painfully clear: every such concession Israel made only emboldened their enemy to become more aggressive. This would predictably have the effect of, making Israel more hard-line. Do we see this happening? I'm certainly no expert on the very difficult middle-east political landscape.

I do have to question how much the Israeli conflict may or may not be connected to Islam itself, vs how much is simply people trying to live. As B&w said, there is blood on both sides.

 

[PHenry42]

Sorry but NO!!!!!

The Jews did not choose to go to war against Hitler. I outta just impose Godwin's law - you're really out of bounds here. Sickeningly so.
Following your little analogy, "B" = LOSING A WAR. "A" = Palestinians. Newsflash: the Palestinians LOST. Losing wars has consequences. Yes, they are liable. They thought they would, you know .. WIN. They didn't. You don't like it. That is the sum total of everything you have said.

The Jews chose to remain in Germany, rather than flee out of the way. They chose to remain Jews rather than assimilate and cease to be so. Those both choices led to them perishing in the Holocaust. Them dying was a direct consequence of actions they willingly chose.

Does this reductio ad absurdum prove to you that consequence does not imply liability, or that you "had it coming", or that it's your fault that it happened to you?

In other words, you'd like to pretend there was no military defeat or even engagement, and just call a do-over. Life has never worked that way! The above quote also pretends all military effort is inconsequential, including terrorism. We could wish for that, but that's all it would be.

Life and the world works exactly the way we make it work. I'm talking about justification, not how "things are" because of the way people are naturally prone to act, something which has no legal or moral implications.

Genocide happens too. If you're going to justifying things by how "life works", you have absolutely no basis to object to anything. Not the Holocaust, not wiping Israel off the map, nothing.

And by the way, the Palestinians didn't choose war. Some of them did. But no central Palestinian leadership existed which could have made that decision on behalf of all of them.

Military action *is* inconsequential for the purpose of determining what is just and fair. Or, should the Israeli too be punitively stripped of rights and other benefits they otherwise would deserve to have, because of Israel's crimes? Oh, sorry, my bad, I just remembered Israel won, that surely means its crimes can't be used as a basis to revoke its rights...

My "query" was actually a statement, if you read the title. It is in good faith. I actually expected it to be swarmed more by those who are rabidly anti-Islam, and am glad to see it hasn't been, and we have good-hearted Muslims participating.

I also hope you are NOT a terrorism apologist or sympathizer, so let's break down how you could be perceived as "coming off that way:"

1) Saying Jews brought the Holocaust upon themselves. (That is SO far out of bounds! Either that or you have some earth-shaking news the rest of us have missed. BTW I had relatives serve and survive that war, and have known many Jews with the tattoos from the death camps)

2) Claiming that going to war to defend land rights and losing that war should just be swept under the rug. Do you not see how this paints you as one who would support the ongoing and disorganized attacks by Palestinians against Israel? It seems any defense you could raise would only be a thin veneer, but I'm listening.

I mean, if you really think this, how far is it to agree with Iran's leader that Israel should be wiped off the map? Or less extreme, that Palestinians should force Israel into concessions.

From where I sit, the history look painfully clear: every such concession Israel made only emboldened their enemy to become more aggressive. This would predictably have the effect of, making Israel more hard-line. Do we see this happening? I'm certainly no expert on the very difficult middle-east political landscape.

I do have to question how much the Israeli conflict may or may not be connected to Islam itself, vs how much is simply people trying to live. As B&w said, there is blood on both sides.

1) Is interesting, since I had not said anything like that at the time you made the initial statement. Not only have you failed to recognize a reductio ad absurdum, you've also drawn a conclusion on preknowledge of what I would say a few posts afterwards. Real classy.

2) All I've done is upheld the idea that peace needs to be based on justice and equality. A position from which it naturally follows that we can't accept conflict resolution on the position that either side is "guilty" and needs to be specifically punished by being disfavoured in the resolution (which sanctifying a status quo brought about by one side winning and imposing its will on the other effectively is).

I haven't said a word about how this fair peace is to be arrived at, so you're speculating. Though, what's wrong about forcing Israel into concessions? Israel is constantly forcing the status quo. It is not criminal to respond to force with force. And sometimes, justice needs to be imposed by the bayonet, surely you know that if you've had relatives serve in and survive WW2.

 

[plenary]

I do have to question how much the Israeli conflict may or may not be connected to Islam itself, vs how much is simply people trying to live. As B&w said, there is blood on both sides.

Look at the situation in Lebanon... Where an exodus has taken place for the last decade.... Islam is analogous to intolerance.... It is as simple as that....

That is not to say, that the Christians are blameless throughout history, because they are most certainly not, but islam is analogous to intolerance.
Muslims should keep to themselves, as it is not possible to coexist... As is proven time and time again....

Because when they are in the minority, things are kinda OK, but when their numbers approach 50% or more, than they start bullying the other groups, just as is the case in Lebanon, for the last decade or so...


Islam is the bully of the classroom and the sad part being, that he seems to enjoy it also....


And the jews have wronged God in the past, as the Christians have also done in some periods, but to imply that the Jews are in any way responsable for the holocaust is just horrid...
The people who orchestrated the holocaust were themselves perfect devils.... And they have received their reward in hell...(as their loves are the hellisch loves)
The real plans of the Germans were not always known to the Jews (heck, not even to many of the Germans). Who could have foreseen that they were orchestrating the total destruction of all the Jews in Europe? That is just pure evil, for a lot of people to horrid and impossible to imageon.....

 

[razeontherock]

The Jews chose to remain in Germany, rather than flee out of the way. They chose to remain Jews rather than assimilate and cease to be so. Those both choices led to them perishing in the Holocaust. Them dying was a direct consequence of actions they willingly chose.

You are still WAY out of bounds, and to a sickening degree! This is why things like Godwin's law are invented. You are demonstrating being so unreasonable as to make it foolish to respond!

Exactly which Jews that could NOT flee out of Germany due to the mass exodus under tight security drawing attention to them are you trying to blame? Oh, and a Jew can NOT "cease to be a Jew."

In other words, you're talking through your hat. Where did you learn such nonsense?

Does this reductio ad absurdum prove to you that consequence does not imply liability, or that you "had it coming", or that it's your fault that it happened to you?

You have done no such thing. All you have done is try to sweep losing a war for land rights under the rug. Sorry, no hall pass. Your line of reasoning (minus the horribly tasteless reference to Jews) could've been expressed as conscientious objection in 1947. Instead, Palestinians chose war. Neither one of us like that, but that changes nothing. You're simply asking for a do-over. Actually, you're demanding that right. You will notice it's not working. Persisting in this effort gives the impression of aggression and hostility.

Life and the world works exactly the way we make it work.

Disagreed. Example: gravity.

Genocide happens too. If you're going to justifying things by how "life works", you have absolutely no basis to object to anything. Not the Holocaust, not wiping Israel off the map, nothing.

Logic does not appear to be your strong suit, and you are indeed showing Godwin's law should have been invoked. I will make the excuse for you that your judgment is clouded by emotion.

And by the way, the Palestinians didn't choose war. Some of them did. But no central Palestinian leadership existed which could have made that decision on behalf of all of them.

Yes, disarray, anarchy and chaos also has consequences. And they wound up electing Hezbollah to power?

Military action *is* inconsequential for the purpose of determining what is just and fair.

When you find yourself living in a world that is just and fair, wake me up and I'll ride my unicorn up the nearest rainbow. Until then, I suggest this little thing called "reality." Like it or not.

Though, what's wrong about forcing Israel into concessions? Israel is constantly forcing the status quo. It is not criminal to respond to force with force. And sometimes, justice needs to be imposed by the bayonet

So much for you being concerned with not appearing to be a terrorist sympathizer. I did the math; for every suicide bomber in modern conflicts, a total of 16 are killed and injured combined. You'll never win that way!

Try Peace instead. Just a thought ...

 

[PHenry42]

When did I ever say that it was the Jews' fault that the Holocaust happened to them? I said, it happened to them because of decisions they made. It wouldn't have happened to them if they had done differently.

That, however, does not mean that it was their fault it happened to them. Neither does it mean that they are to blame for it happening. Nor does it in any way exonerate those who did it to them.

Is it clear now?

This is reductio ad absurdum. A proof that a particular proposition is true, by assuming its logical opposite, and showing how that assumption leads to an absurdity.

The proposition is that consequence does not imply liability. The counter-proposition is that consequence implies liability. The absurdity following from the counter-proposition is that the Holocaust was the fault of the Jews. And since we know it's not, it follows that the counter-proposition is false and the original proposition true.

Is that clear enough or do I need to draw pictures?

And what exactly is a do-over?

 

[Robban]

When did I ever say that it was the Jews' fault that the Holocaust happened to them? I said, it happened to them because of decisions they made. It wouldn't have happened to them if they had done differently.

That, however, does not mean that it was their fault it happened to them. Neither does it mean that they are to blame for it happening. Nor does it in any way exonerate those who did it to them.

Is it clear now?

This is reductio ad absurdum. A proof that a particular proposition is true, by assuming its logical opposite, and showing how that assumption leads to an absurdity.

The proposition is that consequence does not imply liability. The counter-proposition is that consequence implies liability. The absurdity following from the counter-proposition is that the Holocaust was the fault of the Jews. And since we know it's not, it follows that the counter-proposition is false and the original proposition true.

Is that clear enough or do I need to draw pictures?

And what exactly is a do-over?

6 million men, women and children, old and sick, should just drop everything and flee once again? Where to? History has shown that whenever a Jew opens his mouth he gets his teeth kicked in. Antisemitism is as old as the hills, and it just does not go away. However when it comes to Hitler and his riffraff, it was not only Jews who were the target, it was homosexuals, gipsys. communists and anyone who did not have the right head measurements, plus all the other civilians that died. So where should they flee? Do you have any idea at all what you are talking about? Europe stood in flames. You should be more careful about what you say, or the tables may turned and the same thing happen to you.

 

[PHenry42]

For the sake of argument: Fled while it still was possible. Converted to Christianity in good time and erased all traces of them ever having been Jews. That they could impossibly have known what was coming for them is irrelevant, the causation still stands. Which is all that is required for my reductio ad absurdum to stand. Now, can you stop picking at the example and agree that causation does not imply liability?

 

[FRM48]

6 million men, women and children, old and sick, should just drop everything and flee once again? Where to? History has shown that whenever a Jew opens his mouth he gets his teeth kicked in. Antisemitism is as old as the hills, and it just does not go away. However when it comes to Hitler and his riffraff, it was not only Jews who were the target, it was homosexuals, gipsys. communists and anyone who did not have the right head measurements, plus all the other civilians that died. So where should they flee? Do you have any idea at all what you are talking about? Europe stood in flames. You should be more careful about what you say, or the tables may turned and the same thing happen to you.

I don't think he knows history either, The Jews couldn't leave Germany because the Nazi's passed a series of laws stripping the Jews o all rights including leaving the country.On top of that most countries changed their immigration policy to deny the Jews legal entry.so where were they to go?

 

[razeontherock]

Is that clear enough or do I need to draw pictures?

And what exactly is a do-over?

What is clear is that your entire system of logic in this matter is absurd.

And a do over is what you're trying to negotiate for those you sympathize with.

None of the above works. You have to deal with reality.

1) Palestinians fought for their land, and lost.
2) They have aggressively done whatever they could to cause mayhem since.
3) Israel has long been patient, and recently become less so.
4) You guys are losing.
5) You don't get to wipe out that history, pretend it never happened, and do it all over.
6) I'm still not sure how much Islam really has to do with this, and how much it's just fighting over land, and people trying to survive. The whole thing is massively complicated.

What about the OP?

 

[razeontherock]

causation does not imply liability?

Throw that out before a Judge, and I think he'll shoot you down. If I cause a crime, or an injury, I'm liable.

 

[razeontherock]

I don't think he knows history either, The Jews couldn't leave Germany because the Nazi's passed a series of laws stripping the Jews o all rights including leaving the country.On top of that most countries changed their immigration policy to deny the Jews legal entry.so where were they to go?

Quite right. The whole line of "reasoning" should never have been raised, nor engaged. I do try to give people the benefit of the doubt, but ...

 

[PHenry42]

Throw that out before a Judge, and I think he'll shoot you down. If I cause a crime, or an injury, I'm liable.

Wrong. If you do a crime, you are liable. If you do something that is not a crime, you are not liable for what consequences you might suffer for it.

If you annoy a person and he hits you and breaks your nose, you are not liable. Your broken nose is a consequence of what you did, but he is still liable.

 

[b&wpac7]

If you annoy a person and he hits you and breaks your nose, you are not liable. Your broken nose is a consequence of what you did, but he is still liable.

Ok, but if you hit a person and they hit you back, you are liable, yes?

 

[razeontherock]

Let's bring this back to reality:

if you engage in war and lose, there are consequences. None of these silly analogies work. Nor does any of it have to do with Islam, unless Phenry is beating around the bush re: how it condones terror, or not.

 

[PHenry42]

1) Palestinians fought for their land, and lost.
2) They have aggressively done whatever they could to cause mayhem since.
3) Israel has long been patient, and recently become less so.
4) You guys are losing.
5) You don't get to wipe out that history, pretend it never happened, and do it all over.
6) I'm still not sure how much Islam really has to do with this, and how much it's just fighting over land, and people trying to survive. The whole thing is massively complicated.

All which are facts following from Israeli strength, and forcible imposition of its will. How does that create law? Do you believe that might makes right? If so, how can you object to the Holocaust (since you insist on lingering on it)?

I'm talking about justice plainly here. Do you have something against justice and equality?

As for 5), who says so? What we "get to do" is a value statement, not one of hard fact. Is there a law of physics that says so? Physical laws are unchangeable reality, the rest of reality works like we make it. And I'm saying it is a moral imperative to make it work justly, to the extent of our ability. Do you disagree with that?

Sure, reality sucks sometimes. You don't need to be snarky, I'm very aware of that. Can you demonstrate how that implies that we should tolerate the things that make it suck, such as victor's justice?

 

[PHenry42]

Ok, but if you hit a person and they hit you back, you are liable, yes?

Presumably, but if you snap someone and he responds by shooting you, he is pretty liable too. Especially if he also shoots a load of other innocent people who may somehow be related to you.

 

[razeontherock]

how can you object to the Holocaust (since you insist on lingering on it)?

dude - YOU brought it up.

I'm talking about justice plainly here. Do you have something against justice and equality?

It is not just for you to bring the holocaust into this thread, and it is especially not just for you to then pin that on me. Your concept of "justice" is really not something I'm interested in.

As for 5), who says so? What we "get to do" is a value statement, not one of hard fact. I'm saying it is a moral imperative to make it work justly, to the extent of our ability.

So take your negotiating skills on display here, and negotiate peace in the middle east. Good luck

 

[PHenry42]

Let's bring this back to reality:

if you engage in war and lose, there are consequences.

And as I've demonstrated, consequence does not imply liability, or that you deserve the consequence, or that it was right and just that you suffered it, or that there is some magical rule that says that you have to suffer the consequence in perpetuity and that it cannot, absolutely not be reversed.

Or, to make another analogy, the Spanish Inquisition. The Jews (and Muslims) who were killed by it were killed as a direct consequence of holding on to their faith (rather than becoming Christian). Do you maintain that it follows from that that their consequential deaths on the pyre were their own fault, deserved, and right and just?

 

[b&wpac7]

Presumably, but if you snap someone and he responds by shooting you, he is pretty liable too. Especially if he also shoots a load of other innocent people who may somehow be related to you.

If we're still equating this to the conflict, it is not a good analogy for it.

 

[PHenry42]

dude - YOU brought it up.

As a simple example to illustrate a point, an example that in no way challenged the commonly accepted position of the Holocaust being a terrible crime that its victims were in no way guilty of. Call Godwin if you want; in fact, because it's something everyone agrees was a terrible atrocity against innocent people, it works perfectly for reductio ad absurdum. It's you who hung up on what was only an example to make a point, an example not directly connected to the issue in any way.

If anyone has perceived that I meant something else, they've misunderstood. Okay? Can we agree that no offense was meant?

So take your negotiating skills on display here, and negotiate peace in the middle east. Good luck

Skirting the topic, are we? What's your take on it, then? That might actually makes right? That peace should be based on the victor taking the spoils and the loser getting what crumbs fall off the master's table? That because "that's how it works" we should accept it working that way?

Or are you implying that the Palestinians, because of their alleged crimes and transgressions, do not deserve to share the land equally with the Jews, that their dispossession is therefore just?

*sigh*

Let's try to calm down and discuss in an orderly manner, we're just sniping at individual sentences now. I'm sure we can do better.