PGP

So, just send an explanation of the NAP to the israeli and Palestinians. Problem solved. If you do not want to embrace what I have said as a necessary for peace in Palestine, then I do not have anything further to add to this conversation.

I get exactly what you are saying. So, you would like the application of the NAP by all sides? Yes, that would be great. But, how can you expect israel to adopt the NAP if they do not even recognise the laws already in place and have been held to no account whatsoever? If you want peace, expecting a quantum leap of understanding is perhaps not the best way to go. A similar situation in many ways was experienced in my country between the Republicans and Unionists in the North. It is my assessment of this, having lived through it that it was only when there was little if any advantage to carrying on an armed struggle that peace was possible through dialogue. In essence, peace became more advantageous than slaughter. Did they reach this through applying the NAP? Absolutely not. The peace talks were tortuous, painstaking and required a forensic understanding of the history of the region in order that peace may be made but more importantly that it may be kept. It is through the accountability to their people and to wider international law and wider international sentiment that was became disadvantageous to the cause of both sides. Now, a person in this community has the chance to pursue the NAP in peace, not in the midst of an armed struggle. Making peace is extremely difficult in these circumstances. Not in theory, but in fact, in live real fact. Just wishing that a principle could be understood and adopted in these situations is absolutely naive.

I will give an analogy from history. Do you think that learning from history is important? Do you think that an accurate historic analysis is important? Would it have been useful for France and Britain to learn the lessons of history and not set the stage for the rise of Hitler? Would it be important for the US to realise that brutalising and murdering muslims and destabilising secular Arab regimes is not the best approach to national security? The examples could go on for ever. To ask the question : "Just explain to me how the above history lesson is going to encourage both sides to stop the violence?" is to treat the conflict as if it is occurring in a vacuum with no outside influence. History can act as a lesson because we can see the same patterns playing out over and over again and indeed as FDR deals with alot, this happens first in the family and then in the wider sphere. History is full of what I have mentioned previously: raw, unaccountable power and religious fundamentalism(I include communism and fascism) seeking to dominate others. We are now in danger, nay we are witnessing this repeat in Palestine. The creation of the land called israel was facillitated by outside forces. Not only that, it has been armed with nuclear weapons by outside forces. And it's very existence as a recognised political entity depends on outside forces including constant diplomatic and economic and military support. It does not adhere to international law, it is not a signatory to the nuclear arms treaties (indeed it does not even acknowledge it has them) and at any time it can call on the most powerful nation in history to back it up no matter the circumstances. This support is also based on a fundamentalism. Indeed, as far as I am aware, israel is held to no standard. It has free-rein. So, how can an historic analysis help to stop the killing? In order for their to be a peaceful and sustainable resolution, there has to be truth and a recognition of this truth. Not just for this conflict, but for all potential future conflicts so that they may be avoided. In order for a peaceful and sustainable resolution, there has to be an objective standard of law and accountability. With this law and accountability, there has to be consequences for the breaking of this law based on objective standards of behaviour. Were it not for the support of the US, who would do commerce with israel? How long would they have lasted and indeed how long would they last now? Recognising the mistakes of history and the implications of these mistakes allows the recognition of the mistakes that are continuing to be made based on objective standards. Without this guide we have only power and win/lose.

Israel is defending itself. If the people of Gaza have as their elected leadership Hamas with their charter, then surely the only way for israel to be safe is to exterminate every Palestinian. Indeed, there have been reports of israeli politicians making statements to this effect. So, why explore the truth of israels origins? Because without an objective assessment based on consistent philosophical principles of the origins of the conflict, there can be no resolution of it. If the Palestinians are subdued through starvation, sickness and ethnic cleansing then it will be a triumph for raw, unaccountable power and religious fundamentalism not just over Palestine but over the accumulated philosophical and moral basis of Western civilisation.

Interesting approach from Hollande. Contrasts with the "upward-only rent reviews" in my country (Ireland) for commercial property. ie rent can only go up BY LAW. This has resulted in empty commercial premises when spending post-'08 declined for disposable income in particular. Governments, who'd have 'em?

Mango, thank you for your kind words, I appreciate it very much. I will try and relate my experience to you as regards the feelings of loss for what could have been. As I have written, I still feel that yearning for my parents to still be alive and for what could have been. But, I have come to the realisation that even before they died, I had this feeling for my entire life, particularly from the age of 12-13 onwards. The best word I have found to describe this feeling is the German word "sehnsucht". One interpretation of this word is the yearning for a far-off land that does not exist. That far-off land for me has always and continues to be a functional, respectful, cooperative and connected family. At the age of 12 or so a couple of things were in my life that began to get me thinking about what a good family should look like and feel like and the implications of a bad family. Firstly, I was fortunate enough to have a friend with whoms family I spent alot of time. The difference between my family and theirs was night and day, heaven and hell. Also, as part of my school curriculum, I read a book that had as one of it's main themes the repetition of familial and cultural history with all the horror and tragedy. So, at this age, I could recognise that there was something terribly wrong with my family. Not only that, but as the youngest, I could see the same patterns and dysfunction in my older siblings as they came to adulthood and beyond. Now, I had a fundamental conflict in my life between having to be part of this family, trying to survive it, while having the knowledge that it was a cruel accident of chance that was completely unnecessary. So, as a child captive, I adapted to my situation still with the cognitive dissonance of knowing how wrong it was. Every day my parents and then my siblings had the opportunity to see what I could see, but they did not see it and if they did, they did not act on it. I desperately wanted them to change while watching them get worse. My hope was to get on with my education as best I could to have the chance of getting away from them. Here, I have found what Stefan has talked about to be extremely valuable. He speaks of the subconscious and the conscious thought. My conscious thought was as above. My unconscious was modelling on my parents. It was hardwired into my brain and I had no choice as a child. My blank canvass was filled by them and their dysfunction. This is what I am the most angry about and it is the challenge I have had and continue to deal with. I am getting into alot of stuff here but I am trying to give a fuller picture for what my feeling of loss is for what could have been. Moving into my late teens and 20's my fathers death hit me like a ton of bricks. Not for my father but for what my father could have been. Between this time and my mothers death in 2012 I began to hate my mother and to see her for what she was, the accumulation of her choices. Her choices and her Catholic martyrdom was externalised onto us as children. Never, not once did she exhibit adherance to rationality. The situation became extremely painful for me when she was diagnosed with cancer in 2010. I felt the responsibility to do all I could to help care for her financially, logistically, spending time with her and being a support. I spent one and a half years, an enormous amount of money and putting my life and career on hold to care for and support someone whom had done so much harm to me and my siblings. I did it out of a sense of duty but the mental and emotional toll on me was enormous. It is the most foolish thing I have ever done. Following my mothers death in 2012 and particularly moving into the latter half of 2013, when I started listening to FDR, I have begun to reevaluate all of my relationships and my choices. I have almost totally cut off contact from my siblings through this reevaluation and I have never had such a weight off my shoulders. I will not make the same mistake with them as I made with my parents. So, my feeling of loss for my parents and what could have been is a bone-deep feeling of loss for what they could have been, not for what they were. I have been and continue to yearn for something that never existed. I am aware of that now and this is the difference for me. Not for one second can I contemplate living my life and making the choices they made and creating a family in this reckless manner. This is their judgement. This is my experience, but I think as you lost your father at a very young age, yours has some important differences, perhaps some real possibility of what may have been different. I say perhaps because only you can make this judgement. Again, I hope there is something helpful in this for you.

Dear Mango, to have lost you father at such a young age and in such circumstance is tremendously unfair and painful. You have said that your fathers loss was all the greater for the lost opportunities and guidance that could have been. This has been all the greater still for your mothers behaviour and how she communicated with you. For the pain, loss and trauma you have experienced, I am tremendously sorry. In your experience, I can empathise and relate. I lost my father at a much older age of 20. I can relate to the felling of pain and loss and the feeling of being cheated in comparison to my friends and peers who couldn't seem to appreciate my loss. The circumstances of my fathers death and my relationship with him were quite different. It is only after ten years of him passing and with the further loss of my mother that I have gained some perspective on them, their choices and the home they created for the family. This was a dysfunctional upbringing for us all and this dysfunction has continued into some of the familys lives in a major way. It is only in recent times and in retrospect that I can pass judgement on my parents, their actions and choices. Nonetheless, the feeling of loss and what could have been is there. My own approach is to separate myself from them and their choices absolutely. I am a separate individual and I have made different choices, more responsible choices alot of the time despite the barriers they placed for me. Above all else, I am determined to end the cycle of dysfunction at whatever cost. I know that I am not answering your questions directly. I am early on the path to self-knowledge myself, so perhaps there are others who are further along than I who can be more relevant. Nonetheless, perhaps there is something in what I have said that may be of use to you. Again, I am very sorry for what you have had to deal with. I am glad that you are following this path.

Hi Toren, welcome to the forum. I am just a few days on it myself. It is truly amazing and something I am very thankful for that we live in an age when technology allows this to happen. How many tragedies in history there have been due to ignorance of alternatives and the control of state. Now, to see someone from Russia with its particular history immersing themselves in the philosophy available on FDR is very important and encouraging.

I want to compliment you on this analysis. The sexual component of selection apart from and in interaction with the selection based on advantageous biological traits is one that I hear mentioned very little.

I used to have this urge and I probably still do to an extent with some people. Now, I try to approach a debate on a particular issue on the basis of finding some objective truth rather than arguing a particular view infinitum. Now, I'd rather be proven wrong based on superior logic and evidence than to "win" an argument based on debating skills such as happens alot in the media or politics. I suppose I have come to recognise that in the great scheme of things I know very little but that sticking to logic and evidence gives me the best chance of finding truth and sometimes others will have superior thinking in this regard. That's why I like FDR, in the approach to finding consistency and objective standards and truth. My own self-criticism is that arguing to win without the above was and still is to a lesser extent a form of trying to dominate another and indeed this fed into my own narcissism. Having superior intelligence than others very often allows domination of them in debates without adhering to logic or evidence. There are some people I know who will outright try to humiliate someone with a different viewpoint through any means possible but this is extreme dysfunction and I do not think I ever acted in this way. For my own part, using this different approach is one of the most valuable skills and changes I have made in my life.

Thats an interesting post. A couple things popped into my head. Firstly, govs and promises and the magic you speak of remind me of a parent telling a child "everything will be ok" in an obviously dysfunctional situation, based on absolutely no evidence. I think this might lead into how govs manage to promise all, with the inevitable results we have seen. Secondly, I am reminded of a line from Alan Greenspans book "An age of turbulence" when he says quite clearly that the democratic process acts as a pressure relief valve for the economic system. So, for example, boom, bust, protest marches, promises from the opposition, vote......wash,rinse,repeat. In this way, gov has become the constantly moving target for both public hope and ire, but nothing changes. The move toward fascism in this respect is perhaps something worth analysis, but not by me. I have had a curious notion lately that "citizens" in a socialist country such as my own have a push-pull relationship with gov. An example is tax and welfare. When they vote, they only see the tip of the iceberg or the tip of the spear in terms of tax paid and welfare received ie a family will receive childrens benefit while paying the tax that pays that benefit. A small movement up or down in tax or welfare is like the difference between paying 99c or 1 dollar for a candy bar. Very little difference except for the mind-trick of marketing. That's my brainstorm on this, don't know if I'm in the same ballpark o the issue, but there it is!!!

Hi! I just joined the forum myself. I have been listening for a few months. Welcome to the forum, I look forward to all the wonderful conversations ahead! I worked with some Polish men a few years ago and the only Polish I learned was spokojnie!

Hi, my second post!!! Hi to everyone. I had a curious notion the other day on the issue of human shields in the context of the Palestine war. I will lay it out and I welcome critique. Firstly, some groundwork on the situation. It has been said that Hamas uses human shields in Gaza, siting rockets and other munitions in or near residential areas and schools, hospitals etc. Let us assume that this is their intention, to use the death of the civilians through provoked attacks to garner international attention and put pressure on israel etc. Hamas is the elected admin of Gaza, so I think it is safe to venture that the Gazans approve of this tactic in achieving the common aims of Hamas including the destruction of the state of israel. Israel was founded as a zionist ideal. A homeland for people of the jewish religion with a justification for location in Palestine based on biblical and other text. It has been proclaimed as a jewish state in recent times by the gov of israel and the legal status of non-jews in israel seems differential to that of jews. Throughout the history of israel, the gov has expanded the geographic extent of the state in the face of aggression from neighbouring states including Egypt, Lebanon etc. In recent times (carrying on the practice from the est of the state) there have been a number of settlements in the West bank in actions that are illegal even under the Oslo accord that israel agreed to. Israel has never established or set out final settled borders since it's creation. In this context, I think it is fair to say that est settlements in the West Bank (and previously Gaza) with jews is by very definition placing these jews in danger of attack from Hamas and other forces such as Hezbollah. As a people, Palestinians believe they are justified in attacking these illegal settlements. This is resistance of an occupying force from their perspective. So, the question here. Is there a strong or indeed direct equivalency between the above accepted Hamas action of using human shields and the israeli action of settling illegally in the West Bank? Hamas uses human shields in this context to further their aims. Israel uses settlements to further their zionist aims and objectives, otherwise why would they do it? In the most recent and continuing escalation, the murder of three israeli teens from a settlement was, I think it is fair to say, utilised as a justification and rallying cry for retaliation if the media coverage in israel and elsewhere is anything to go by. An example of this is Bibi Netanyahu and his appeal for vengeance referring to jewish texts. So, is israel using attacks on jews (that it, and the individuals involved, many as recent immigrants from Russia etc) has placed in danger as a justification of military and other intervention? If so, is this not the use of human shields to further the zionist ideal and agenda? Open question.