Freedomain Posted July 31, 2014 Posted July 31, 2014 The Israel-Palestine conflict has been raging on for decades and there seems to be no end in sight. On July 8, 2014, Israel launched operation Protective Edge, carrying out airstrikes on 50 cities in the Palestinian Gaza Strip. The Israeli government claimed this was retaliation against rockets fired from Palestinian territories controlled by the Islamic political movement Hamas. The July events are the latest of a series of bloody attacks between Israel and Palestine. What is the cause of all this violence and why are both sides so committed to it? Sources: http://www.fdrurl.com/israel-and-palestine Israel and Palestine http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/29/susan-rice-gaza-hamas-israel-defends-john-kerry http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/death-toll-soars-gaza-israel-unleashes-fiercest-bombardment-866386008 http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.607542 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/jan/12/israel Judaism http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=avh6dkSop0EC&pg=PA15 http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=avh6dkSop0EC&pg=PA18 Enlightenment http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_IYvjkNrTe0C&pg=PA210 http://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/mar/05/rosa-luxemburg-writer-activist-letters http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4099803,00.html Zionism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hovevei_Zion http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Bn49KxgeStIC&pg=PA66 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Zionism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zvi_Hirsch_Kalischer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionism#Jewish_Orthodox_religious_groups http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=aHphMCIkhK0C&pg=PA91 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic%E2%80%93Jewish_relations#Muslim-Jewish_wars_and_military_conflicts http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=aHphMCIkhK0C&pg=PA165 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_Hess http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Zionism http://www.zionism-israel.com/hdoc/Moses_Hess_Rome_and_Jerusalem.htm http://mailstar.net/avineri.html Theodor Herzl http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=d7YCWL7m-bUC&pg=PA35 http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=62AUWWooZ4QC&pg=PT17 Second Rise of Judaism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Isaac_Kook http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Zionism http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=pepll2z8vZ0C&pg=PA86 http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/gideon-levy-let-s-face-the-facts-israel-is-a-semi-theocracy-1.2438 http://www.rwf.gr/186583/%CF%83%CF%85%CE%BD%CE%B5%CE%BD%CF%84%CE%B5%CF%8D%CE%BE%CE%B5%CE%B9%CF%82/uri-avnery http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/12/opinion/sunday/are-iran-and-israel-trading-places.html http://forward.com/articles/147521/israel-turning-into-theocracy http://www.nytimes.com/2000/08/12/us/beliefs-jewish-views-separation-church-state-grow-more-complex-when-it-comes.html http://mondoweiss.net/2013/10/xenophobic-theocracy-columnist.html http://maxblumenthal.com/2010/08/how-to-kill-goyim-and-influence-people-leading-israeli-rabbis-defend-manual-for-for-killing-non-jews http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/2.209/west-bank-rabbi-jews-can-kill-gentiles-who-threaten-israel-1.4496 http://coteret.com/2009/11/09/settler-rabbi-publishes-the-complete-guide-to-killing-non-jews http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_58.html http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_59.html http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=avh6dkSop0EC&pg=PA87 http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/jewish/jewish_backwardness.htm Zionist Agenda http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=iy3UWNnQB1MC&pg=PA244 http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Dw6-5jQbDr8C&pg=PT79 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ze'ev_Jabotinsky http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RWPB0lieZzYC&pg=PA214 Balfour Declaration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4ivqeqyGB7EC&pg=PA46 Aftermath http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SCrBAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA69 http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=aHphMCIkhK0C&pg=PA91 http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hHvk870X84QC&pg=PA237 Violence Erupts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_Nebi_Musa_riots http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palin_Report_1920 http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/The%20Balfour%20Declaration%20and%20its%20consequences.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936%E2%80%931939_Arab_revolt_in_Palestine http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/David_Ben-Gurion Partition of Palestine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/israel_palestine_pop.html http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Dw6-5jQbDr8C&pg=PT72 Ethnic Cleansing http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Dw6-5jQbDr8C&pg=PT73 Massacres http://www.amazon.com/Ethnic-Cleansing-Palestine-Ilan-Pappe/dp/1851685553 Catastrophe http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=88GKAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT72 http://auphr.org/index.php/news/5100-palestinian-loss-of-land-1946-2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_area http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba_Day http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=pNotUys-esEC&pg=PT154 Israel's Ally https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/creation-israel http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fqcQwUp-ShIC&pg=PT53 http://www.haaretz.com/business/u-s-aid-to-israel-totals-233-7b-over-six-decades.premium-1.510592 http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CwN6RATLAk0C&pg=PA81 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver 3 1
mangodrink Posted August 1, 2014 Posted August 1, 2014 Good stuff. Man, are youtubers finicky. "You didn't address how X attacked Y in 1997 so I know you're a liar and your entire video is invalid!" Like, if Stef doesn't mention some exact incident/situation they have in their head they get upset and label the entire thing untrue.So, really, even if the presentation was 3 hours long with hundreds of sources they would still play the whack-a-mole game of saying, "oh yeah? Convenient you didn't mention THIS you fraud!" Gotta stop reading youtube comments. Blah.
Lians Posted August 1, 2014 Posted August 1, 2014 Historians who referenced Israel's own archives and stuck to the truth were called anti-Semites, racists, traitors to their own country and so forth. What we're getting in the comments is sad yet entirely predictable. People who are emotionally invested in concepts like country and religion will go through their entire repertoire of verbal aggression and manipulation to get you to self-attack - a rather ugly portrayal of the Jewish mother stereotype. Here's a good example: 1 1
jpahmad Posted August 1, 2014 Posted August 1, 2014 Historians who referenced Israel's own archives and stuck to the truth were called anti-Semites, racists, traitors to their own country and so forth. What we're getting in the comments is sad yet entirely predictable. People who are emotionally invested in concepts like country and religion will go through their entire repertoire of verbal aggression and manipulation to get you to self-attack - a rather ugly portrayal of the Jewish mother stereotype. Lians, this may sound stupid, but I don't get what the specifics of Israel/Palestine history have do with solving the problem they have now. History makes it is absolutely clear what caused the problem. It's force. Why does anything else need to be said? The solution is to stop using force. There is no justification for either side to continue to use force today. The past doesn't matter at this point. The only problem I see is that if Israel just put down their weapons and called a truce, which included allowing Palestinians to integrate into the rest of Israel, then Hamas and the whole Arab world would just annihilate Israel. I don't think Israel wants to use force anymore, but Hamas does. I feel that you are exacerbating the problem by digging into history's atrocities and pointing fingers. What is that going to solve? I mean, Stefan spent the majority of the video on pointing out the horrible things the Israelis did in the past. Yes, they were horrible, as most of history is horrible, but why fan the flames? Really. We owe it to the children of both groups to move on. It's not the children's past, but the adult's past. And the children have to die for it! Please tell me, how will this video, describing the intricacies of what adults did in the past, help children now? The adults had their chance and f#*!ed up. I frankly don't give a crap about who was right and who was wrong in the past. Anyone who uses force now is culpable! And anyone who uses force now, has the blood of children on their hands. That goes for both sides. I guess I feel like this video is giving one side more justification to be enraged, and thus, continue to act violently. What was the the angle? What do you hope to accomplish with this truth video? I suppose maybe to get U.S. to stop supporting Israel. Is that it? That's good, but this video broadcasts all over the world, why don't you talk directly to the Palestinians as well? What are you going to tell them? Good research by the way 1 1
JonnyD Posted August 1, 2014 Posted August 1, 2014 .... The only problem I see is that if Israel just put down their weapons and called a truce, which included allowing Palestinians to integrate into the rest of Israel, then Hamas and the whole Arab world would just annihilate Israel. I don't think Israel wants to use force anymore, but Hamas does. .... UPB Translation: The only problem I see is that if the nazis just put down their weapons and called a truce, which included allowing Prisoners to integrate into the rest of Germany, then this certain Prisoner and the rest of the prisoners would just annihilate Germany. I don't think Germany wants to use force anymore, but this certain Prisoner does. Does the violence end when Israel stops bombing them though? Isn't keeping a population confined against their will in a land cage violence? 1 1
jpahmad Posted August 1, 2014 Posted August 1, 2014 Does the violence end when Israel stops bombing them though? Isn't keeping a population confined against their will in a land cage violence? remember I also said this: called a truce, which included allowing Palestinians to integrate into the rest of Israel I also said this: It's not the children's past, but the adult's past. And the children have to die for it! What does your "UPB translation" imply? That is is o.k. for Palestinians who are angry and want revenge, to kill innocent Israeli children in suicide bombings? The children have nothing to do with this. By that reasoning, it would have then be permissible for Osama Bin Laden to destroy all of New York because our rulers are sociopaths.
JonnyD Posted August 1, 2014 Posted August 1, 2014 remember I also said this: I also said this: It's not the children's past, but the adult's past. And the children have to die for it! What does your "UPB translation" imply? That is is o.k. for Palestinians who are angry and want revenge, to kill innocent Israeli children in suicide bombings? The children have nothing to do with this. By that reasoning, it would have then be permissible for Osama Bin Laden to destroy all of New York because our rulers are sociopaths. My UPB translation was attempting to take the propaganda out your sentences. Maybe I misunderstood what you mean by the word truce? To extrapolate principles I'll give this example: usually when Israel calls a truce it means they'll stop entering the prison cell to beat up the prisoners but holding them imprisoned is still violence. I don't know what the solution is, maybe start with allowing the Palestinians to claim their land back? Maybe stop imprisoning them in a land cage?
chriscase Posted August 1, 2014 Posted August 1, 2014 NYC: 10,000+ Jews Against Israel (U.S. Media Blackout)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMQ9C6vni0w
jpahmad Posted August 1, 2014 Posted August 1, 2014 I don't know what the solution is, maybe start with allowing the Palestinians to claim their land back? Maybe stop imprisoning them in a land cage? How about "no more killing." Let's start with that. "claim their land back"? What does that mean? Israel should just leave Palestinians the f#$k alone and not put any restrictions on what they can and can't do. The two groups of people should just mix together. The past needs to be put in the past. If Israel suffers from an attack due to "releasing the hostages", then it's their own damn fault for what they did in the past. Unfortunately, it won't be the people who caused the problem who get killed. So, if Freedomain Radio wants the killing to stop (this is what it's all about right?), then both sides of the conflict have to be addressed in the video. Stefan did it a little at the end, but I feel the majority of the video was spent on historical "he said, she said." I'm not claiming that the data or information in the video wan inaccurate, I'm just claiming that it doesn't matter one way or the other.
LovePrevails Posted August 1, 2014 Posted August 1, 2014 I was hoping Stefan would tackle this subject!
PGP Posted August 1, 2014 Posted August 1, 2014 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.
jpahmad Posted August 1, 2014 Posted August 1, 2014 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. I'm sorry, I just don't see how the past is relevant if your goal is to stop the killing. Just explain to me how the above history lesson is going to encourage both sides to stop the violence? Would it not enrage Palestinians even further? Would it not give them even more of a reason to become martyrs? What is our goal? To decide who was right and who was wrong? Or to stop the killing? This video just pointed out the blatantly obvious. Religious and nationalistic people are crazy and will ultimately end up killing each other. What else is new? I guess I was expecting something different from a "truth about" video, not just the recounting of the ways in which one band of irrational thugs destroys another band of irrational thugs, who probably did some pillaging and raping of their own in the not to distant past. 1
LovePrevails Posted August 1, 2014 Posted August 1, 2014 Israel is defending itself. How can you be defending yourself while occupying someone else's land? 1
mangodrink Posted August 1, 2014 Posted August 1, 2014 If a little kid was kicking Mike Tyson in the shin and then Tyson knocked the kid on his ass is he defending himself? That's what the situation seems like. 1
PGP Posted August 2, 2014 Posted August 2, 2014 I'm sorry, I just don't see how the past is relevant if your goal is to stop the killing. Just explain to me how the above history lesson is going to encourage both sides to stop the violence? Would it not enrage Palestinians even further? Would it not give them even more of a reason to become martyrs? What is our goal? To decide who was right and who was wrong? Or to stop the killing? This video just pointed out the blatantly obvious. Religious and nationalistic people are crazy and will ultimately end up killing each other. What else is new? I guess I was expecting something different from a "truth about" video, not just the recounting of the ways in which one band of irrational thugs destroys another band of irrational thugs, who probably did some pillaging and raping of their own in the not to distant past. 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.
jpahmad Posted August 2, 2014 Posted August 2, 2014 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. I thought we were trying to get away from laws here on FDR. "Consequences for breaking the law"? What are you talking abut man? I don't think you get what I am saying. All of human history has been based on force. All of it. There is no reason to go into the details. The solution is the same whether Israel initiated force first, or the Palestinians initiated force first. Stop killing. Israel should be encouraged to remove all restrictions from the people that they have imprisoned, and the Palestinians should be encourage not to launch missiles and blow themselves up in public. What's so hard to understand about this? Fyi, one doesn't need to know history to understand that the initiation of force is bad. 4 year old children can understand the NAP.
JamesP Posted August 2, 2014 Posted August 2, 2014 To battle cancer, the doctor studies the disease from as many angles as he can. 1 1
Sal9000 Posted August 2, 2014 Posted August 2, 2014 There was enlightenment in Germany. In fact, the most well known motto of the Enlightenment comes from Kant: Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment. Other enlightened philosophers include: Leibniz Pufendorf (introduced natural law to the legal system) Thomasius (fought against torture and witch hunts) Wolff (cleaned philosophy from theology) Basedow (tried to modernize education) Lichtenberg (scientist and journalist) Lessing (author) Herder (philosopher) Rahel Varnhagen (led a local meetup for philosophers) Mozart
Lians Posted August 2, 2014 Posted August 2, 2014 Lians, this may sound stupid, but I don't get what the specifics of Israel/Palestine history have do with solving the problem they have now. History makes it is absolutely clear what caused the problem. It's force. Why does anything else need to be said? [...] I feel that you are exacerbating the problem by digging into history's atrocities and pointing fingers. What is that going to solve? You do realize that the entire FDR conversation is dedicated to solving the problem they have, right? There is no magical button of reason that we can press and make the fundamentalism, the blood and tears go away. Furthermore, It's not force that caused the problem, it's people using force - people whose ideas are still embedded in Israeli culture. Exacerbating the problem by digging up the truth? Talk about shooting the messenger. This is a philosophy show and truth is the main tool of the trade... The information we presented in the video is already known to the Arabs; they wouldn't commemorate Nakba Day if they were unaware of their history. In fact, there are even Arabic novels written about the ethnic cleansing. A cathedral of peace built on falsehood will crumble at the slightest breeze. Assuming we do actually exacerbate the problem by telling the truth, let me translate what you said to a more familiar language: Digging up the truth about your past will exacerbate your relationships with those who did you harm. So what? Fundamentally, the presentation isn't about Israel and Palestine, it's about irrational absolutes always devolving to coercion. We're using the history of the conflict to promote philosophy. There was enlightenment in Germany. The work of philosophers like Kant, Hegel and Leibniz was more of a revival and repackaging of medieval scholasticism than an actual appeal to Greek reason. Indeed, the tyrannical Rabbis studied them with great interest. The religious upbringing of Moses Hess lead him to Hegel for a reason. Whose sentiment do you think he echoed when he said the following: Judaism is not a passive religion, but an active life factor which has coalesced with the national consciousness into one organic whole. It is primarily the expression of a nationality whose history for thousands of years coincides with the history of the development of a humanity and the Jews are a nation which, having once acted as the leaven of the social world, is destined to be resurrected with the rest of civilized nations. We have to restudy our history, which has been grossly neglected by our rationalists, and rekindle in the hearts of our young generation the spirit which was the source of inspiration to our prophets and sages. Then, also, will we draw our inspiration from the deep well of Judaism; then will our sages and wise men regain the authority which they forfeited from the moment when, prompted by other motives than patriotism, they estranged themselves from Judaism and attempted to reform the Jewish law. We will then again become participators in the holy spirit, namely, the Jewish genius, which alone has the right to develop and form the Jewish law according to the needs of the people. And then, when the third exile will finally have come to an end, the restoration of the Jewish State will find us ready for it. But let's assume Germany was the birthplace of many Enlightenment thinkers. Does that mean their ideas permeated German society? Religious groups like the Lutherans promoted the creation of a public school system with the idea to uproot any secular thoughts from the minds of children. They ultimately got their wish. If you look into the history of the Prussian school system you'll find the roots of both German religiosity and militarism. There's a reason why Norman Finkelstein compared present day Israel to Germany under Bismarck through Hitler. 2 1
Sal9000 Posted August 2, 2014 Posted August 2, 2014 The work of philosophers like Kant, Hegel and Leibniz was more of a revival and repackaging of medieval scholasticism than an actual appeal to Greek reason. Medieval scholasticism died off in European universities a long time before the age of Enlightenment. It was called by Nominalism (Occam) and Humanism (Hutten, Erasmus). The humanistic turn 'ad fontes' (to the sources) meant that you studied original texts and not interpretations. This in turn led to the reformations, since many reformators (so called) started as philologists (Zwingli, Melanchthon) and read the Bible instead of scholastic texts.Can you give some examples where Kant uses scholasticism? He started out as a geologist and geographer and he also published works on the origins of the universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Natural_History_and_Theory_of_HeavenI also fail to see that Leibniz was a scholastic. He invented modern Calculus, modern logic, studied biology and so on.While I read some Hegel I am not in the position to say anything about his background or his method. I doubt a lot of people can. Does that mean their ideas permeated German society? Yes. Friedrich II enacted enlightened ideas by liberating the serfs and getting rid off corporal punishment. The same is true for Joseph of Austria. The free city states (Hamburg, Bremen, Lübeck...) where ahead though. Religious groups like the Lutherans promoted the creation of a public school system with the idea to uproot any secular thoughts from the minds of children. Up until Pietism (a Lutheran sect) there was no public school system. Interestingly enough, the Pietists schools and universities were incubators for Enlightenment. Pierre Bayle's dictionary was widely distributed in those institutions. If you look into the history of the Prussian school system you'll find the roots of both German religiosity and militarism. The reforms enacted by Stein, Hardenberg, and Humboldt had the intention to strengthen the Prussian state by trying to educate the intelligent people (the two upper tiers of school). Humboldt stated that going to school or to university should enable you to become a better person. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_von_Humboldt for details. There's a reason why Norman Finkelstein compared present day Israel to Germany under Bismarck through Hitler. That's too unspecific. Bismarck's goal was to make it impossible that there were coalitions against Germany (cauchemar des coalitions). He predicted the outbreak of a major war, if Russia and France would unite against Germany. Ironically, he even foresaw that a conflict in the Balkans would make Russia attack the Central European Powers. There is no straight line that leads from Bismarck to Hitler, since German foreign policy changed drastically over those years. A comparison with major colonial powers would have been more apt: The genocide of the British in South Africa, The genocide of the Belgiums in the Kongo, the nefarious actions of France in their African regions . 1
Psychophant Posted August 2, 2014 Posted August 2, 2014 If a little kid was kicking Mike Tyson in the shin and then Tyson knocked the kid on his ass is he defending himself? That's what the situation seems like. It would be the initiation of force and proportional violence would be required to get rid of the perpetrator. There is no little kid kicking Mike Tyson, it is rather like he barged in someone's apartment, emptied the fridge, changed the locks, renovated the room and changed the name label on the door into his own name. As the owner comes home and tries to get rid of him with a stick, he gets knocked out. 1
PGP Posted August 2, 2014 Posted August 2, 2014 I thought we were trying to get away from laws here on FDR. "Consequences for breaking the law"? What are you talking abut man? I don't think you get what I am saying. All of human history has been based on force. All of it. There is no reason to go into the details. The solution is the same whether Israel initiated force first, or the Palestinians initiated force first. Stop killing. Israel should be encouraged to remove all restrictions from the people that they have imprisoned, and the Palestinians should be encourage not to launch missiles and blow themselves up in public. What's so hard to understand about this? Fyi, one doesn't need to know history to understand that the initiation of force is bad. 4 year old children can understand the NAP. 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.
Darkademic Posted August 2, 2014 Posted August 2, 2014 How can you be defending yourself while occupying someone else's land? There are major problems with this line of reasoning. Israel was established over 60 years ago by people who are no longer alive. The people who were forced out are also no longer alive. Are people responsible for the mistakes of their parents and grandparents (much less the mistakes of people who happen to share the same ethnicity)? Is retaliation justified indefinitely, spanning multiple generations, irrespective of how many times property changes either in its characteristics or ownership? Israel is unrecognisable compared to what it was pre-1948; comparable to the difference between Hong Kong in 1948 vs now. So, if I stole your watch, then took the battery out and smashed the watch, then sold the battery to a watchmaker who put it into a new watch and sold it to a person who then gave it to a friend as a gift, would your grandchildren be justified in killing that person's grandchildren to "re-take" the watch? Would Jews be justified in indiscriminately firing rockets at German civilians on the grounds that Germans now occupy property that was previously owned by Jews? Would you argue that a German response to such action could not be described as defensive? All land/property can likely be traced back to an initiation of force if you go back far enough. A line has to be drawn somewhere, assuming you don't want to just throw property rights completely out the window. A second related problem is the assumption of collective responsibility and/or collective entitlement, regarding the Jews as being equally obliged to give their land/property/homes to Arabs who are all equally entitled to it, despite hundreds of thousands of people on both sides immigrating there -- and the rest being born there -- long after Israel was founded. I don't think the proposition that Israelis have no right to fight back makes any sense, given the above. 1 1
JonnyD Posted August 2, 2014 Posted August 2, 2014 So, if I stole your watch, then took the battery out and smashed the watch, then sold the battery to a watchmaker who put it into a new watch and sold it to a person who then gave it to a friend as a gift, would your grandchildren be justified in killing that person's grandchildren to "re-take" the watch? I've edited this to actually reflect the situation: So, if I stole your watch, locked you in a cage and deprived you from resources to prevent you from attempting to retrieve your watch then took the battery out and smashed the watch, then sold the battery to a watchmaker who put it into a new watch and sold it to a person who then gave it to a friend as a gift, all the while you are locked in a cage and I still haven't let you out would your grandchildren be justified in killing that person's grandchildren to "re-take" the watch? Plus there's no need to kill the person to reclaim stolen property, and compromises/reparations can be made if certain property isn't easy to transfer.
Darkademic Posted August 2, 2014 Posted August 2, 2014 I've edited this to actually reflect the situation: Plus there's no need to kill the person to reclaim stolen property, and compromises/reparations can be made if certain property isn't easy to transfer. I'm not sure your amendments change the answer though. The people who ultimately ended up with the battery in their watch are still in no way responsible. Maybe they'd be obliged (?) to hand the battery over, assuming it can be proven that it was stolen from you originally and that your claim on the battery was given to your grandchildren. But then if you apply this to people's homes and livelihoods, I don't know. If someone approached you with proof that your house (or the land on which was built) was taken by force from their ancestors, would you give them the house? What do you reasonably owe them, if anything? Of course I agree there's no need to kill anyone, but we're talking about Hamas, and they've made it very clear they're not open to compromises/negotiation; they want all Jews dead regardless of actual blame. Israel on the other hand has been open to proposals for a Palestinian state.
jpahmad Posted August 2, 2014 Posted August 2, 2014 I get exactly what you are saying. So, you would like the application of the NAP by all sides? You are correct. How else can there be peace? One side puts down their guns and lets the other side blow them away? 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? Not Israel, people in Israel. You have to stop talking about a country like it's an actuall thing. In these videos, we aim to address people, not made up concepts like "country." People in Israel are intelligent and educated, they can understand the NAP. The rulers in Israel are a different breed though. They are the real aggressors against the Palestinians and they should face the consequences of their crimes. However, to get to the rulers, you have to get to the people first. 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. So it's a quantum leap to understand the NAP but not a quantum leap to understand Jewish and Palestinian history for the past 500 years? 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. So if I hate my neighbor, and wish him dead, and my only deterrent to killing him is the fear of reprisal from a third party(which would be disadvantageous to me), then we should celebrate that my not killing him is comparable to making peace? I would still hate my neighbor. The only peace that matters, or holds in this world, is peace as a result of a principle. Any other form of "peace" is just a house of cards ready to blow away at the slightest little point of contention between two people. 1
PGP Posted August 2, 2014 Posted August 2, 2014 You are correct. How else can there be peace? One side puts down their guns and lets the other side blow them away? Not Israel, people in Israel. You have to stop talking about a country like it's an actuall thing. In these videos, we aim to address people, not made up concepts like "country." People in Israel are intelligent and educated, they can understand the NAP. The rulers in Israel are a different breed though. They are the real aggressors against the Palestinians and they should face the consequences of their crimes. However, to get to the rulers, you have to get to the people first. So it's a quantum leap to understand the NAP but not a quantum leap to understand Jewish and Palestinian history for the past 500 years? So if I hate my neighbor, and wish him dead, and my only deterrent to killing him is the fear of reprisal from a third party(which would be disadvantageous to me), then we should celebrate that my not killing him is comparable to making peace? I would still hate my neighbor. The only peace that matters, or holds in this world, is peace as a result of a principle. Any other form of "peace" is just a house of cards ready to blow away at the slightest little point of contention between two people. 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.
jpahmad Posted August 2, 2014 Posted August 2, 2014 Exacerbating the problem by digging up the truth? Talk about shooting the messenger. This is a philosophy show and truth is the main tool of the trade... The information we presented in the video is already known to the Arabs; they wouldn't commemorate Nakba Day if they were unaware of their history. In fact, there are even Arabic novels written about the ethnic cleansing. Lians, at 49.59 in the video, Stefan sort of makes a comparison "from the stand point of the victims" between the Jews and the Nazis. The Nazis were a national socialist party in Germany at a certain point in time that lived and died. There are no longer any openly card carrying Nazis walking around the streets of Germany who do not receive severe condemnation. What the Israeli rulers and their henchmen did to the Palestinians in the 1940s Arab-Israeli war was absolutely ethnic cleansing and exactly the same thing that Hitler did to the Jews. However, when Stefan says "Jews" it seems he is referring to all Jews past and present who live in that part of the world. The truth is great, but I don't think you are representing the truth when you compare modern day Israelis to a 1940 gang of thugs who wiped out a population. Tell me Lians, what is the truth about the people who occupy Israel now? Are they comparable to Nazis in the eyes of the Palestinians? After all, they are the ones who suffer the retaliation of enraged Palestinians. A cathedral of peace built on falsehood will crumble at the slightest breeze. Assuming we do actually exacerbate the problem by telling the truth, let me translate what you said to a more familiar language: Digging up the truth about your past will exacerbate your relationships with those who did you harm. So what? No that doesn't quite work. The Palestinians still have a relationship with the Israeli government. They are neighbors and prisoners. Also, you wrote "did you harm", the Israeli government is still doing harm to the Palestinians. For example, if you defoo from an abusive past, if you truly defoo, that means you have no relationship with that person, therefore, there is no longer any abuse. In this case, digging up dirt from the past will not effect you negatively. For the Palestinians, digging up the truth about their past relationship with the Israeli government, will do both the Palestinians and the Israeli people much more harm (the Palestinians will become more enraged), and unfortunately, no one in Israeli government will suffer. Only the people will suffer. 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. Don't hate it till you try it 1 3
bootoo Posted August 5, 2014 Posted August 5, 2014 Saw a new story about an person with mental illness being found banging his head against the wall - so he was stretchered out to the ambulance in hand and ankle cuffs - he spat in a cops face, so 4 cops repeatedly punched him in the face until the EMT physically put himself between them seems very similar to this
cab21 Posted August 6, 2014 Posted August 6, 2014 killing Palestinians because of Hamas is like killing Americans because of obama.
cynicist Posted August 6, 2014 Posted August 6, 2014 I don't think Israel wants to use force anymore, but Hamas does. I feel that you are exacerbating the problem by digging into history's atrocities and pointing fingers. What is that going to solve? I mean, Stefan spent the majority of the video on pointing out the horrible things the Israelis did in the past. It's tough to find people who think Hamas is innocent but there are no shortage of those who would absolve Israelis of responsibility for whatever reason. Clearing up this misconception that Israel is merely defending itself is worthy of a 'truth about' video. However, when Stefan says "Jews" it seems he is referring to all Jews past and present who live in that part of the world. The truth is great, but I don't think you are representing the truth when you compare modern day Israelis to a 1940 gang of thugs who wiped out a population. Stefan specifically says he is not equating Jews to Nazis. Do I even need to explain why your statement, "seems he is referring to all Jews past and present", has nothing to do with the video? 2 1
jpahmad Posted August 7, 2014 Posted August 7, 2014 It's tough to find people who think Hamas is innocent but there are no shortage of those who would absolve Israelis of responsibility for whatever reason. Clearing up this misconception that Israel is merely defending itself is worthy of a 'truth about' video. Robert, I understand that Israel has done just as much terrorizing in the past as Hamas. I never doubted that and if the purpose of this video was to balance things out a bit by showing how Israel is just as culpable of crimes against humanity as Hamas, then it did a good job. I have no problem with that. My personal experience when watching the video was one of disappointment. Why? Here are the reasons: Everyone with half a brain cell already knows that it "takes two to tango" and that Israel has done just as many horrible things over the years to the Palestinians as Hamas and/or radical Islamists have done to others. Those who don't already understand this are simpleton idiots who are not interested in "the truth" anyway. They just want to take sides and beat their chest. Figuring out who started it won't solve the problem anyway A lot of the specifics of conflict in history are based on hearsay and speculation. I don't know anyone that can make a video about historical disputes without depending on secondary resources. (contrast to Stefan's other videos like Zimmerman and circumcision where he used logic and scientific data.) I don't want people to think that FDR is oversimplifying a complex problem. It doesn't make us look good. Stef himself warned about the dangers of simplistic people who just beat their chests and shout platitudes. Not that that is what is being done in his video, but there are parallels. Finally, tell me how knowing the truth about the past is going to extinguish the flames felt in the heart of a Palestinian or Israeli child who just watched his/her loved ones get blown to pieces by shell fire? The problem isn't the past, it's the present! Someone in the present is firing missiles at people! These are the people who I thought Stefan was going to address. I thought he was going to speak to the people who need a reality check, who need to know that if they want peace, they have to just stop killing and see that on the other side of the wall, on the other side of the barricade, are human beings. But this, he did not do. He just fanned the flames of hate and anger. This is why I was disappointed. I'm just describing my feelings and reaction to the video. I love all the other truth videos. Maybe I'm over-reacting. Take it for what it's worth. Come to think of it, only at the end did Stefan start to get into what I was expecting to hear. Unfortunately, it was overshadowed by the other 90% of the video. 1 1
MMX2010 Posted August 7, 2014 Posted August 7, 2014 I liked this video very much, because I haven't been exposed to "anti-Israel" summaries of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. I also think it went much deeper than the "It takes two to tango..." cliché, and actually explained, in gory detail, how insane the Zionist position is. (VICE did a feature on American Christians donating hundreds of millions to Israel, simply because Revelation prophesizes that Israel must be 100% Jewish in order for Jesus to return. So the insanity of American Christianity is largely responsible for the insanity in Israel/Palestine.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQi9kI8TVlc
JamesP Posted August 13, 2014 Posted August 13, 2014 I don't really understand why this presentation was made. I think Stef lost a lot of credibility with this one. I don't want to pick sides, I just wish everyone living in the area can one day live in peace/or move out of there. This is the definition of inter-generational lose-lose. And I feel engaging in it made Stef and FDR lose too. That's not an argument.
Recommended Posts