Zionism (and Nationalism in general)

[A-Palestinian]

For the moment, the request is to Define Zionism. This means no history, and no sob stories. Just a definition. Other statements/conclusions will follow.

[victot]

a-palestinian:
go to http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/zion.html to read up on zionism.
it is estimated that 71% of all would-be future palestinian suicide/sacrificial bombers who go to this site and read it though, convert to judaism, and become rabbis!

here is the deifinition it gives of zionism:

Zionism, the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel, advocated, from its inception, tangible as well as spiritual aims. Jews of all persuasions, left and right, religious and secular, joined to form the Zionist movement and worked together toward these goals. Disagreements led to rifts, but ultimately, the common goal of a Jewish state in its ancient homeland was attained. The term "Zionism" was coined in 1893 by Nathan Birnbaum.

[A-Palestinian]

Victot,

Your responce is appreciated.

The first 2 lines contain the actual meaning of Zionism, and the rest are sideline facts. As such, I will disect those first two lines:

First line: Zionism, the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland

This sentence adovocates the settlement of a homeland. The homeland in this case, is referring to modern day Israel, and the territories. Uganda was also a possibility early on. Where the new country was to be founded though, is irrelevant for the moment. Let us call this new land to be allocated for the new Zionist Nation, "Area X".

Thus, Upshot 1 is: The pre-requisite of Zionism, would be land allocated for it.

Second line: and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel

This phrase means that once the Zionist state has been founded, its populus is to remain mostly Jewish.

Thus, Upshot 2 is: A concious effort is to be made, to discriminate in favour of maintaining the Jewish populus as the majority, at all times, in this new Zionist state.

The Conclusion is: Zionism is an ideology, that seeks out an area of land, for, and only for the Jews. In short, Zionism is Jewish Nationalism.

--m--e--a--n--s--> E-N-D-S.

Any End - any goal - in order to be attained, must go through the means by which said End can be attained. Thus we can now safely say, that Zionism's Ends, are the Conclusion above. Notice however, that nothing is mentioned about the means of going about achieving those ends.


ZIONISM

--m--e--a--n--s--> E-N-D-S: Land for Jews,
etc. (See conclusion)

Before I go on, there has to be Zero disagreements on what I have stated above. Thus, I will pause for now, and offer any rebuttals/additions to come in. It is crucial that any doubts be removed now, rather than later.

[victot]

well, im no expert like some of these guys...
though it seems pretty much right to me.

ps.

it's hard to have zero rebuttals before knowing the point you're making...

[NewsGuy]

I am not so sure about whether there is an "official" definition of Zionism, per se. In fact, as the article I am linking to below states, the definition of Zionism has been hotly debated for a very long time.

Here is the discussion in the British Guardian newspaper:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/unracism/story/0,1099,546868,00.html

In any event I think that all definitions of Zionism agree that the Jews have a right to reestablish themselves and live independently in the land of Zion (Jerusalem), which has been interpreted as modern-day Israel, including the Palestinian-controlled territories. This is based on the fact that Jews originate in that land and have lived there continouosly for thousands of years.

The weird twist about "Uganda" amounted to some intellectual exercise that was rejected by the Zionist congress in 1905. I am not familiar with anyone who would support settling in a land other than the Jewish homeland of Israel.


You mention "discrimination" and "allocating" land, but actually there is no mention of discriminating against other groups, nor "allocating" land in the definition itself.

Actually, the initial Zionist method to acquire land in Israel to purchase the land for cash from the lands' ownder, i.e., the Ottoman Empire, as well as some from Syrian and other foreign owners of the land.

The discrimination was put into place by the Arabs, who intimidated their own people and forbade them to sell land to Jews (purely on the basis of religious discrimination). At the same time, Arab massacres of Jews started in communities like Hebron in 1929. All this led to the UN partition of British Palestine and it is on this basis that Israel exists, not on the basis of Zionist philosophy, which in any event has no one single definition.

[A-Palestinian]

I believe ample time has passed for any additions towards my previous post. I will first address Newsguy's post, and then move further.

Newsguy,
"In any event I think that all definitions of Zionism agree that the Jews have a right to reestablish themselves and live independently in the land of Zion (Jerusalem), which has been interpreted as modern-day Israel, including the Palestinian-controlled territories. "

This is Zionism. Unlike what you said however, it DOES have a definition for it, per se. The only differences encountered in the different forms of Zionism, are the reasons why Jews must go back to ancient Israel. However, their raw and basicend is the same - and that end is stated as the conclusion of my previous post.

End of address to Newsguy.

I will now continue:

It was established earlier, that for a Zionist state to exist, land must exist for it to exist over, and that also, for a Zionist state to exist, the majority of the populus in the state, must remain Jewish. Those are the Ends.

The means by which to go about achieving those ends, have not been addressed. I will now address them.

I do this by making a list of statements, which are dependant on each other. That is, if statement 1 is false, then statement 2 following it, must also be false. This will allow for an easier discussion, and any disagreements are to be linked to individual statements.

Statement 1: From 1800, and especially since then, there have always been people residing in any given part of the temperate world (in varying numbers), that is, in any part of the world excluding and the Antarctic.

Statement 2: Thus, any attempt to create a nation on Earth, (excluding the Antarctic) must at some point also take into account the native populus on said piece of land. "Accounting" for the natives, means that when a new nation is formed, they are either part of it, in which case they can stay, or they are not part of it, in which case they cant stay.

Statement 3: If a new nation is formed, with the intention for being solely for the "X" people, then it can be formed on previously un-inhabited land. (Like Mars). If the new nation for the "X" people is to be founded on land previously occupied by the "Y" people, then the "Y" people must somehow be removed. If the "Y" people can be persuaded into leaving, then the new Nation for the "X" people can be formed. If the "Y" people cannot be presuaded to move, then force must be used to remove the "Y" people.


Statement 4: By the second line of Post number two, a Zionist state's majority populus must remain Jewish. Since a Zionist state is to be formed in an area of land previously occupied by "Y" people, the only hope for a Zionist, is for the "Y" people residing in ancient Israel to go away. Since the "Y" people in ancient Israel will not go away, then a Zionist (if adamant enough), can use force to evict the "Y" people.

Statement 5: (Allow an interjection of a little C++ here): Let "X" = Jewish, and let "Y" = "Palestinian". Re-read above statements with new substitutions.


In ANY case, a Zionist state will have to resort to force, in order to create a new nation on temperate Earth. (Since creating a Zionist Nation on a land already occupied by Jews defeats the purpose). Meaning, a Zionist state must forcefully evict any non-Jews from an area on which the new nation is to be formed.

Conclusion: Zionism, to take effect on Earth, is immoral.

I will pause here, and allow any rebuttals/additions to be made, so that I can address them, and then move on.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by A-Palestinian
Conclusion: Zionism, to take effect on Earth, is immoral.


Interesting how all this college lecture-style pseudo-intellectual recitation boils down to the same old Arab rhetoric: "Zionism is immoral."

Well, to me, the Palestinian mass murder of innocent Israeli children sitting in pizza stores and in shopping malls is what's immoral. The fact that more than 2/3 of the Palestinian population supports suicide bombings in a crowd of innocent Israelis is what's immoral.

On the other hand, the right of the Jewish people to resettle their homeland is not only moral, but an obvious historical turn of events. As for the Palestinians, there is a saying that goes something like "if you build you home right near the ocean, don't be surprised when it gets flooded."

Same goes for the Palestinians -- since they are squatters in the Jewish homeland, they should not be surprised and have no excuse to complain when the Jews who are the owners of the land, kick the Palestinian out.

But in this case, much of Israeli land was actually bought for cash from the Ottoman Empire and not even taken forcefully, as would be the Israeli right in any event. This shows the breakdown of "a Palestinian"'s theory that Zionism somehow requires force and discrimination. Maybe all it takes in a few bucks handed to the greedy Arabs.

But wait... Upon seeing that the Palestinians were gladly selling more land to Jews, even in the past few years, the Palestinian "Ra'is," i.e., Arafat, in a spectacular display of Palestinian human rights and enlightenment, ordered that any Palestinian caught selling land to Jews would be have their throat slashed and his/her body dumped publicly in the middle of the marketplace. This was intended to show what will happen to any Palestinian who refused to discriminate against Jews.



Now, class, I will "allow" the chance for rebuttle before getting to the rest of this thread. :)

[sharonbn]

A-Palestinian:

I see some flaws in your "logic" line of thinking:

“any attempt to create a nation on Earth, (excluding the Antarctic) must at some point also take into account the native populous”
its the question of the chicken and the egg: The Arab tribes that populated the land of Israel around 1800s have themselves been forceful evictors of previous "native" populous - the Egyptian Mamluk despotism, who, in their turn, evicted the previous “owner”, the Christian Crusade country. who, in their turn, evicted the Arab and Persians. who, in their turn evicted the Byzantines (i.e. Romans). who, in their turn…

How far do you want to go? Human history did not start at 1800. Who is to say who is the original ihabitants and rightfull owner of Israel? The Zionist movement based its claim on the bible.

BTW, At the point of time you chose to start – 1800s - there was no Arab independent rule of the land of Israel (the last such rule ended in 1099 with the first crusade). The ruler of the country at that time was the Ottoman empire (i.e. the Turks.) As was mentioned here before, the Zionist leaders negotiated with the land owner regarding the purchase of land in Israel. The Arab and Bedouin tribes were not part of the equation simply because they did not own the land.

“there have always been people residing in any given part of the temperate world (in varying numbers),”
to say varying is to put is mildly. At the time of the rise of Zionism and the re-settlement of the land of Israel (second half of the 19th century), the country was very sparsely populated. Except for the urban cities (Jerusalem, Jaffa, Akko, etc.) which accounted for less than 5% of the land mass, the country was all but empty. There were virtually no small villages, almost no agricultural areas. The barren land was “populated” by drifting Bedouin tribes, who made their living raiding the outskirts of the cities and robbing the trade routes. They don’t come much emptier than that. Its almost as if you put up a big “VACANT” sign on the land.

“If a new nation is formed, with the intention for being solely for the "X" people”
Try this: Let "X" = Palestinian. Interesting, huh? Isn’t it the Palestinian people who are now attempting to create a new nation? Based on your conclusion, the PLO organization is immoral because it is based on a nationalisitc ideology. The Palestinians didn’t even “resort” to force, they started with force.

In conclusion, I will state my private belief:
IMHO, Zionism and Palestinian nationalism are equally moral (or immoral) ideologies - they both express the desires of their people for a secure home land.
The difference, I believe, is in the "--m--e--a--n--s-->" part - but that is a different issue.

I will pause for now, and offer any rebuttals....

[victot]

A-Palestinian:

i see what you're saying...
but one cannot deny that the jewish people have a strong connection and at least some claim to this land...

let's pretend person B is married to person A, with a love that echos through the ages. then for a reason beyond their control, person B is thrown out of town... must leave, go away, cannot stay...
but person B vows to return one day, never settles down with anyone, makes it a large part of who they are to declair that one day, when the time is right, when they are able, they will return to person A.

then after a long time person C comes along, and person A and C get togather...
but... after another very long time period, person B comes back... and is able to obtain person A back from person C...
poor person C... they didn't do anything wrong... but history and fate has proven that person that person A and person B belong with eachother.


heh, that's my story. try to figure out who or what person A, B, C are...

peace out.

[A-Palestinian]

I will begin by addressing Newsguy:

"Interesting how all this college lecture-style pseudo-intellectual recitation boils down to the same old Arab rhetoric: "Zionism is immoral." "

Newsguy, your statement contains a logical fallacy. The fallacy is in the form: If person A is evil, and person A states that 1+1=2, then 1+1 is not 2, because person A is evil

The name of this fallacy is:

"Falsification by association".

Falsification by Association is the attempt to discredit an idea based upon disfavored people or groups associated with it.

Thus, your statement is flat out wrong, and is thus dismissed.

"On the other hand, the right of the Jewish people to resettle their homeland is not only moral, but an obvious historical turn of events. "

This statement also contains a logical fallacy. It is in the form: "A dime is round because it has no angles. Rebuttal: No, a dime is a triangle."

The name of this fallacy is:

"Circulus in Probando"

Or, "begging the question". In short, your only rebuttal to the conclusion that Zionism is immoral, is a re -statement of the original stance, that it is moral, but no rational reason given why. In short, your statement is an arbitrary assertion, and holds no water, and as such, is dismissed as invalid.


-------------------------------------------------------------------

I will now address SharonBn:

In attacking statement 2 , you state:

"its the question of the chicken and the egg: The Arab tribes that populated the land of Israel around 1800s have themselves been forceful evictors of previous "native" populous - the Egyptian Mamluk despotism, who, in their turn, evicted the previous “owner”, the Christian Crusade country. who, in their turn, evicted the Arab and Persians. who, in their turn evicted the Byzantines (i.e. Romans). who, in their turn…
"

Under this line of thinking, you are stating, that the eviction of "Y" from a certain area in order to make room for "X" is ok, since other people have always been doing it. But since people have always been doing it, then if "Y" attempts to do it now, that must also be ok. Thus, when a Palestinian blows up a Pizzierra, it is ok, under your flawed logic.

However, since a Palestinian blowing up a Pizzierra is not moral, then your paragraph is also logically inconsistent, and thus wrong. As such, it is dismissed.

In attacking statment 1 , you state:

"At the time of the rise of Zionism and the re-settlement of the land of Israel (second half of the 19th century), the country was very sparsely populated. Except for the urban cities (Jerusalem, Jaffa, Akko, etc.) which accounted for less than 5% of the land mass, the country was all but empty. "

(This is a dispute of fact. As such, it cannot contain any logical fallacies.) First off, there was no "country" to speak of, before the creation of Israel. During Israel's creation, 600,000 Palestinians were misplaced. 150,000 stayed. But let us lower this figure, to be extremely skeptical. 300,000 were misplaced, and 75,000 stayed. This gives us a sum of 375,000 people, who were previously living on this land. Thus under even the most skeptical estimates, a significant portion of people lived there.
(This has no bearing whatsoever on the original argument though).

In attacking statement 3 , you state:

"Try this: Let "X" = Palestinian. Interesting, huh? Isn’t it the Palestinian people who are now attempting to create a new nation? Based on your conclusion, the PLO organization is immoral because it is based on a nationalisitc ideology. "

This is a correct conclusion. The PLO is an immoral organization. (This is why a variable "X" can be used, since there is nothing that can be input, to make the statement moral).

I will pause here again, and I await.

[sharonbn]

A-Palestinian:

First of all, I must say I find your rhetoric too aggressive for my taste. You are far too quick to declare other statements wrong and dismiss them. Furthermore, I want to say I didn’t attack your statements. I questioned them and tried to point out flaws in the logic.

OK, on with the questioning:

”you are stating, that the eviction of "Y" from a certain area in order to make room for "X" is ok, since other people have always been doing it.”
I did not make any such statement. I showed that the history of the land of Israel is characterized by frequent exchange of rulers and inhabitants.
Your statement goes like this: “Area x was occupied by Palestinian people, out of the blue came the Jews with their Zionist ideology and evicted the inhabitants in 1948.”
I say this is a skewed view of the history of the area. Let me rephrase that: This is a subjective point of view held by the Palestinians.
The Jewish people say (with equal subjectivity): “The Jews are the primal inhabitants of the land of Israel, according to the bible. The Jews were evicted by force (by the Babylonians). Along the course of history, The Arabs invaded the country (they originated in modern day Saudi-Arabia), took it from whoever was sitting there at the time (the Byzantines) and settled in the land. The Jews are simply claiming what’s theirs. The motif of the Zionist movement is the RETURN of the Jewish people to their home land – the land of Israel.
To make matters clear, I am not saying what’s OK and what’s immoral. I say you have to look at the question of land ownership and eviction in historical context.

“when a Palestinian blows up a Pizzierra, it is ok, under your flawed logic.”
I feel I have to be blunt on this one (since this statement offended me), Either you made an awful mistake, or you’re trying your best at manipulative propaganda. You so articulately made the distinction between the means and the ends. Where do you think blowing up a pizzeria belongs to?

“First off, there was no "country" to speak of, before the creation of Israel.”
So the state of Israel was created out of the void. So it didn’t replace anything, did it?
Seriously, to say that is also misleading. Before the creation of Israel, the country was part of the British empire. That does not make it any less country then, say, present Australia (which is to date ruled by the British monarchy).

“During Israel's creation, 600,000 Palestinians were misplaced….”
Yet again, one historical fact taken out of context.
Two things regarding this fact:
First, you’re right, This has no bearing whatsoever on the original argument. When the Jews started settling in the land of Israel, they did not evict anyone. By the end of the British mandate, the Jewish population had grown to 600,000, mostly through immigration. The Arab population had grown into 1,300,000, mostly through natural growth. At the point of the declaration of the state of Israel (May 14, 1948) there was room enough for both nations.

Second, the eviction of the Palestinians in 1948 has little to do with the Zionist ideology. The Jewish state did not come to existence out of a violent conflict (like the American state), but rather by world recognition as part of the UN resolution to partition the country into a Jewish and Arab states. This resolution was accepted by the Jewish leadership and rejected by all Arab governments and leaders. The so called "war of independence of Israel" was initiated by the Arab nations of Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon, together with the Palestinian militia. The Jews were forced to go out and defend their newly born state. The eviction of the Palestinians is a result of this war and NOT the result of an inherited concept in Zionist ideology.

One more point:
Imagine, if you will, that the Arabs had accepted the UN resolution. Separate Jewish and Arab states are formed and live peacefully alongside each other. No forceful eviction had taken place, yet the Zionist ideology has materialized. This scenario, however seems imaginary today, could take place back in 1948. It shows that the materialization of the Zionist ideology does not have to come at the expense of any other people.

To summarize my point of view:

1. The claim who originally populated the country and who evicted who is an issue to subjective interpretation.
2. When the Jews started settling in the land of Israel, the country was (almost) empty.
3. By the time of the formation of the state of Israel, the two nations had room enough to settle, Eviction was not necessary. It was a result of violent dispute that erupted for reasons not directly related to Zionism.

” The PLO is an immoral organization. (This is why a variable "X" can be used, since there is nothing that can be input, to make the statement moral).”
We almost agree. I claim that Zionism and the PLO are both moral organizations, since they express a rightful desire for a secure home land for their people. They do not claim that for them to materialize someone has to move out.

[A-Palestinian]

Sharonbn,

Before I go on, I will first state, that my laments are not directed towards you personally. They are however, directed towards your stances, in full force. Do not equate your personal self, with your stances.

I will now address the matters at hand.

You have made 5 rebuttals.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Rebuttal 1:

First you say: "The Jews are simply claiming what’s theirs. "
but then you say: "To make matters clear, I am not saying what’s OK and what’s immoral. "

This is inconsistent. If you are not making a positive claim (a claim that something is alright, or ok), then you cannot state the first sentence. If you are stating the first sentence, then you cannot also state the second. This show inconsistency on your part. Make up your mind, as to which sentence you stick by. Moreover, in rebuttal one, you are obviously trying to mix a justification with history. You cannot do both at once.

Finally, your rebuttal 1 appears to be digressing into tangential irrelevancy. Thus, I will restate what you are trying to refute: You are trying to refute, Statement 2, which states:

Statement 2: Thus, any attempt to create a nation on Earth, (excluding the Antarctic) must at some point also take into account the native populus on said piece of land. "Accounting" for the natives, means that when a new nation is formed, they are either part of it, in which case they can stay, or they are not part of it, in which case they cant stay.

Since this is a rebuttal of this statement, then point out where this statement goes wrong.

------------------------------------------------------------

Rebuttal 2:

"I feel I have to be blunt on this one (since this statement offended me), Either you made an awful mistake, or you’re trying your best at manipulative propaganda. You so articulately made the distinction between the means and the ends. Where do you think blowing up a pizzeria belongs to? "

What I did, was extrapolate your statements, ad absurdum. This means, you take a statement, and show what its logical outcomes would be if follows consistently, to absurdity. The absurdity here, obviously came out with the conclusion that a Palestinian suicide bomber is "ok", since from "his baised perspective", he "owns" the land. IF such is the case, (like you state), then you cannot complain when he blows up a pizziera.

However, since blowing up a pizziera in this context is immoral, then your original premises, of there being "only subjective interpretation" is outright flawed.

Therefore yes, if you accept that there is only "subjective interpretation", then you MUST also accept a Suicide bomber as being "ok". (Since under HIS interpretation, nothing is done wrong). You may not hold this conclusion explicitly, but you do hold it implicitly. (If you accept the fallacy of "subjective interpretation").

--------------------------------------------------------------

Rebuttal 3:

"“First off, there was no "country" to speak of, before the creation of Israel.”
So the state of Israel was created out of the void. So it didn’t replace anything, did it?
Seriously, to say that is also misleading. Before the creation of Israel, the country was part of the British empire. That does not make it any less country then, say, present Australia (which is to date ruled by the British monarchy).

You are making a logical fallacy here. The logical fallacy you commit here is called:

"Affirming the Consequent"

The fallacy is in this form:
If A then B.
Not B,
Therefore not A.

Or,

If there is a Land, then possibly a country.
but there is no country,
Therefore there is no land.

A very clear fallacy. Just because there was no country pre 48, does not mean there was a "void' as you put it. It simply means, that there was no country. Peroid. The land was under rule by a British Mandate, previously, and prior to that, it was under Ottoman rule, as a province. It was not a self-governing country pre-48, in recent times.

Anyways, weather or not it was a country or not pre 48 has NO bearing whatsoever on the discussion, and is thus irrelevant.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Rebuttal 4:

I have divided Rebuttal 4 into three parts:

"“During Israel's creation, 600,000 Palestinians were misplaced….”
Yet again, one historical fact taken out of context.
Two things regarding this fact:
First, you’re right, This has no bearing whatsoever on the original argument. When the Jews started settling in the land of Israel, they did not evict anyone. By the end of the British mandate, the Jewish population had grown to 600,000, mostly through immigration. The Arab population had grown into 1,300,000, mostly through natural growth. At the point of the declaration of the state of Israel (May 14, 1948) there was room enough for both nations. "

This contains a logical fallacy. The name is this fallacy is:

Non-Sequitor .

or, The Irrelevant. Your end points of "there was enough room for both of them", and "how populations grew" are irrelevant. As such, this paragraph is dismissed.

"Second, the eviction of the Palestinians in 1948 has little to do with the Zionist ideology. The Jewish state did not come to existence out of a violent conflict (like the American state), but rather by world recognition as part of the UN resolution to partition the country into a Jewish and Arab states. This resolution was accepted by the Jewish leadership and rejected by all Arab governments and leaders. The so called "war of independence of Israel" was initiated by the Arab nations of Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon, together with the Palestinian militia. The Jews were forced to go out and defend their newly born state. The eviction of the Palestinians is a result of this war and NOT the result of an inherited concept in Zionist ideology . "

For the moment, (and only for the moment), I am not talking about what hapened. I am talking about Zionism, and what its pre-requisites are. Originally, this is intended to attack Statement 3 , of post number two. I will restate this statement.

Statement 3: If a new nation is formed, with the intention for being solely for the "X" people, then it can be formed on previously un-inhabited land. (Like Mars). If the new nation for the "X" people is to be founded on land previously occupied by the "Y" people, then the "Y" people must somehow be removed. If the "Y" people can be persuaded into leaving, then the new Nation for the "X" people can be formed. If the "Y" people cannot be presuaded to move, then force must be used to remove the "Y" people.

Please re-read it Carefully, and fully. It goes into the two (and only two) possible conditions. Re-read, and then re-address.

As such, I await your responce to this part of Rebuttal 4.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Rebuttal 5:

"I claim that Zionism and the PLO are both moral organizations, since they express a rightful desire for a secure home land for their people. "

This statement is very wrong. But the error is very subtle, and thus it is easy for it to slip by. The logical fallacy is that you mix up Intentions, with the means such intentions are sought. Thus, under your flawed logic, I am a moral person, since I want to save my mother by giving her a kidney transplant. (intention), via, killing someone else in order to get a kidney. (means). My intentions may be sound, but my means not. Thus, I cannot be a moral person.

Similarly, if the PLO wishes for "Palestinian Statehood" (intention), and go about achieving this through suicide bombers, (means), then they cannot be moral. The same goes for the Zionists.

Thus, your statement is flawed, and once again, I restate the original conclusion, that Zionism is immoral. (Dont jump in here and say "But I showed you that there was space enough for all of them in 48!". That might be true. But like I said before, that is a Non-Sequitor, because of Statement 3. Address the theory first, before the reality).

Conclusions follow:

[A-Palestinian]

Your conclusions state:

1) The claim who originally populated the country and who evicted who is an issue to subjective interpretation.

Extrapolation, ad absurdum, would tell me this: The land of Israel actually belongs to my race of Pink Elephants. Since there are no absolute truths, you cannot say I am wrong. And since you cannot say I am wrong, then I will stampede your citizens repeatedly. Again, you cannot say I am wrong, because that will be only "your interpretation". Thus, I am right to stampede innocent civilians.

Clearly, such a snenario, justifies suicide attacks, which are immoral. In short, this conclusion, is a bloody one. It will justify the attackers attacks, on the grounds that you have ZERO absolute thruths judge him by. This is clearly wrong - a suicide bomber is immoral. Therefore, your statement is false.

2. When the Jews started settling in the land of Israel, the country was (almost) empty.

Non-Sequitor.

3. By the time of the formation of the state of Israel, the two nations had room enough to settle, Eviction was not necessary. It was a result of violent dispute that erupted for reasons not directly related to Zionism.

Until you have directly addressed Statement 3, you cannot say this. Thus, Non-Sequitor.

You have alot of homework.

[sharonbn]

A-Palestinian,

You are right in your last sentance. It will take me some time to answer your long post. Since I am a working person, I do this stuff at nights - bit-by-bit.
I will post a reply within 2-3 days.

[sharonbn]

A-Palestinian,

---------------------------

Rebuttal 1:

First you say: "The Jews are simply claiming what’s theirs. "
but then you say: "To make matters clear, I am not saying what’s OK and what’s immoral. "
This is inconsistent.
This is really a side issue. I will address this with a short answer: Not true.
I did not present my personal opinion on the matter in the above paragraph. The sentence “The Jews are simply claiming what’s theirs.” Refers to the Zionism point of view, not my own.

If you are not making a positive claim...
I am not making ANY personal claim none whatsoever.
I want to make myself crystal clear: I do not say The Jews are simply claiming what’s theirs. I say that the Jews say that.
and PLEASE don’t say something like:
The Jews say that
You are a Jew
Therefore you say that.

You are trying to refute, Statement 2...
My comments regarding the populous status at the end of the 19th cent. actually are
refuting Statement 1:

Statement 1 : From 1800, and especially since then, there have always been people residing in any given part of the temperate world (in varying numbers), that is, in any part of the world excluding and the Antarctic

According to your point of view the world is like a bitmap – lots of ‘0’s and ‘1’s (well, you actually claim it’s lots of ‘1’s). Something similar to Parmenides’ view of the world: Once a given land is occupied in any varying number – no one can squeeze in without stepping on someone else’s tow.
Well, like the famous singer said: “I don’t subscribe to this point of view”.
I say: The land of the earth is analogous to a jag of water – it has a “constant” maximum capacity and varying degree of fullness.
For Example: The city of Tel Aviv was founded in 1899 by 66 families. The area of the settlement was a vast desolated sand dune located some 8km north of the city of Jaffa. The capacity of this area was around 1 million from the beginning. However, the jag was all but totally empty. Tel Aviv has reached its max capacity somewhere during the 1990’s. (the city’s population has been stagnant for the last 5 years.)
Even today there are parts of the world (other than Antarctica) that are vacant, although their number is declining over time (this is natural, as human population is in constant growth.) The Sahara desert, the Amazon jungle, the Himalayan mountains – there is plenty of space there to settle. You might say that these places are uninhabitable due to the harsh environment. This was exactly how most of the land of Israel was regarded 120 years ago.

Now, your later statements all rely on the first. Since I debunked this statement, all other fall as well:

Statement 2: Thus, any attempt to create a nation on Earth, (excluding the Antarctic) must at some point also take into account the native populus on said piece of land...
Statement 2 is true only if said piece of land is, say, more than half full.
The land of Israel was, IMO, ~20% full at the end of the 19th cent.

Statement 3: If a new nation is formed, with the intention for being solely for the "X" people, then it can be formed on previously un-inhabited land. (Like Mars).
Already addressed this issue – there was and still is vacant land on Earth.
If the new nation for the "X" people is to be founded on land previously occupied by the "Y" people, then the "Y" people must somehow be removed.
It is indisputable that on the day of the declaration of the state of Israel in May 1948, 600,000 Jews, who mostly came from outside Israel, found a place to live without needing to remove anybody.

Statements 4,5 rely on previous ones.

---------------------------
Rebuttal 2:

What I did, was extrapolate your statements, ad absurdum. This means, you take a statement, and show what its logical outcomes would be if follows consistently...
WRONG. Your outcome, although reflecting reality is not a logical follow of my
statements (who said reality was logical? ;-)

Palestinian suicide bomber is "ok", since from "his baised perspective", he "owns" the land. IF such is the case, (like you state), then you cannot complain when he blows up a pizziera.
I don’t understand your logic – if a person claims to own a piece of land, then this claim alone (regardless if valid or not, if subjective or objective) entitles the person to blow up a pizziera?!? This is logical?
Let us practice ad absurdum a little: I go abroad on a long trip. I come back to find some drifter has moved in to my apartment. I claim ownership of the place is my claim valid? is it moral? according to you - it depends on what I do next
I can speak with him and try to persuade him to move out - in this case I am a moral person and my goal (to get what's mine) is moral.
OR
I can take my gun and shoot both his legs. In this case I am not a moral person and my goal (to get what's mine) is immoral.

Therefore yes, if you accept that there is only "subjective interpretation", then you MUST also accept a Suicide bomber as being "ok". (Since under HIS interpretation, nothing is done wrong). You may not hold this conclusion explicitly, but you do hold it implicitly. (If you accept the fallacy of "subjective interpretation").
This is a textbook case of “the means justify the ends” (I will elaborate on rebuttal 5.)

--------------------------------------------------------------

Rebuttal 3:

The whole of Rebuttal 3 is an answer to my statement
So the state of Israel was created out of the void. So it didn’t replace anything, did it?
However, the next word: “Seriously” shows I wrote this as a side joke.
We can debate on and on about whether or not Israel was a country, a land, a territory, a province... but this is really not relevant so lets drop the issue.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Rebuttal 4:

Non-Sequitor .
or, The Irrelevant. Your end points of "there was enough room for both of them", and "how populations grew" are irrelevant.
Why is this irrelevant? You don’t explain.
I think I showed the relevancy earlier on.

Statement 3: If a new nation is formed, with the intention for being solely for the "X" people, then it can be formed on previously un-inhabited land. (Like Mars). If the new nation for the "X" people is to be founded on land previously occupied by the "Y" people, then the "Y" people must somehow be removed. If the "Y" people can be persuaded into leaving, then the new Nation for the "X" people can be formed. If the "Y" people cannot be presuaded to move, then force must be used to remove the "Y" people.
Please re-read it Carefully, and fully. It goes into the two (and only two) possible conditions. Re-read, and then re-address.
Again, your statement lacks a third possible condition – Y can stay while X forms its new nation. I showed how this condition is not only possible, but that is what actually happened.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Rebuttal 5:

I am a moral person, since I want to save my mother by giving her a kidney transplant. (intention), via, killing someone else in order to get a kidney. (means). My intentions may be sound, but my means not. Thus, I cannot be a moral person.
You take “The means justify the ends” and give it a twist: “the means valid the ends”. Basically your saying – regardless if the end is moral or not, if the means chosen to pursue this end are immoral – so is the end itself.

What if two or more separate means are used to achieve one goal?
Avigdor Liberman is a Zionist (by his own admission). He is on the extreme right side of the Israeli political map.
Yossi Bailin is also a Zionist (by his own admission). He is on the extreme left side of the Israeli political map.
(I wish I could draw a similar example from The Palestinian politics, but it seems far less diverse than the Israeli one.)
They both want to achieve the same goal (separation of Jews and Palestinians and peace).
Avigdor Liberman believes that Arafat is not a viable partner anymore. In order to achieve the goal the Palestinians have to be first forcefully subdued. Arafat has to be replaced by someone else, and then negotiations can start towards permanent agreement.
Yossi Bailin thinks Arafat is still the only partner available. He believes Israel has to first stop all violent actions against the PA, freeze all Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, and then start negotiations with Arafat towards permanent agreement.
They disagree on the borders but are aiming at the same ultimate goal.
IMO, Yossi Bailin is a moral person while Avigdor Liberman is not (this is truly my private opinion.) So what does this say about Zionism?

When you say:
Similarly, if the PLO wishes for "Palestinian Statehood" (intention), and go about achieving this through suicide bombers, (means), then they cannot be moral. The same goes for the Zionists.
You mean ALL the members of the PLO support suicide bombers? (I hope not…) I can tell you for a fact, half of the Israeli Zionists don’t support violence as a means to achieve Zionism.

As to the rest of the post, I believe I addressed al of the points.
You have a lot of homework...
9795 characters long... wow, I wonder if this is the longest post in the forum.
I will pause for now.

[McSceptic]

There are no moral phenomena only moral interpretations of phenomena.

-

Nietzsche 101

[ibrodsky]

A-Palestinian,

Great job of obfuscation!

If you are appalled by people whose actions are based on an ends-justifies-the-means philosophy, you are missing a wonderful opportunity to condemn militant Islam. Specifically, look at the PA which encourages the murder of defenceless civilians and glorifies suicide bombers.

Your arguments rest on two key assertions:

(1) the Jewish national home was established on land already inhabited by others; and

(2) Zionism is immoral because the Israel seeks to maintain its Jewish identity.

I think there is some truth to number 1. However, it isn't that simple. The people who were "already" living there were largely nomads with no land ownership in the modern sense. And the population of Palestine increased as Jewish immigrants created urban commerce.

The fact is that most countries evolved -- people were displaced and borders were changed through wars. Once you decide to go back more than a couple of biologic generations to determine the rightful owners of land, it's anyone's game.

Arabs have done everything they can to keep Palestinians living as "refugees" even though only a tiny minority ever lived within Israel. This includes human rights violations: for example, Palestinian "refugees" in Lebanon can't buy land or enter certain occupations. There is good cause to wonder if some of the "refugees" are just Arabs who signed up to play that role.

By rejecting any conceivable partition -- demanding that Arabs must get all of the land -- the Palestinians' land grievance lost all credibility. What Palestinians are angry about is not that the Jews stole a sliver of land, but that the Arabs were unsuccessful in stealing it back. In attempting to destroy Israel, Arabs are attempting to not only get "their" land back but to take land back that was sold or that never belonged to Arabs.

Your second argument is total nonsense. Soveriegn countries have the right to set whatever immigration policies they please. Countries can accept no immigrants, all immigrants, or choose to accept immigrants based on any criteria they like.

Again, you hide behind a professorial lecture on logic. If Israel's policy of choosing immigrants is immoral, what is the PA's policy of demanding that Jews by expelled from the WB and Gaza? What is Saudi Arabia's policy of not permitting non-Moslems to visit Mecca or Medinah? What is Islam's policy of not permitting Jews to visit the Temple Mount?

Just as France has a right to maintain France for the French, Israel has the right to maintain Israel for the Jews.

It is militant Islam, not Judaism, that calls everyone else "infidels." These people believe it is their religious duty to conquer the world for Islam. Israel is just the first target, as it is conspicuously located in the middle of a predominantly Moslem region.

[A-Palestinian]

I will first address Ibrodsky, since his post is quite irrational.

Idrodsky,

"If you are appalled by people whose actions are based on an ends-justifies-the-means philosophy, you are missing a wonderful opportunity to condemn militant Islam. Specifically, look at the PA which encourages the murder of defenceless civilians and glorifies suicide bombers. "

Yes, militant Islam's ends-justify-the-means is also immoral, as is the PA/PLO's strategy. But I already said this exact thing before, and thus, I would strongly recommend that we read past posts first, before wasting my time and yours.

"Your arguments rest on two key assertions:

(1) the Jewish national home was established on land already inhabited by others; and

(2) Zionism is immoral because the Israel seeks to maintain its Jewish identity. "

You are correct on point one, but wrong on point 2. Re-read Statement 3.

"I think there is some truth to number 1. However, it isn't that simple. The people who were "already" living there were largely nomads with no land ownership in the modern sense. And the population of Palestine increased as Jewish immigrants created urban commerce. "

Re-read Statement 2. Weather or not the populus lived in trailers, or skyscrapers, is irrelevant. Either you can make them part of the new nation, in which case they stay, or they are not made part of the nation, in which case they cant stay. This is assuming that all of them were bedouins, which is not the case - many of them were city dwellers too.

"The fact is that most countries evolved -- people were displaced and borders were changed through wars. Once you decide to go back more than a couple of biologic generations to determine the rightful owners of land, it's anyone's game. "

Under this false logic, then suicide bombs are "ok", since "people are displaced, and borders are changed through wars." If you decide that it is simple "tough luck" that people are displaced when a country is created, then those displaced people can also say that it is "tough luck" that they are trying to displace you. This Subjectivism okays suicide bombs, and hence, your statement is wrong. (Who "deserves" the land, I have not gotten to yet.) (But I will.)

"Your second argument is total nonsense. Soveriegn countries have the right to set whatever immigration policies they please. Countries can accept no immigrants, all immigrants, or choose to accept immigrants based on any criteria they like. "

Yes, countries can set whatever immigration laws they want, once established. This is a proper right. However, not allowing the return of original inhabitants is not a right. Indeed, it is the robbery of that right.

"Again, you hide behind a professorial lecture on logic. If Israel's policy of choosing immigrants is immoral, what is the PA's policy of demanding that Jews by expelled from the WB and Gaza? "

Your snide remark is not conductive to this conversation. There is no "Hiding" involved. You have commited the logical fallacy of:

"Ad Hominem."

An ad hominem is a personal attack on the arguer (or his intentions), in the hope of weaking the argument he presents.

Israel's policy of choosing immigrants is not immoral, since it can dis-allow outside people from entering by right. The PA's policy of evicting Jews however, is immoral. You are confusing the eviction of insiders through force, (which is immoral), and the non-entry of outsiders through right. (which is moral).

"It is militant Islam, not Judaism, that calls everyone else "infidels." These people believe it is their religious duty to conquer the world for Islam. Israel is just the first target, as it is conspicuously located in the middle of a predominantly Moslem region. "

True, but Non-Sequitor.

Perhaps if you stopped stating the obvious, and give out significant rebuttals, we would get somewhere. So far, you have demonstrated an inability to do so.

I will now address Shanonbn, and re-itterate my original points, that show Zionism to be inherently immoral.

[victot]

zionism is beautiful.
it's unfortunate that the palestinians were living there, but if indeed the jews have a claim to the land, if it is theirs, then how is it immoral to take back what belongs to them?
i think the fact that jews have at least some claim to the land should be included in your morality formula.

anyways A-palestinian, i think it's a neat idea that your discecting the arguments these ways, if nothing else, maybe we'll come to a clearer view on what specific points pro-zionists and anti-zionists agree and disagree on...
but ps:
if you can, try to use a less complicated way of speaking when you get into your arguments...
pretend your trying to get your arguments to reach the common man, it shouldnt take too much away from what you actually have to say.

heh, i have a suspicion that A-palestinian is not so much a palestinian... BUT A LEFTIST!!!

curse them buggers, why are leftists notoriously anti-israel while those at the right are notorisously more pro-israel?

[sharonbn]

A-Palestinian,


The PA's policy of evicting Jews however, is immoral.

Am I to assume you're talking about the Jewish settlements in the occupied terittories?

You think these places, and the people living there are original inhabitants of the land?
If so, I whole heartedly disagree with you - IMO, the settlements are the major obstacle for lasting peace. These settlements, and the people living there represent not Zionism, but Colonialism in its worst racist and brutal form (Zionism != Colonialism)

I believe the Palestinians demand that the settlements be dismantled and evicted is just. It is also a moral demand, regardless of the means the Palestinians are taking to achieve this goal.
I can only wish that it was practical to dismantle all settlements. As we are talking about some 120,000 settlers, it is probably possible to perform only partially.

Correct me if you were talking on something else.

[ibrodsky]

A-Palestinian,

Under this false logic, then suicide bombs are "ok", since "people are displaced, and borders are changed through wars." If you decide that it is simple "tough luck" that people are displaced when a country is created, then those displaced people can also say that it is "tough luck" that they are trying to displace you. This Subjectivism okays suicide bombs, and hence, your statement is wrong.

This is nonsense. I never said that forcibly evicting people from their land was OK. What I said was that if you choose to revisit all past injustices, then every country on earth will go up in flames.

There is a longstanding debate about whether Palestinian Arabs left Israel voluntarily or were driven away. The historical record suggests both occurred. However, there are one million Arabs living within Israel today, which is fairly convincing evidence that a good number did not feel they were being evicted.

My saying that you are hiding behind professorial logic is not an ad hominem attack. I am discussing what you are saying and how you are saying it. Your "logic" is flawed.

The bottomline: instead of discussing the issues in a straightforward manner, you present yourself as the Grand Wizard of Logic in order to create the impression that we are your students. There is a logical fallacy here, too, but it has been nearly 30 years since I took two courses on logic... I will let the professor tell us the Latin name for it.

[ibrodsky]

sharonbn,

If so, I whole heartedly disagree with you - IMO, the settlements are the major obstacle for lasting peace. These settlements, and the people living there represent not Zionism, but Colonialism in its worst racist and brutal form (Zionism != Colonialism)

You are ignoring that Israel captured the West Bank and Gaza in a war started by the Arabs. Actually, Israel has the right to annex all or any of this land. Clearly, Israel has decided not to annex all of it in the hope that some of it can be used as a bargaining chip.

What is immoral is saying, as Nasser did, "We will drive the Jews into the sea."

Your claim that the settlements are "colonialism" is silly. Israel did not establish settlements on the West Bank and in Gaza in order to rule and exploit the Palestinians. A fact routinely ignored is that the Palestinians rule their own cities. Plus, the settlers have never demanded that all settlements be incorporated in Israel. I personally know settlers who say they would be willing to live within a Palestinian state as long as they are accorded the same rights as Arab Palestinians.

[sharonbn]

ibrodsky

Israel captured the West Bank and Gaza in a war started by the Arabs
Technically, you’re wrong. Israel started the six-day war with a surprise air attack on Egypt and Syria. Later on (in the sixth day) Israel invaded Syria and took over the Golan Heights. This move wasn’t even part of the Israeli offensive plan at the beginning of the war (the Israeli plan included Egypt alone). The move came after the request of the kibbutzim of the north who suffered harassments from the Syrian army.
During the second day of the war, the Jordanian legion took over UN posts in Jerusalem and other positions along the border. After issuing an ultimatum, IDF started the offense in Jerusalem, Latrun, Jenin and other places.

Israel’s justifications for the initiative were:
- Closing of the Tiran straits in Sinai for ships heading to Eilat port
- The eviction of UN forces from Sinai and the position of 2 Egyptian armies there – supposedly as a preparation for an invasion.
- The proclamations of the Egyptian president, Nasser, that Egypt is preparing an invasion, together with Syria.

Some historians today say that Nasser did not intend to really
invade Israel (since he didn’t believe he has the power to successfully complete such an invasion). His speeches and actions were made to strengthen his position as the leader in the Arab world – but this is just one interpretation.

Actually, Israel has the right to annex all or any of this land
Why is that?
You are cutting the branch on which you sit – If a land belongs to whoever is currently ruling it, then the Jews have no right to claim the land of Israel, after loosing it to the Babylonians in 1000BC. The Geneva convention clearly states that land ownership is not determined by political borders (i.e. if someone owns a piece of land and flees his home because of war – he remains the owner of the land by law).
What Israeli settlers did over the past 35 years was forceful annexation of Palestinian land (usually without any retribution.) In some extreme cases, the settlers didn’t even bother to evict the land owner, but rather built their houses on his fields, cutting away his life support (this was called “nochechim nifkadim” or present absentees)

A fact routinely ignored is that the Palestinians rule their own cities
What is ignored is that this is a relatively new situation. Before the Oslo accord of 1993 (i.e. for 26 years), Palestinains didn’t rule zit.

Plus, the settlers have never demanded that all settlements be incorporated in Israel
Wrong again, Greater Jerusalem and The Golan Heights were officially annexed to Israel by a vote in the Knesset. It was the initial intention of the settlers to annex all occupied territories to Israel. This was one of the reasons they started this mess.

I personally know settlers who say they would be willing to live within a Palestinian state as long as they are accorded the same rights as Arab Palestinians
To my delight, I don’t know any settlers personally, However, During Camp-David talks in September 2000, I have heard them in the media state that they will forcefully reject any eviction/relocation from their homes (Yes, they said they will shoot at Israeli soldiers if they will come to evict them under the pretence of unlawful order.)

Therefore I believe:
- The Jewish settlements in the occupied territories are immoral. This is a historical fact regardless of current events.
- Palestinian terrorist attacks are immoral regardless if the goal behind these attacks is moral and just (The end DOES NOT justify the means).

[ibrodsky]

sharonbn,

You choose to believe that Israel started the '67 war. Actually, closing the straits of Tiran was causis belli. And contrary to your claim, the Arabs were massing forces for an obvious attack. Countries that build up their military, mass troops on their border, and proclaim they are going to destroy another country must assume that that country will take such actions and claims seriously.

Israel annexed the Golan Heights because the Syrians used the Heights to shoot at Jews living below.

I have doubts about claims that settlers "confiscated" Palestinian land. Having been to the West Bank, I know that it is mainly hilly and rocky, and most of the land is neither inhabited nor farmed. I have also learned over the years that Palestinian Arabs will lie about events to (they hope) get their way. So if Israel wins a battle, it was a "massacre of Arabs," and if Israelis build a settlement on uninhabited land, suddenly the "owners" step forward. But when asked to present documentation proving ownership, they say "I don't need no stinkin' deeds. Everyone in my village knows I inherited that land from my grandfather."

I agree that Jerusalem and the Golan were annexed. Furthermore, they should never be returned. The Arabs tried their best to massacre the Jews of Jerusalem, and Syria used the Golan to stage attacks. When the Arabs ruled East Jerusalem, did all religions have access to holy sites? Have you noticed that Moslems built a mosque on the Temple Mount and they prohibit non-Moslems from walking anywhere near their mosque?

You seem to think that Israel steals land, while Arabs simply want their land back. I think you are in a state of denial regarding Arab and Moslem culture. There is a large minority that believe they are right to seek to destroy the West and kill Jews "wherever you find them."

The only peaceful solution is two countries side by side. The people who are most against this, who knowingly harbor and encourage terrorists, and who "negotiate" by presenting the same unyielding list of demands over and over, are the Arabs.

[A-Palestinian]

Victot,

"it's unfortunate that the palestinians were living there, but if indeed the jews have a claim to the land, if it is theirs, then how is it immoral to take back what belongs to them? "

This is wrong. However, for the time being, (and only for the time being), I will refuse to correct you on this, since I have not gotten to that part of "Who owns the land" yet. But I will address this issue in time.

"heh, i have a suspicion that A-palestinian is not so much a palestinian... BUT A LEFTIST!!! "

You are commiting a form of the "Falsification by Association " fallacy. (If A holds view q, and B holds view q, then B is A). The reason, is that there is no reason why "view q" is Exclusive.

Ture, you might have ground to suspect it, and in order to remove such suspicion, I will tell you, that I am far from a leftist. ;)

"but ps:
if you can, try to use a less complicated way of speaking when you get into your arguments...
pretend your trying to get your arguments to reach the common man, it shouldnt take too much away from what you actually have to say. "

Thank you for the feedback. I will try to be clearer.

(FYI: Leftists, do not make arguments. They only state arbitrary claims, with no rational derivations. Because of this, most leftist claims are of the form "The ends justify the means". As such, most leftist claims are irrational, and thus evil, and immoral).

[A-Palestinian]

Sharonbn,

"Am I to assume you're talking about the Jewish settlements in the occupied terittories? "

No.

The statement: "The PA's policy of evicting Jews however, is immoral ." is attributed to its policy of evicting all Jews, regardless. That (only specifically), is immoral.

Regarding settlers, I have not gotten to that yet, and so I will not address them for the time being.

[A-Palestinian]

Hmm, I have chosen not to address the arguments between ibronsky and Sharonbn, since both of them are jumping ahead, and talking about the reality, rather than the theory. While it is extremely important to address the reality, I have not gotten past the theory yet, so until that is done, talking about the reality would be a waste of time.

I will first adress ibronsky:

"I never said that forcibly evicting people from their land was OK.

You never explicitly said it, yes. Do you imply it? YES. (Implication, can be intended, or unintented). This particular implication, is unintended, since you are crying about not "meaning" it. Thus, you mean that it is OK to evict people forcibly. There is no way around this. This conclusion is further rein-forced, when you state:

"What I said was that if you choose to revisit all past injustices, then every country on earth will go up in flames. "

By this rationale, If person A kills person B, then person C should not bring person A to justice, since it is a "past wrong", and doing would make the city "go up in flames". Therefore, the next time you are successfully mugged in a downtown alley, do not attempt to go after the mugger, (since it is now a "past injustice"), and do not even attempt to call the Police, (since attempting to bring the mugger to justice would "revert the area into flames").

It is now safe to say, that ibronsky, does not seek Justice - rather, he seeks to IGNORE justice. His bloody conclusions are anti-LIFE, and thus, pro-DEATH.

This can be attributed to him either by:

1) Inherently being Pro-Death.
2) Engaged in very sloppy thinking. (and thus, irrational thinking).

"There is a longstanding debate about whether Palestinian Arabs left Israel voluntarily or were driven away. The historical record suggests both occurred. However, there are one million Arabs living within Israel today, which is fairly convincing evidence that a good number did not feel they were being evicted. "

True. The historical records show that Palestinians either:

1) Voluntarily stayed.
2) Were forcefully evicted
3) Voluntarily ran away.

"The bottomline: instead of discussing the issues in a straightforward manner, you present yourself as the Grand Wizard of Logic "

There is no Wizardry involved here. The only rabbits I pull out of the hat are rational conclusions. But to someone who REJECTS reason such as yourself, it may appear as magic.

...I hope you do not file the next magician you see for attempted murder when he sticks a sword through a box with a hot chick in it.

[A-Palestinian]

Sharonbn,

This is in continuation with the "theory". Once we have gotten past the theory, then we can address the reality.

I have looked your post over, and I have addressed them, as such:

Your main rebuttal is over Statement 1. At the end of this post, I will address your rebuttal. For now, I will address the minor ones:

"It is indisputable that on the day of the declaration of the state of Israel in May 1948, 600,000 Jews, who mostly came from outside Israel, found a place to live without needing to remove anybody. "

If True, then Non-Sequitor . If false, then Non-Sequitor. The reason is because we are not talking about reality yet. We are talking about Zionism in theory still. However, we will, (and absolutely must) address the reality, but we can only reach rational conclusions on reality, after we have reached rational conclusions on the theory. (Since the reality of a theory, is nothing but implementation of said theory).

Basically, you are putting the donkey before the carriage. You are jumping ahead.

"I go abroad on a long trip. I come back to find some drifter has moved in to my apartment. I claim ownership of the place is my claim valid? is it moral? according to you - it depends on what I do next
I can speak with him and try to persuade him to move out - in this case I am a moral person and my goal (to get what's mine) is moral.
OR
I can take my gun and shoot both his legs. In this case I am not a moral person and my goal (to get what's mine) is immoral. "

Notice, that the reason you cannot understand this, is because we have not talked about "who owns the land yet". I have not addressed it, but will. However, to answer your question, if a thief enters your house, then it is MORAL of you to FIGHT the thief off, IF you can show a VALID and a JUST (right) ownership of your house. (Thus, you have an ownership claim to it).

This, regarding a house. But I have not yet addressed the issue of "who owns the land" on the subject which we are discussing yet. So gain, you are jumping ahead. (Yes I will address it).

Statement 3: If a new nation is formed, with the intention for being solely for the "X" people, then it can be formed on previously un-inhabited land. (Like Mars). If the new nation for the "X" people is to be founded on land previously occupied by the "Y" people, then the "Y" people must somehow be removed. If the "Y" people can be persuaded into leaving, then the new Nation for the "X" people can be formed. If the "Y" people cannot be presuaded to move, then force must be used to remove the "Y" people.

You state to this: "Again, your statement lacks a third possible condition – Y can stay while X forms its new nation. I showed how this condition is not only possible, but that is what actually happened. "

You make a very subtle mistake here. Read on to find out how.

When I stated this, (as an exmple to show you your fallacy): "I am a moral person, since I want to save my mother by giving her a kidney transplant. (intention), via, killing someone else in order to get a kidney. (means). My intentions may be sound, but my means not. Thus, I cannot be a moral person. "

..you stated in reply,

"You take “The means justify the ends” and give it a twist: “the means valid the ends”. Basically your saying – regardless if the end is moral or not, if the means chosen to pursue this end are immoral – so is the end itself. "

You mean "The means justify the ends". And No, I meant "The ends justify the means". The ENDS are "Saving mama." The MEANS are : "Kill another person for his kidney."

This is an example of the ENDS justifying the MEANS, and as such, is immoral and evil.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, those were the minors. Now, consider those: (they are self explanatory).

Consider:
Case 1 (http://mason.gmu.edu/~tziyaee/theland.jpg)

then,
Case 2 (http://mason.gmu.edu/~tziyaee/X.jpg)

Now,
Redefine Initial (http://mason.gmu.edu/~tziyaee/Y.jpg)

Thus,
Conclusion (http://mason.gmu.edu/~tziyaee/PC.jpg)

Do you agree with the above? If yes, please state so. If no, please state so, AND pinpoint exactly what you disagree with, and most importantly, where your disagreement lies.

Moreover, DO NOT rebut with "But Israel didn't do blah blah blah, and they did yadda yadda yadda." This is a case for reality, while you are being asked only to deal with the above theory. (for the time being).

[ibrodsky]

I will first adress ibronsky:

The name is ibrodsky.

You never explicitly said it, yes. Do you imply it? YES. (Implication, can be intended, or unintented). This particular implication, is unintended, since you are crying about not "meaning" it. Thus, you mean that it is OK to evict people forcibly. There is no way around this. This conclusion is further rein-forced, when you state:

Now class, here are some wonderful examples of false logic.

A-Palestinian declares that I "implied" it is OK to forcibly evict people from their land. Never mind that I explicitly said I do not believe this; only A-Palestinian knows what I really meant. Besides, it is more convenient for A-Palestinian to adopt a false premise.

This is an example of the logical fallacy known as doubtful statement.

In fact, I said it is not right to forcibly evict people from their land, but that going back more than two biologic generations to right such wrongs is problematic because we are likely to run into multiple and sometimes conflicting occurrences. Namely, Jews were evicted from the very same land!

By this rationale, If person A kills person B, then person C should not bring person A to justice, since it is a "past wrong", and doing would make the city "go up in flames". Therefore, the next time you are successfully mugged in a downtown alley, do not attempt to go after the mugger, (since it is now a "past injustice"), and do not even attempt to call the Police, (since attempting to bring the mugger to justice would "revert the area into flames").

Now class, here we are simply dealing with a lack of reading comprehension. I made it very clear that the problem arises when we go back two or more biologic generations. A-Palestinian purposely misinterprets what I said and then attacks the misinterpretation.

This is an example of a classic logical fallacy: the straw man argument.

Here is a more accurate symbolic representation of what I said. Consider the case in which person A kills person B. Two generations pass. Now person B's grandson, person F, wants to bring person A's grandson, person E, to justice. Does anyone see a problem with this? (A-Palestinian: consider this your homework problem for tonight.)

It is now safe to say, that ibronsky, does not seek Justice - rather, he seeks to IGNORE justice. His bloody conclusions are anti-LIFE, and thus, pro-DEATH.

Well, this is a hasty conclusion based on a doubtful statement compounded by a straw man argument. (I'll ignore the fact that it is also an extremely mean-spirited comment -- given your inability to think logically.)

Had you paid attention to what I actually said instead of rushing to refute me, you would have noticed that I concede the founding of Israel involved some injustice towards Arabs.

By the way, since you are most appalled by those who are "anti-LIFE" and "pro-DEATH," I think I should bring to your attention the fact that Palestinian culture has whole-heartedly embraced the idea that it is noble to kill oneself and as many Israeli civilians as possible. They call people who committ such barbaric acts "martyrs." It is hard to imagine a more "anti-LIFE" and "pro-DEATH" ideology.

This can be attributed to him either by:

1) Inherently being Pro-Death.
2) Engaged in very sloppy thinking. (and thus, irrational thinking).

Now class, this is an example of the logical fallacy known as false dilemma. A-Palestinian hopes that by giving you just two choices, both of his making, that you will overlook the fact that these are not the only possible explanations.

True. The historical records show that Palestinians either:

1) Voluntarily stayed.
2) Were forcefully evicted
3) Voluntarily ran away.

I don't know if it was intentional, but A-Palestinian has falsely re-presented my position. I didn't say it was either A, B, or C; I said it was probably a mixture of A, B, and C.

There is no Wizardry involved here. The only rabbits I pull out of the hat are rational conclusions. But to someone who REJECTS reason such as yourself, it may appear as magic.

Well, you are certainly anxious to convince everyone you are a Master of Logic.

You remind me of someone who is anxious to convince others he is honest and tries to do so by repeatedly announcing that he is honest. In my experience, that's a big red flag. Genuinely honest people have no need to keep announcing that they are honest.

[A-Palestinian]

" "Here is a more accurate symbolic representation of what I said. Consider the case in which person A kills person B. Two generations pass. Now person B's grandson, person F, wants to bring person A's grandson, person D, to justice. Does anyone see a problem with this? (A-Palestinian: consider this your homework problem for tonight.)

Your straw man is humerous at best. This is immoral, since justice can only be served towards individials. Or, "The sins of the father are not the sins of the son." However, in REALITY, those people who were forcibly removed still do exist, and thus, my claim is valid.

"A-Palestinian declares that I "implied" it is OK to forcibly evict people from their land. Never mind that I explicitly said I do not believe this; only A-Palestinian knows what I really meant. Besides, it is more convenient for A-Palestinian to adopt a false premise. "

"You never explicitly said it, yes. Do you imply it? YES. (Implication, can be intended, or unintented). This particular implication, is unintended, since you are crying about not "meaning" it. Thus, you mean that it is OK to evict people forcibly. There is no way around this. "

When I said the above, I meant it. You can INTEND an implication, or you can NOT INTEND an implication. In your case, your implication is (I take it from your childish rants), to be UNINTENDED. However, they ARE the rational conclusions to YOUR faulty and bloody premises.

Since your premises are flawed, all other false conclusions must follow. This is the way things currently stand.

Clean up your act.

"You remind me of someone who is anxious to convince others he is honest and tries to do so by repeatedly announcing that he is honest. In my experience, that's a big red flag. Genuinely honest people have no need to keep announcing that they are honest."

Ad Hominem

I wonder, do you try to win all arguments by attacking the arguers? How shallow. But then again, you do have a bloody premise, so I can only expect that you would attack arguers.

[ibrodsky]

Your straw man is humerous at best. This is immoral, since justice can only be served towards individials. Or, "The sins of the father are not the sins of the son." However, in REALITY, those people who were forcibly removed still do exist, and thus, my claim is valid.

Now your argument is that "since justice can only be served towards individuals" it's OK to punish the sons for the sins of their fathers? Incredible.

There are probably a few Palestinian Arabs still around who are older than 54 and were forcibly evicted from their land. But the people doing the evicting would have to be at least 70 years old today -- unless you imagine that Palestinian Arabs were evicted by six-year old children.

Thus, the conclusion that you believe it is right to punish the sons for the sins of their fathers seems inescapable.

When I said the above, I meant it. You can INTEND an implication, or you can NOT INTEND an implication. In your case, your implication is (I take it from your childish rants), to be UNINTENDED. However, they ARE the rational conclusions to YOUR faulty and bloody premises.

We were talking about what I meant -- not what you meant.

Now who is straying from facts and reason? It seems that when you are unable to defend your arguments you resort to accusing me of "childish rants" and "faulty and bloody premises."

But the fact remains that you constructed your entire argument based on a false premise.

Since your premises are flawed, all other false conclusions must follow. This is the way things currently stand.

Clean up your act.

Admittedly, since you start with false premises and then apply false logic, there is always the slim chance you will accidentally speak the truth. But so far, it hasn't happened.

"You remind me of someone who is anxious to convince others he is honest and tries to do so by repeatedly announcing that he is honest. In my experience, that's a big red flag. Genuinely honest people have no need to keep announcing that they are honest."

Ad Hominem

You need to brush up on your logic. The above statement is not an argument or response to an argument. I'm simply alerting others that just because someone goes to great lengths to convince us he is a Master of Logic, it doesn't mean he is.

I wonder, do you try to win all arguments by attacking the arguers? How shallow. But then again, you do have a bloody premise, so I can only expect that you would attack arguers.

You respond to my arguments by calling me "immoral," "shallow" and "pro-death," and then you accuse me of resorting to ad hominem attacks.

Let me guess... are you Hanan Ashwari?

[sharonbn]

ibrodsky,

You choose to believe that Israel started the '67 war. Actually, closing the straits of Tiran was causis belli. And contrary to your claim, the Arabs were massing forces for an obvious attack.
What you say is that Israel had a good reason to start the 67 war. That does not contradict the fact that it was Israel which fired the first shot. I was pointing out an error in your post #22.

Israel annexed the Golan Heights because the Syrians used the Heights to shoot at Jews living below.
The fact that Syrians used the Golan heights to shoot at Jews living below may give Israel the right to invade the heights or even conquer the heights, but not to annex it.

I have doubts about claims that settlers "confiscated" Palestinian land.
I don’t. For one famous example – take a look at the villages of Ikrit and Bira’am. These villages are located in northern Israel. During the war of 48, the villagers (Christian Arabs who did not participate in any violent actions against Jews) were asked by IDF to move out of their home “until the military situation is stabilized.” They did so, with the belief that soon they will be allowed to return. To this day, they are still “akurim”. Their fertile land was given to neighboring kibbutzim and their houses were demolished (all is left now of Ikrit is the church.)

I agree that Jerusalem and the Golan were annexed. Furthermore, they should never be returned. The Arabs tried their best to massacre the Jews of Jerusalem, and Syria used the Golan to stage attacks.
I believe the Jewish settlements are used by Jewish right extremists to forcefully drive away Palestinians from their land. Baruch Goldstein is a mass murderer who is viewed by the majority of Israelis as a ruthless terrorist. However, the settlers call him “Baruch hagever” (Baruch the man), they built him a memorial garden around his tomb and every year they attempt to rally on that garden to commemorate him and his legacy.
Moreover, this view was publicly expressed in the petition of the IDF officers who are refusing to serve in the occupied territories, claiming the IDF is doing the settlers’ job.

Have you noticed that Moslems built a mosque on the Temple Mount and they prohibit non-Moslems from walking anywhere
Not true, Before the Intifada, I visited the temple mount. Before the first Intifiada, I even went inside the mosque of El-Aqsa.

There is a large minority that believe they are right to seek to destroy the West and kill Jews "wherever you find them."
There is a growing minority in Israel that believes the same about Palestinians.
It’s always easier to point out the errors and weaknesses of your rival, then to look and acknowledge your own.

The only peaceful solution is two countries side by side. The people who are most against this, who knowingly harbor and encourage terrorists, and who "negotiate" by presenting the same unyielding list of demands over and over, are the Arabs.
Again, I will state my belief that that both Israelis and Palestinians are to blame for the prolonging of the conflict.
I also want to mention that this whole debate does not belong to this thread and the main discussion of Zionism.

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by A-Palestinian
Sharonbn,

"Am I to assume you're talking about the Jewish settlements in the occupied terittories? "

No.

The statement: "The PA's policy of evicting Jews however, is immoral ." is attributed to its policy of evicting all Jews, regardless. That (only specifically), is immoral.

Regarding settlers, I have not gotten to that yet, and so I will not address them for the time being.

A-Palestinian,
I did not know that PA's policy is to evict all Jews from Israel. I thought they wanted the eviction of all Jewish settlements in the occupied territory. I don't recall Arafat making such statements. If what you say is true, then PA's policy is not only immoral, its also impractical and very dangerous since this means there will never be peace between us.

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Now class, this is an example of the logical fallacy known as false dilemma. A-Palestinian hopes that by giving you just two choices, both of his making, that you will overlook the fact that these are not the only possible explanations.


I have to say I agree with you on this one.

[ibrodsky]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by sharonbn

What you say is that Israel had a good reason to start the 67 war. That does not contradict the fact that it was Israel which fired the first shot. I was pointing out an error in your post #22.

No, what I said was that the Arabs started the '67 war. The side that starts a war is not necessarily the side that fires the first shot.

I don’t. For one famous example – take a look at the villages of Ikrit and Bira’am. These villages are located in northern Israel. During the war of 48, the villagers (Christian Arabs who did not participate in any violent actions against Jews) were asked by IDF to move out of their home “until the military situation is stabilized.” They did so, with the belief that soon they will be allowed to return. To this day, they are still “akurim”. Their fertile land was given to neighboring kibbutzim and their houses were demolished (all is left now of Ikrit is the church.)

We were talking about the settlers in the territories captured in 1967. (Please stop trying to make your points by changing the subject.) I confess I don't know anything about Ikrit and Bira'am. What is your source?

I believe the Jewish settlements are used by Jewish right extremists to forcefully drive away Palestinians from their land. Baruch Goldstein is a mass murderer who is viewed by the majority of Israelis as a ruthless terrorist. However, the settlers call him “Baruch hagever” (Baruch the man), they built him a memorial garden around his tomb and every year they attempt to rally on that garden to commemorate him and his legacy.
Moreover, this view was publicly expressed in the petition of the IDF officers who are refusing to serve in the occupied territories, claiming the IDF is doing the settlers’ job.

Your blanket statement that the settlers honor Baruch Goldstein is a big fat lie. I personally know settlers who consider Goldstein a terrorist.

The left-wing extremists who refuse to serve in the territories are a tiny minority. You confuse the fact that Israel is a democracy with the opinion that Israel is wrong. There are Palestinians who don't support the PA and Hamas. But to do so openly is to risk one's life.

Not true, Before the Intifada, I visited the temple mount. Before the first Intifiada, I even went inside the mosque of El-Aqsa.

Really? I tried to visit the Temple Mount and was stopped by a Palestinian policeman. I am not religious, was by myself, and wasn't trying to cause a riot -- just walk around.

I also heard a radio report by a European reporter who was on the Temple Mount with Palestinian rioters. He suddenly told the audience he was being forced to leave because he was not a Moslem.

I don't know how you visited these places... perhaps before the first infantifada the Palestinians didn't think they could enforce their ban on infidels. Anyway, everyone in the world knows this is Moslem policy except you. Maybe next you'll tell me about the wonderful time you had in Mecca and Medinah...

There is a growing minority in Israel that believes the same about Palestinians.
It’s always easier to point out the errors and weaknesses of your rival, then to look and acknowledge your own.

True. But not without extreme provocation.

Well, some people would rather point out the errors and weaknesses of their own side.

Again, I will state my belief that that both Israelis and Palestinians are to blame for the prolonging of the conflict.
I also want to mention that this whole debate does not belong to this thread and the main discussion of Zionism.

I can't disagree with your first statement. The naive "peace now" camp has led Israel into a real quagmire.

I like how you complain that this debate doesn't belong in this thread... after you give me an earful. If this upsets you don't you reply to me!

[A-Palestinian]

Sharonbn,

Please take a look at post#28. Im not sure you have, which is why I state it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

ibrodsky

I am going to turn EVERY logically flawed "point" of yours on its head right now.

Hehe. Boy! You have ALOT to learn about proper arguments. First off, let us say I am the "Master of logic" like you put it. How is this relevant to the conversation? Also, say I am *not* the "Master of logic" like you put it. How is this relevant to the conversation?

They are only relevant, if you can show, through proof, that the logical statements I make regarding the arguments are false. (or true).

But you dont do this. You simply make sideline smears and remakrs such as "he thinks he is master of logic". That is simply an

Arbitrary Assertion .

Simply, this particular assertion, hopes to Undermine the arguments, by undermining the "honesty" and "rationality" of the arguer (without proof). Excellent Ad Hominem. Actually, it is subtle, but it exists. It is the Ad Hominem Subfallacy of:

Tu Quoque

Or, "Circumstantial: A Circumstantial Ad Hominem is one in which some irrelevant personal circumstance surrounding the opponent is offered as evidence against the opponent's position. "

Nice try.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Also, when you state:

"You remind me of someone who is anxious to convince others he is honest and tries to do so by repeatedly announcing that he is honest. In my experience, that's a big red flag. Genuinely honest people have no need to keep announcing that they are honest." "

Remember, you said:"Genuinely honest people have no need to keep announcing that they are honest."

(And to which I didn't imply that I was honest, until after the fact that you stated I wasnt.)

"This is the Red Herring logical fallacy.

It goes like this:

Person A makes no claim to q
Person B says A is not q.
Person A corrects B, stating A is q.
Person B concludes, that since person A corrected
B on q (after that fact), then A is not really q.

Hehe. It is quite subtle, but its still there. Again,

NICE TRY.

Notice, that in the above, B point to no evidence. Simply, he maks arbitrary assertions, that lead to a false conclusion.

------------------------------------------------------------

One more thing about Ad Hominems. An Ad Hominem is an attack on the arguer, with hopes of disloging his arguments. (Something you have mastered).

However, if one is to state to someone else, that his arguments lead to something "bloody", or "faulty", that it not an ad hominem, for reason that it is the persons ARGUMENTS, and NOT himself, that lead the results to become bloody.

As such, when I state that your arguments, the way they currently stand, lead to massive bloodshed, then that is not an ad hominem. That is a FACT.

Moreover, *insults* are not ad hominem, (if not in the context of trying to dislodge an arguers arguments.) If I say that you're an idiot, but you really ARE an idiot, is that an insult, or a statement of FACT? If someone kills, and you call him a "cold blooded murderer", is that an insult, or a statement of FACT?

So, you have falsely concluded that anything said against you is an ad hominem. Its a lovely tactic one can use, when he gets pissed everytime he cannot create a proper argument. THIS, is the tactic you have chosen, which is why your posts are REPLETE with false conclusions.

-------------------------------------------------------------

When I stated:
"This can be attributed to him either by:

1) Inherently being Pro-Death.
2) Engaged in very sloppy thinking. (and thus, irrational thinking)."

You stated:

Now class, this is an example of the logical fallacy known as false dilemma. A-Palestinian hopes that by giving you just two choices, both of his making, that you will overlook the fact that these are not the only possible explanations.

If it is a false dilemma, then there are more than 2 conclusions here. But you have not stated what they could be, or what they are. You simple make an Arbitrary assertion . The question is, How else can one reach irrational conclusions, if he does not hold inherently irrational views, or is engaged in mistakenly irrational thinking?" What third option is there?

If you are going to cry over "but I meant this!", then wipe your tears, and State, Correctly, and CLEARLY, what exactly you MEAN. Unless you do this, the other party CANNOT be held accountable for any false conclusions, since the only conlcusions that can come out, are from what YOU have said. (i.e, garbage in, equals garbage out).

Take your trash out - its accumalating.

------------------------------------------------------------

You have one more chance to prove to ME, that you are interested in rational talk, on Zionism. You have the chance to correct yourself, re-state, and ammend yourself (and your statements) in any way, so that we may continue - err.. start (since it never started in the first place), communicating with reason.

If you fail, subsequent to this post, then I will purposely ignore you, for the reason that you are irrational, and it is impossible to communicate with irrational people. Irrational people
can have a talent at Red Herrings , where they divert the argument from what is relevant, to what is irrelevant, as I have shown in ample above.


- The ball's in your court. Throw it IN the court.

[ibrodsky]

A-Palestinian,

I'll leave you with this logical dilemma:

You are either a knave or a fool.

And that is a fact.

[sharonbn]

A-Palestnian,

I think I understand the confusion (between reality and theory.) However, after giving the issue some thinking I conclude that you are also mixing the two a little.
What I mean is that Zionism as an ideology does not address the question of the people that inhabit the land of Israel in any given point of time - simply because this is not an idealistic question.

Let us revisit the Definition of Zionism (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Zionism/zionism.html):
Zionism, the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel, advocated, from its inception, tangible as well as spiritual aims. […] ultimately, the common goal of a Jewish state in its ancient homeland was attained.

The issue of “dealing” with whoever resides on the land is never mentioned as part of the Zionist ideology. This whole question, with all possible answers, together with the issue of the borders of the Jewish state (they don't have to be the whole of biblical Israel) and any other geographical, demographical and sociological issues are not "idealistic" questions but practical ones and go to the greater issue of the means by which the goal of a Jewish state in Israel will be attained. The only thing that can be derived from the ideologist statement is that the Jewish state (the goal of Zionism) should be Jewish in its character. This implies a Jewish majority, a Jewish government, A link to the Jewish faith, etc.

Moreover, the focus of Zionism was always the fate of the Jewish people, not of the land of Israel. This is why the Uganda option was raised by Benjamin Hertzel as a viable answer to the Zionist goal. This option was rejected by the Zionist congress since it was decided that the only land the Jews will accept is the land of Israel. This does not conflict with the beginning of this paragraph.
To explain this point, I have drawn my own diagrams. You will see that the focus in then are the people, not the land.

Initial state (http://www.geocities.com/sharonbn/Initial.jpg)

Ideology and Mean (http://www.geocities.com/sharonbn/IdeologyAndMean.jpg)

For the record, I will state clearly and explicitly:
The goal of Zionism was never the eviction of Palestinians from their land. It was never explicitly proclaimed, nor was it implicitly intended. The goal is to gather all Jews from the Diaspora to the land of Israel. Zionism as an ideology did not address the issue of the fate of Palestinians at all.

You seem to think that the only mean by which the gathering of the Jews to the land of Israel could be accomplished implies the displacement of Palestinians. This is your personal assumption. This assumption, however, conflicts with what actually happened, as I detailed before.

------------

Regarding the issue of “The ends justifies the means”:
Maybe I wasn’t clear enough before: IMO, the end should never justify the means. Similarly, the morality of the means should never affect the morality of the end.

I go back to your example:
"I am a moral person, since I want to save my mother by giving her a kidney transplant. (intention), via, killing someone else in order to get a kidney. (means). My intentions may be sound, but my means not. Thus, I cannot be a moral person. "
[...]
This is an example of the ENDS justifying the MEANS, and as such, is immoral and evil.

My point is:
1) Your wish to save your mother’s life is moral.
2) You chose to kill someone to achieve your goal – this is immoral.
1 and 2 do not conflict. Moreover, they don’t even relate to one another.
If you choose this or other means (giving your own kidney for example), it does not change the morality of your goal. Similarly, regardless of the goal (money for example), killing someone usually cannot be justified (with ther exception of self defence.)

[A-Palestinian]

Sharonbn,

I would like to fully address your post, but I cannot, because the links you have provided go nowhere. (They dont work - I get a make up commercial when I click on them). Please see to it that they are corrected so that I may reply.

:)

[victot]

Statement 1: From 1800, and especially since then, there have always been people residing in any given part of the temperate world (in varying numbers), that is, in any part of the world excluding and the Antarctic.
Statement 2: Thus, any attempt to create a nation on Earth, (excluding the Antarctic) must at some point also take into account the native populus on said piece of land. "Accounting" for the natives, means that when a new nation is formed, they are either part of it, in which case they can stay, or they are not part of it, in which case they cant stay.
Statement 3: If a new nation is formed, with the intention for being solely for the "X" people, then it can be formed on previously un-inhabited land. (Like Mars). If the new nation for the "X" people is to be founded on land previously occupied by the "Y" people, then the "Y" people must somehow be removed. If the "Y" people can be persuaded into leaving, then the new Nation for the "X" people can be formed. If the "Y" people cannot be presuaded to move, then force must be used to remove the "Y" people.
Statement 4: By the second line of Post number two, a Zionist state's majority populus must remain Jewish. Since a Zionist state is to be formed in an area of land previously occupied by "Y" people, the only hope for a Zionist, is for the "Y" people residing in ancient Israel to go away. Since the "Y" people in ancient Israel will not go away, then a Zionist (if adamant enough), can use force to evict the "Y" people.

Conclusion: Zionism, to take effect on Earth, is immoral.

hey A-palestinian, i shall attempt to logically dual you using these points you mentioned.

btw, i took a course in philosophy once a few years ago...
there are a bunch of differant ways of determining what is moral...
which one do you prefer going by? kant? i sorta forget all that stuff.

anyways, i guess the question is, is it necessarly immoral for 1 people to take land away from another people? well, throughout human history this kinda stuff went on all the time... conquering was the rule of the jungle... it probably wasn't considered immoral before...
i don't know, how immoral was it considered before the last few hundred years to conquer and displace a people?

but it is true, in the last few hundred years, there have been these new "codes" in societal conduct which says things along the lines of "you can't conquer and displace people's populations, it is immoral"

since the jews took israel away from the palestinians by force, is it therefore immoral? if the palestinians kill israeli civilians, is it ok, since they are reverting to the "law of the jungle" rules which israel started when it conquered and displaced the palestinians?

well...
here is my 2 cents on it. if you agree that the arabs living there, migrated there from the rest of the middle east... if they didn't develop their own religion, language, customs...
they weren't "a people" so much as a bunch of arabs living there...
then it can sorta be argued that the extent of zionism's evilness, is once upon a time, 600,000 lives were negatively affected by it.

that is to say... perhaps zionism would have been more immoral if the jews came had conquered and displaced a people who weren't surrounded by ?300 million? of their brothers.
there was no need for the refugee problem, that was an unfortunate, unforseen consequence.

making arabs leave their houses so jews can live there is pretty unfortunate... it is an injustice to those lives which were affected, but perhaps coming out of the ruins of the holocaust, jews in 1948 were entitles to be a little selfish... thinking along the lines of arabs control 799/800ths of the land in the middle east, and outnumber jews ?150? to 1...
perhaps these particular arabs living in this very particular piece of land, could afford to move somewhere else in the middle-east.

i think world history has shown that jews need a country of their own... to protect themselves from a world which continually persecuted them; israel is in a strong position to protect jews around the world from persecution...
as long as there is a strong israel in place, there won't be another holocaust.

jews do have some claim to the land of israel...
they were there long before arabs were... isnt that true?

anyways, i think there are enough variables here for whatever it is that determines what is moral or immoral ?g-d? to have some kind of sympathy for zionism, which gave jews the modern state of israel.
i don't think the arabs living there, what came to be known as palestinians should be forgotten...
they can have the west bank, gaza...

but i think given that
1)jews have at least some claim to the land
2)self-defense, in 1948 jews needed their own country to protect themsleves as a people against a cruel, anti-semetic world...
3)israel has tremendous significance to jews... they face it when they pray, for thousands of years they've dreamed of coming back there...
4)arabs who were living in palestine lost their homes, but at the time they didnt really lose their identiy as a people... they just lost their homes...
(not saying they didnt have a connection to the land... it's just that taking away land from isolated people living somewhere shouldnt be considered the same as taking away land from a people with an orgainzed and unique identity; doing that necessairly has future significance... as opposed to arabs living in palestine could theoretically have been absorbed into another another arab country.)

i guess, i hope palestinians can look at the story of the jews, and just plum open their hearts to their story, give jews this tiny portion of the middle east, and let them live in peace.

[sharonbn]

ibrodsky,

what I said was that the Arabs started the '67 war. The side that starts a war is not necessarily the side that fires the first shot.
YES, whoever fires the first shot – starts the war. The Japanese started the war vs. USA in 1941 (the reason for it being the USA’s extreme pressure on Japan to cease colonial actions in Asia.) You can only say that Israel was provoked to start the 67 war.

We were talking about the settlers in the territories captured in 1967. [...] I confess I don't know anything about Ikrit and Bira'am. What is your source?
Oh, I see, my example shows nothing about Israel’s policy regarding land owned by Palestinians. If you must go to the nibbles – MOST of the settlements in the occupied territories were built on land occupied by Palestinian peasants (one example being Kiryat Arba). And Yes, if they worked the land for several generations – it is theirs by moral argument.
The issue of Ikrit and Bira’am is famous since it was debated numerous times in Israeli courts and in the Knesset. Take a look at this (http://www.israelinsider.com/channels/politics/articles/pol_0057.htm) article.

Your blanket statement that the settlers honor Baruch Goldstein is a big fat lie. I personally know settlers who consider Goldstein a terrorist.
Your words suggest you don’t live in Israel and see what other people know here. The big garden surrounding the tomb was displayed in the news. Also, each year, the news cover the attempt of former “Kach” members and followers to perform a memorial service to Goldstein on the site of the tomb.

The left-wing extremists who refuse to serve in the territories are a tiny minority.
NOT TRUE. On 23/2/02 a demonstration was held to support what you call left-wing extremists (they are battle-hardened army officers, “salt of the earth”, not some hippies), some 50,000 people showed up, leading artists sang songs, etc. - quite a big demonstration. As a result of this initiative, several groups of people formed political movements to push the ides of withdrawl of Israel from occupied territories. The most faous one being led by Ami Ayalon - former Shabac leader.

Before the Intifada, I visited the temple mount. Before the first Intifiada, I even went inside the mosque of El-Aqsa.
Really?
REALLY, first-person reporting.

There is a growing minority in Israel that believes the same about Palestinians.
True. But not without extreme provocation.
Even without extreme provocation – don’t forget the Jewish underground who committed several terrorist attacks in the 80s against Palestinian civilians, including shooting at a girls’ school. Also, the underground group from which Igal Amir rose, was practicing firearms in preparation for committing terrorist attacks against Palestinian targets.

Finally, I will state my opinion that PM Binyamin Netanyahu’s way of deliberately violating the Oslo agreement is one of the major causes for the eruption of the current Intifada.

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by A-Palestinian
Sharonbn,

I would like to fully address your post, but I cannot, because the links you have provided go nowhere. (They dont work - I get a make up commercial when I click on them). Please see to it that they are corrected so that I may reply.

:)

Try this link:
http://www.geocities.com/sharonbn/forum.html

[A-Palestinian]

Sharonbn,

Thanks. (Were your images originally bitmaps? I only ask because the quality of the images is poor, so perhaps in your conversion to jpgs or html, some quality was lost. I am offering to change them to proper jpgs, if in fact they were bitmaps. Send to my email account. microwarp@hotmail.com)

[A-Palestinian]

Sharonbn,

Im sorry, I made a subtle error in Case2, Post#28. Instead, "Movement X"'s Ends should read:

"The creation of a Nation on all of Land "A", for and only for People "X" ".

Given this ammendment, would you like to change your response to it, or would it be the same as Post#38?

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by A-Palestinian
Sharonbn,

Im sorry, I made a subtle error in Case2, Post#28. Instead, "Movement X"'s Ends should read:

"The creation of a Nation on all of Land "A", for and only for People "X" ".

Given this ammendment, would you like to change your response to it, or would it be the same as Post#38?

A-Palestinian,

What is all of Israel? Is it biblical Israel? (whatever this means), Is it Ottoman-ruled Israel? Is it British-ruled Israel? (this would include Jordan.)
Do you see what I’m gaining at? The question of the space to be occupied by the Jewish people is a practical one to be determined by the course of real events, not an idealistic theoretic one.

Also, I must note that you added the “all” word to your diagrams. In the definition of Zionism as I posted (and seen in other articles and commentaries), it is not mentioned that all of the land of Israel is to become home to the Jewish people.

Similarly, I believe that the Palestinians do not demand all of the land of Israel to be their home land. Their demand, as recently expressed by the Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, are the territories occupied by Israel in 67.

PS,
regarding the diagrams, they are jpgs of good quality, the problem lies with the builtin HTML editor of Yahoo.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by sharonbn

Similarly, I believe that the Palestinians do not demand all of the land of Israel to be their home land. Their demand, as recently expressed by the Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, are the territories occupied by Israel in 67.

Gee, that's not what Hamas and Islamic Jihad say. It certainly isn't what their Hezbollah, Syrian, Iraqi, and Iranian allies say.

Do you deny that the PA's schools have used textbooks showing maps of the area with Israel conspicuously absent?

The debate between the PA/PLO and the other groups has never been about whether Israel has a right to exist, but whether the best strategy for destroying Israel is to first grab as many concessions as possible through a "peace process" or just fight straight through to victory.

It is understandable that some Israelis would like to believe that their hopes for a peaceful settlement are shared by the other side. It is understandable, given the way Europe and the UN have accepted the term "illegal occupation," that some Israelis would believe that if they just give back all of the territory captured from invading Arab armies that everything will be OK.

But at some point you have to come to grips with militant Islam. These people slaughtered 3,000+ Americans just to make a political point. You have to honestly ask yourself why they purposely target the most defenseless members of Israeli society and why they encourage and celebrate such deeds.

The goal of militant Islam is the exact opposite of what you apparently surmise. They are determined to create a situation in which no settlement is possible. They are not trying to convince the Israeli people that they must withdraw from land captured from aggressors; they are trying to convince the Israeli public that they hate all Jews and will not rest until Israel goes away.

I know it is hard for you to accept this. Perhaps you would rather believe in the fairy tale that Yasir Arafat is a great statesman who deserved a Noble Peace Prize and that the Arab world is simply looking for a fair deal.

But at some point you have to ask yourself whether there is any connection between the fact that Israel's enemies are among the most corrupt and repressive regimes on earth, the injustice of their methods, and the justness of their demands. At some point you have to ask yourself why these states excuse, justify, and encourage terrorism against innocent civilians.

I know it's disappointing to have to conclude that some societies don't share your humanistic goals; that they will tell any lie and commit any atrocity to get their way; and that they celebrate evil.

But that is how it is.

[ibrodsky]

P.S.: It's also time to recognize that the PA's goal is to ignite a regional war. This is why they demand that the US send General Zinni and then, to show their intentions, they step up the terrorist attacks in preparation for his visit.

Expect intense efforts at more terrorist attacks when Zinni arrives.

[A-Palestinian]

"What is all of Israel? Is it biblical Israel? (whatever this means), Is it Ottoman-ruled Israel? Is it British-ruled Israel? (this would include Jordan.) "

It doesn't matter. (In reality it does though).

You see, eventually, People "X", will have to claim something as solely theirs. Some area of land as just theirs. Let that something which they claim, be known as Land "A".

And this means, that all of that something must be theirs. If Not-all of the Land "A" is theirs, then it is not that something.

So again, does that ammendment have a change on what your response to it is? Or is it the same as Post#38?

[ibrodsky]

You see, eventually, People "X", will have to claim something as solely theirs. Some area of land as just theirs. Let that something which they claim, be known as Land "A".

Assume a spherical cow...

[L@mplighterM]

People 'X' claimed 'A' and People 'Y' claimed 'B'

Who claimed 'C' ?

What is this an Abbot and Costello discussion?

[sharonbn]

A-Palestinian,

You see, eventually, People "X", will have to claim something as solely theirs. Some area of land as just theirs. Let that something which they claim, be known as Land "A".

I agree with the above statement, that Zionism (and any other national movement) claims a piece of land for its people. However, I would like to delve into the semantics, and say that since Land A in question is Land of Israel, there is a difference between “all” of Land A and “some” of Land A.
If we revisit your drawings from post #28:
“All” of Land A implies the situation in picture titled “Case 2” where all of the squares in Land A are green. According to you, this is the goal of “Movement X” (i.e. Zionism) , but this is not true.
The goal of “Movement X” is depicted in the picture titled “Conclusion”- “some” of Land A is to be green. You call it “Non-Ends”. But if you accept that the goal of Zionism can be “some” of land A, than this is “Ends” indeed.

In other words, I would go back to your original statement regarding "Movemenmt X":
"The creation of a Nation on Land "A", for and only for People "X" "
The question of how much of Land A is to become green is not addressed (not necessarily all of it.)

Sharon.

[A-Palestinian]

Sharonbn,

Please do not equate "Israel" with Land "A".

------------------------------------------------------

I said that Land "A" would mean some area of land, onto which the new Nation would be created. Given the nature of this movement, derived from Upshot 1 , (Post#3), this means that, eventually after all is agreed upon, at the end of the day, you will have to be left with some physical land mass, where the new Nation is created, via "Movement X".

I have defined this final area of land, as Land "A". (To use your diagrams, it would be that green patch at the very end).

This means, that Land "A" is now designated as exclusive.

What you have done, is redefine Land "A" to be inclusive. Essentially, you have expanded Land "A", and then said from there, that if you narrow it down, you will have enough space for People "X" and People "Y". However, you expanded Land "A" in the first place. So of course there is no dilemna. (and thus no argument).

People "X" want a land. DEFINE this land, as Land "A".

Are we agreed on this? We cannot move further until we agree on this essntial part.

[sharonbn]

If we are not equating "X", "Y" and "A" to any real life situation, than I agree:

Land "A" can be defined as all the land People "X" wish to allcoate for themselves via "Movement X".
"Y" people do not relate to Land "A"
If you wish, we can say People "Y" live on Land "B", The relation between Land "A" and "B" can vary between total seperation, some intersection up to being identical - this depends on the real-life values you put into the variables.

[A-Palestinian]

Sharonbn,

""Movement X". "Y" people do not relate to Land "A" "


How is the existance of People "Y" on Land "A" logically inconsistent?

(i.e, How is your Arbitrary Assertion logically consistent?)

Or, to paraphrase: What is there to stop the assumption that People "Y" may exist on Land "A"?

[sharonbn]

What is there to stop the assumption that People "Y" may exist on Land "A"?

Nothing (i.e. my mistake :)).
If we are still in the pure theory realm, not assigning any real-life values to the variables, than the definition of People "Y" may be those people that live upon land "A".

I believe I just agreed with your drawings of post #28 (you can say I finally seperated theory from reality :rolleyes: )

The only additional statement I can make at this time is that in the value-assigning stage, People "Y" may be an empty group.

[A-Palestinian]

"than the definition of People "Y" may be those people that live upon land "A". "

This is partially correct. Actually, we defined People "Y" as living on Land "A", prior to Implementation of "Movement X", and also, defined as being Non-X. (Since if People "Y" are People "X", then that defeats the purpose of "Movement X").

"The only additional statement I can make at this time is that in the value-assigning stage, People "Y" may be an empty group ."

I do not understand the phrase in red. Please clarify, or if you do not wish to clarify, then dismiss it.

After the above minor comprehensions, I believe we can move on.

[sharonbn]

We defined People "Y" as living on Land "A", prior to Implementation of "Movement X", and also, defined as being Non-X.
I agree.

"The only additional statement I can make at this time is that in the value-assigning stage, People "Y" may be an empty group ."
"an empty group" is a term taken from a field in mathematics called the "Group Theory". The specific term defines a group as having no elements.
For exmaple: the answer to the equation n/0 (n divided by zero)gives an empty group.

What I mean is that the concept of Poeple "Y" is optional. When we come to apply the theory to a specific reality (what I call value-assigning stage), we may come to the conclusion that no person exists (or existed) that belongs to People "Y" - in this case People "Y" will be an empty group.

In post #28, the diagram titled "Redefine Initial" - Fact "Y" (the number of "Y" people inhabiting land "A") may be zero.

[A-Palestinian]

Sharonbn,

In that case, all is ok.

I just want to add one thing here before I go on, so that it does not crop up again in the future. You do realise, that whatever the outcomes of the reality of an ideology is, its morality is governed by its theory right?

If you wish me to elaborate on this before I go on, I will, as it is crucial in understanding the consequent.

[ibrodsky]

NEWSFLASH: At large government-organized demonstrations around Iran today, militants were heard chanting "Death to people A!"

[sharonbn]

I just want to add one thing here before I go on, so that it does not crop up again in the future. You do realise, that whatever the outcomes of the reality of an ideology is, its morality is governed by its theory right?
I agree.

I have to say I was surprised to see this statement coming from you. Weren't you the one who said that if You want to save your mother - who needs a kidney transplant (=ideology) - by killing someone (=reality) then that makes your wish immoral?

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
NEWSFLASH: At large government-organized demonstrations around Iran today, militants were heard chanting "Death to people A!"

They couldn't have chanted that, since there is no such thing as People A.
Tehre are only People X, People Y and Land A.

Yet another example of misinformation from the media...

[A-Palestinian]

"I have to say I was surprised to see this statement coming from you. Weren't you the one who said that if You want to save your mother - who needs a kidney transplant (=ideology) - by killing someone (=reality) then that makes your wish immoral?"

Yes, I stand by that statement.

For example, the goal (ends) is the attainment of a kidney. My means for attaining a kidney, would be to kill someone for that realization of a kidney. Now suppose that in reality I simply found a kidney. (Or someone else gave it to me, without the need to kill someone - from a morgue, or whatever). Does that make my means "moral", or "ok" now, since it just so hapened that I never needed to kill anyone? No, it does not. Simply, the ends transpired though alternate means, but my original means, remain the same in nature, and are thus immoral and evil, wheather implemented or not.

Is further clarification required?

[sharonbn]

What do the means say about the goal?

[A-Palestinian]

Sharonbn,

I do not understand your question. Please elaborate by being more specific.

[sharonbn]

I thought you said (in the original post #28 or something) that if you choose to kill someone that makes the goal of attaining a kidney immoral

[A-Palestinian]

"I thought you said that if you choose to kill someone that makes the goal of attaining a kidney immoral "

No!

You must divorce the morality of your ends, from the morality of the means you chose. In the above example, the GOAL (ENDS) of attaining a kidney are sound, and, in this case, moral. (There is nothing wrong with the END of saving ones life).

However, the minute you make the choice of what means you employ to REACH your goal (ends), you have to make sure those are moral too.

In short, your Ends are divorced from your Means. You can have a moral End. But the way you go about achieving your good ends can be bad.

Clear?

(You have to be flawlessly clear on this - it is essential.)

[sharonbn]

Your Ends are divorced from your Means. You can have a moral End. But the way you go about achieving your good ends can be bad.
I agree

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by A-Palestinian

(You have to be flawlessly clear on this - it is essential.)

Classic quote.

:D

[sharonbn]

We can now continue the discussion with my post #38.

The main claim I make thre is that Zionism as an ideology, does not address the issue of the situation in the land of Israel in any given point of time (i.e. People "Y"). The whole issue of dealing with the locals is left (as it should be) to practicalities (i.e. means).

Zionism expresses the aspirations of the Jewish people to return to their home land, the land of Israel. Zionism does not state the borders of the Jewish state, nor does it say how to deal with whoever lives or owns land there.

Since we diveorced the ends from the means, Zionism is valid, just, sound and moral, regardless of how certain Jewish groups are implementing the ideology.

[A-Palestinian]

Sharonbn,

I will begin the address shortly - I have been busy recently.

[A-Palestinian]

Sharonbn,

Ok. Now then, let me start the address.

The theoretical phase of this discussion is complete. (regarding the ideology only ). Now, let us substitute "Movement X" with "Zionism".

You will notice, that the definition of Zionism, does not say how the new Zionist Nation is to be founded. In short, it does not provide for the means, and in this sense, you are right when you state that it is left to "practicalities".

However is it precisely because it does not state how to go about reaching the goal that makes it immoral. It is precisely because it does not provide for the means that makes it immoral. Remember, we have defined "Movement X", as an end to be achieved it. The definition does NOT state that it might not happen. Rather, it is a goal, to be achieved, regardless.

In short, there is no room for negotiation, regarding the Ends. (Negotiation is open only to the means). Through Statement 3 , post#6, it was stated that:

If a new nation is formed, with the intention for being solely for the "X" people, then it can be formed on previously un-inhabited land. (Like Mars). If the new nation for the "X" people is to be founded on land previously occupied by the "Y" people, then the "Y" people must somehow be removed. If the "Y" people can be persuaded into leaving, then the new Nation for the "X" people can be formed. If the "Y" people cannot be presuaded to move, then force must be used to remove the "Y" people.

The highlight in red is meant to draw attention to the fact that one of the possible means is to persuade People "Y" to leave. However , if People "Y" cannot be persuaded to leave, then the only options left, are to retract from the ideology, (abandon it), OR, to forcefully evict People "Y".

Given this, and Post#28, then it must follow that:
Ad_Extraxi (http://mason.gmu.edu/~tziyaee/ad_extraxi.jpg)

This is why, Zionism, is inherently immoral.

[ibrodsky]

Likewise, if people "Y" (Palestinian Arabs) insist on forcibly removing people "X" (Israeli Jews) then the Palestinian cause is inherently immoral.

Note that Israel officially seeks a two-state solution, while most of the Arab and Islamic world insists that Israel has no right to exist. I.e., most of the Arab and Islamic world wants to forcibly evict Jews from Israel.

Note also that the PA encourages and praises terrorist attacks against innocent civilians. Thus, even if their cause were just their means are immoral.

Thus, we reach the inescapable conclusion that Palestinian "nationalism" -- which can be proven to be phony -- is inherently immoral.

[sharonbn]

ibrodsky,

If you want to contribute to this thread, please have the decency to read past postings.
A-Palestinian already stated his opinion that Palestinian nationalism is immoral as are the organizations that follow it (PA, PLO, etc.) (while I expressed my belief that Palestinian nationalism is a moral goal.)

Also, you start your posting with the word “Likewise” – is the reader to assume you agree with A-Palestinian regarding the immorality of Zionism??

[ibrodsky]

Why is Palestinian "nationalism" phony?

The most striking fact is that there were never any calls for a separate Palestinian state when the West Bank was ruled by Jordan and Gaza ruled by Egypt.

The Palestinian people do not have a distinct language, religion, or culture.

There never was a Palestinian Arab state at any time in history. In fact, "Palestine" was Rome's Jewish colony and arguably the true Palestinians are the Jews.

The real goal of the Palestinian struggle is to destroy Israel. This is why Arafat responded to a proposal leading to a Palestinian state with not a counter-proposal or acceptance, but a war. He does not want a Palestinian state, he wants to destroy Israel. He used the phony Oslo "peace process" to create an armed militia (with 30,000+ fighters) and to gain control over Palestinian population centers.

It would be nice to imagine that Israel withdrawing to the '67 borders will solve everything. But this simply naive. Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas are not going to call off the attacks because Israel pulls back to the '67 borders. In fact, this would encourage them to step up the attacks.

I don't know if A-Palestinian is an Arab, left-wing Jew, or an anti-Zionist Jew. And I don't care. He has to debate using symbols because he is trying to obfuscate the issues. Israel is not a kidney transplant. Now there are too many people who were born in Israel to undo what happened in 1948 and before.

It's time for the Arabs to grow up and stop focusing twenty-something youth on avenging what happened 53+ years ago.

It's time for Israel and the rest of the West to wake up: militant Islam is a neo-Nazi movement that must be opposed in every conceivable way, including maximum military force.

[ibrodsky]

ibrodsky,

If you want to contribute to this thread, please have the decency to read past postings.
A-Palestinian already stated his opinion that Palestinian nationalism is immoral as are the organizations that follow it (PA, PLO, etc.) (while I expressed my belief that Palestinian nationalism is a moral goal.)

Like I said, Palestinian "nationalism" is inherently immoral, because its goal is not two states side-by-side, but one Arab state "from the Jordan River to the Sea."

Also, you start your posting with the word “Likewise” – is the reader to assume you agree with A-Palestinian regarding the immorality of Zionism??

I think there were some injustices perpetrated against Arabs in the events leading up to Israel's statehood. However, there were also injustices perpetrated against Palestinian Jews. But these injustices are nothing like what Islamists have in store for Israel: total annihilation.

[A-Palestinian]

Sharonbn,

Thats ok, talking to Ibrodsky is utterly useless. If he stays on topic, he pulls out insults against the arguer, which makes rational talk impossible. When he isn't pulling out the insults, he chooses to go on tangentials, which means he posts irrelevant information on the thread. His posts on the "Zionism" thread, are like posting a pasta recipe on a carpenter's forum.

For example, at the moment, he is toiling over Islamic fanaticism, which has no relevancy whatsoever in this thread. Although it is pretty obvious that it is evil, he wishes to state it anyway. If he had nothing else to say, he would probably recite the alphabet out loud...again, stating the obvious. He is also expert at taking issues out of context, like "Israel is not a kidney transplant.", when in fact no such linked analogy was made.

Oh, and when he's not doing either the above, he feels compelled to make snide and perhaps humerous remarks.

What we have here, is an unhired comedian.

I recommend that you do not sanction his absurdity, and simply ignore him. If he goes way out of line, I trust the administrators on this forum will take care of him.

[sharonbn]

A-Palestinian,

I'm glad we arrived at the “value-assigning” stage.

For starter, I want to say that IMO, an ideology that does not specify the means to achieve it does not render itself automatically as immoral (in any case, why not render it automatically as moral?). It seems to me you revert to linking the end with the means.

The highlight in red is meant to draw attention to the fact that one of the possible means is to persuade People "Y" to leave. However , if People "Y" cannot be persuaded to leave, then the only options left, are to retract from the ideology, (abandon it), OR, to forcefully evict People "Y".
You imply that voluntary displacement of People “Y” is a moral option. If this is not achievable, then forceful eviction is necessary. This implies that if the Palestinians were to voluntarily move out – Zionism would become moral? But we divorced the means from the ends...

Secondly, I attacked your Statement 3, saying the options mentioned with regard to dealing with People “Y” (persuasion and forceful eviction) are not the only ones open to the followers of Zionism. Moreover, neither one of them depicts what happened in reality.
The "option" that depicts reality is that on the land that was the state of Israel in 1948 there were almost no residents. (People "Y" close to zero)

I want to refer you to several points I mentioned in past postings:

1. The establishment and declaration of the independent state of Israel (May 14th, 1948), the ultimate goal of Zionism, occurred before the 1948 war and before the eviction and flee of the Palestinians from their homes. This suggests that some 600,000 Jews found a place in Israel without the need to massively displace any population.
In other words, the displacement of Palestinians during 1948 and 1967 are not results of initiatives of Zionism followers, but rather results of disputes over the borders of Israel and the Palestinian state.
As an example, I gave the story of the history of Tel Aviv, founded on an unoccupied sand dune north of Jaffa. Furthermore, Contrary to what you stated, in my knowledge The Palestinians do not claim (and never have claimed) Tel Aviv as part of the future Palestinian state – this suggests that the Palestinians themselves acknowledge that Tel Aviv and the land it occupies was Jewish from the beginning (or at least, was never Palestinian.)

2. I mentioned that Zionism (as well as Palestinian nationalism) have many followers, taking different routes to achieve the same goal (I mentioned Avigdor Lieberman and Yossi Beilin.) Some of these are moral, some are not. How does this affect the morality of Zionism? (it should not affect it at all.)

[A-Palestinian]

Sharonbn,

"For starter, I want to say that IMO, an ideology that does not specify the means to achieve it does not render itself automatically as immoral (in any case, why not render it automatically as moral?). It seems to me you revert to linking the end with the means. "

Take notice from now, that I am only addressing your first paragraph, since it is the basis for further understanding.

OK, here's how it works. Let us go back to the kidney example.

Ideology
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Ends: I will save my ailing mom, by getting her a kidney.

Means: Unspecified.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Let us assume, that for the sake of argument, people are primarily "nice", by default. (This has no bearing on the argument, but it does away with any counter-argument that "at first we will try ok (voluntary) means.") This means, that in attempting to achieve my above Ends, I will FIRST, try moral Means.

Thus,

Possible Means:

1) Buying a kidney. (moral)
2) Begging for a kidney. (moral)

Why are the above moral means? Because the attainment of the kidney was done voluntarily. In essence, I have *persuaded* a third party to surrender a kidney of theirs, to me, for my Ends.

Now, we decided that we were primarily "nice", but suppose the above 1 and 2 means fail. (That is, we have failed to successfully obtain a kidney willingly from a third party).

At this point, you revert back to your Ideology. What means does your ideology dictate?

"Means: Unspecified. "

Problem. Since it places no boundries whatsoever on how the End is to be attained, you have a dilemna. In short, your ideological means dictate: "Anything goes."

-- Attain your ends ... regardless--

Since means 1 and 2 are not tangible anymore, and since our ideology places no limits whatsoever on what means may be undertaken (or not undertaken), then this sanctions me to kill the third party, and attain his kidney.

This is why the IDEOLOGY is immoral.

Contrast this to a re-defined Ideology, with the same Ends.

Ideology
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Ends: I will save my ailing mom, by getting her a kidney.

Means: Specified: If a third party is involved, attain the ends through third party's voluntary consent.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The above Ideology would be moral, since the Means with which to go about with such an ideology are limited, to voluntary interaction with a third party, should the third party be involved in the first place.

Is the above clear?

Before I continue, you have to be clear on, and accept the above dictums. It would be efficient that you limit further questions to this particular post only for the time being, lest we digress.

[cerulean]

Originally posted by sharonbn
A-Palestinian,

As an example, I gave the story of the history of Tel Aviv, founded on an unoccupied sand dune north of Jaffa. Furthermore, Contrary to what you stated, in my knowledge The Palestinians do not claim (and never have claimed) Tel Aviv as part of the future Palestinian state – this suggests that the Palestinians themselves acknowledge that Tel Aviv and the land it occupies was Jewish from the beginning (or at least, was never Palestinian.)



The pictures of "Palestine" on Palestinian Authority maps and other Arab maps do not provide any exception for Tel Aviv. They take up the entire area of Israel.

[sharonbn]

Ends: I will save my ailing mom, by getting her a kidney.
Means: Unspecified.

Under the two assumptions:
1. The justification and morality of an ideology is not judged by means - hypothetical or real ones.
2. An ideology is moral unless it explicitly violates human rights
Then,
This ideology is just and moral. period.

Moral people will pursue moral means to attain it. If such means are unavailable, then moral people will abandon the ideology (maybe they will try again at a later point in time.) Unmoral people will go on and commit a crime. The ideology in the two cases is exactly the same.
This implies another assumption - The fact that an ideology is attainable or not in one or another point of time - does not affect its morality (since it always can be said that it is attainable in the future.)

Question,
Suppose you did find someone who donates their kidney. Does this make the ideology moral? Can you say that in this case the ideology is immoral because of the hypothetical option of taking immoral means to achieve it? isn't that linking the ends to the means?

[A-Palestinian]

Sharonbn,

"1. The justification and morality of an ideology is not judged by means - hypothetical or real ones. "

No. The morality of an ideology is judged by BOTH what its Ends and means put limits on, NOT just by the Means. (This is explained in more detail throughout this post).

At this point, it would be prudent to define ideology.

Since an ideology must work towards some Ends, and since Ends cannot be achieved without undertaking some sort of Means, an ideology can either explicitly Specify its Means (if its specific), or have the Means remain insubstantial. (Unspecified, and Unspecific).

But since the Ideology is defined as some End that must be achieved, a specific route/Means will eventually be taken. And since an ideology can have Unspecific Means, this means that any specific means may be chosen. Since any specific means are allowed by said defined ideology, that means that specific immoral Means are also allowed. (As well as moral ones, since none are specified).

Agreed with above?


Now, you might be confused over where choices for the Means to be undertaken by the followers of the Ideology come in. Thus, I will explain it to you:

Case 1:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
If an ideology states its specific Means, then anyone straying from such specific Means is NOT a follower of the ideology.

Example:
Ideology:
Ends: Make people laugh.
Means:: Specified: Use satrical humour.

If a person makes people laugh, by tickling them, he is NOT a follower of the above ideology, since the Means he employed do not match the specified ideological means.


Case 2:
-------------------------------------------------------------------

If an ideology does not state any means, (Unspecified), then the follower can chose specific moral Means, OR, he can chose immoral Means to the ideology's Ends. However, in this case, BOTH are avid followers of the ideology! -- to the fullest I might add.

Example:
Ideology:
Ends: Make a fruit salad.
Means:: Unspecified.

A person who buys fruit from the market, mixes it, puts it in the fridge, and borrowed some water, used moral means, and is fully following the above idealogy.

A person who steals the fruit, uses slaves to mix them, and
beats someone up for the water, used immoral means, however, he is still following his ideology fully! You cannot say "You arent following your ideology properly" - he is in fact, following it perfectly , since this particular ideology has ZERO regard for any human rights trampled on to the path of attaining its Ends. (Unspecified Means: i.e, "Do what you must", "Anything goes", "Whatever needs to be done", etc) As such, it is immoral.

-------------------------------------------------------------------


You also seem to be confused about the severing of morality of Ends and Means from each other, and what the morality of their totality (ideology) is. This has no bearing on what the ideology would entail however. To this end, I refer you to Post#66.

Finally, to answer your questions:


"Question,
Suppose you did find someone who donates their kidney. Does this make the ideology moral? "

I should think that if you understood this post, there would be no need to explain this to you, since you would be able to figure it out yourself. But just to play it safe:

No. Only that specific Means was moral. (But nothing goes against the ideology if your implementation was immoral). But if your ideology sanctions immoral means, how can it possibly be moral? Your ideology is still immoral, for reasons that it allows means are non-Specific. Any Means that are non-specific are always immoral. (Anything goes, just get to the ends, in ANY possible way). (There are plenty of ways to skin a cat).


If there is any disagreement, please point to where excatly, in the logical chains of deduction above the disagreement lies.

[sharonbn]

A-Palestinian,

We may have a problem. You see, IMO, Ideology is a synonym for a goal. In other words, Ideology is not dealing with practicalities and never specifies any means of achieving it – this is left for the personal interoperation of the followers.

I searched the web for a definition of the term “Ideology”.
This (http://www.stfx.ca/people/mmoynagh/445/more-445/Concepts/ideology.html) is what I found:

Meriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary gives the following definition of ideology:
1-visonary theorizing
2 a - a systematic body of concepts esp. about human life or culture
b - a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group or culture
c - the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program

You and I can make out whatever we like from this rather general definition. However, the first part “visonary theorizing”, strongly veers towards a theoretical goal, without the specification of a plan of action.

I will take an example (a little more down-to-earth example than the ones you gave): Nazi ideology.

I found this (http://www.attridge15.freeserve.co.uk/nazism/ideology.htm) definition of Nazi ideology:
What did the Nazis believe in?
Anti-Semitism - Hatred of Jews. They believed that the Jews were the cause of ALL of Germany's problems.
Social-Darwinism - Only the strongest survive.
The Aryan Race - 'Pure' Germans (men with blue eyes and blond hair) are the strongest race and far superior to any other. v
Nationalism - Strong sense of patriotism to the 'Volk' (homeland).
Anti-Democratic - The majority should never replace one man (or rather 'one leader'). Germany had always done well under strong leaders. Germany should be ruled by one strong leader who has great power - a 'Fuhrer'.
Lebensraum - 'living space' : Germans needed more space to live and work, this should be taken from neighbouring countries in the east (especially Poland and Russia).
Anti-Capitalism - An idealised perception of pre-industrial society. The Nazis were also anti-Communist (the political system of Russia), they thought it was dangerous and must be destroyed.

The above mentioned goals do not specify any means of achieving them. In fact, as I detail below, several courses of action were taken:
Anti-Semitism – The belief can be interpreted that Germans wanted to rid Germany of Jews (and any other German-occupied territories, since these territories were considered part of greater Germany, as explained later). The text does not, however, suggests how to achieve this goal. Indeed, the Nazis made several different attempts at achieving this goal: They started with enticements aimed at encouraging Jews to leave Germany voluntarily (i.e. they offered some money to whoever agreed to leave). Later on, they gathered Jews in ghettos, aimed at isolating Jews from local society. Last, they attempted the annihilation of Jews (this was also performed in various ways.)
The Aryan Race – Hitler’s vision included the creation of a super race through inbreeding of people that fit the (mostly physical) specification. At first, only Germans were allowed to participate in the project. Later on, when the pace of the growth of the super race was not fast enough, other nationalities were joined. Norwegian, Dutch and Danish women were forcibly bred with German men.
Nationalism – This really encapsulates other mentioned goals (Social-Darwinism and Lebensraum)
Anti-Democratic – Hitler’s rise to power could be achieved through force (as was the case with the Italian fascist). However, Hitler was voted chancellor by a democratic election.
Lebensraum - 'living space' : The absorption of additional land to the German state was achieved in different ways: First, the Austrian “Anschluss” in 1938, when Hitler manipulated Austrian politics so the demand to unification with Germany came from within the Austrian people (there were other nations that voluntarily joined the Nazi regime – like Romania). Later, as part of a British-German agreement, parts of the Czech republic were annexed to Germany. And of course, most of the land was conquered.
Anti-Capitalism – this “goal” was more like a fascination the Nazis had regarding rural life in the country (clean, healthy people living close to and working the land.) This fascination was exploited by Nazi propaganda but like any other despotism, Nazi economy was managed to the benefit of the ruling elite.

Maybe you can give me a realistic example of a political ideology that, in your view, encompasses both the ends and the means (other than Zionism of course.)

[A-Palestinian]

Sharonbn,

"Maybe you can give me a realistic example of a political ideology that, in your view, encompasses both the ends and the means (other than Zionism of course.)"

Sure - Nazism.

I am surprised, but you pretty much use the logic of what I'm trying to teach you about, when you state:


Anti-Semitism – The belief can be interpreted that Germans wanted to rid Germany of Jews (and any other German-occupied territories, since these territories were considered part of greater Germany, as explained later). The text does not, however, suggests how to achieve this goal . Indeed, the Nazis made several different attempts at achieving this goal: They started with enticements aimed at encouraging Jews to leave Germany voluntarily (i.e. they offered some money to whoever agreed to leave). Later on, they gathered Jews in ghettos, aimed at isolating Jews from local society. Last, they attempted the annihilation of Jews (this was also performed in various ways.)


Precisely! Pay close attention to the phrases in red.

"The text does not , however, suggests how to achieve this goal "

From this, we first establish, that the Nazism's Means were Unspecified . (i.e, "left to the open", "anything goes", "get it done, regardless").

Since they were Unspecified, any Means were tried. So at first, we got moral means, such as:

"They started with enticements aimed at encouraging Jews to leave Germany voluntarily "

Such Means are moral, since they involved a voluntary trade. There is nothing wrong with such Means.

However, since their Means were unspecified, there was no limit placed on far they would go to achieve their Ends. Directly consequent to this, you got:

Last, they attempted the annihilation of Jews.

Is it any wonder, why 6 million were needlessly slaughtered? What was there in the Means to NOT sanction such an action? (ie, such Means).

Clear?

[sharonbn]

A-Palestinian,

You missed the point.
I gave the Nazi ideology as an example that ALL ideologies ever concieved by man, do not contain any reference whatsoever to the means by which they are to be achieved.

Ideology = ends
Ideology != means

The purpose of my example was to show how Nazi ideology and the Zionist Ideology are similar in this manner. You just re-stated my intentions.

In post #80 I state two axioms:
1. The justification and morality of an ideology is not judged by means - hypothetical or real ones.
2. An ideology is moral unless it explicitly violates human rights

Nazi ideology should be judged by the defining text entitled What did the Nazis believe in? and not by the description of the means as it appears in the next paragraph of post #82.
Based on its definition, I conclude that Nazi ideology explicitly violates basic human rights (Anti-Semitism is immoral since it expresses hatred for Jews without rational, Anti-Democratic is immoral since it deprives people from the right to control and affect the governing body) - as such, it is immoral.

I chalenged you to give an example, backed by references, of an ideology that includes in its definition a practical plan of action.

Clear?

PS,
In post #81, case 2, IMO is not an ideology at all. Not everything we want to achieve in life can be categorized as an ideology. We also want to achieve the means that we take towards our ultimate goals. In case 2, the stated ends (make a fruit salad) is by itself a means to a greater ends (quench your or someone else’s hunger, which achieves physical health)

[A-Palestinian]

Sharonbn,

"A-Palestinian,

You missed the point. "

Yes I did. I mis-read your question, and instead gave yet another example of how Unspecified Means sanction immoral acts, when you clearly asked for ideologies whose Means were Specified instead.

As such, allow me to rectify:

"I chalenged you to give an example, backed by references, of an ideology that includes in its definition a practical plan of action. "

Sure,

------------------------------------------------------------

Idealogy: Communism
Ends : Equal wealth for all.

Means: State ownership of the means of production.

(A person aiming for the same Ends of equal wealth for all, through robbery of the rich to the poor, is not a communist, since he does not follow the same means as communism).

-----------------------------------------------------------

Idealogy: Nazism (aka, The German's Democratic Worker's Party, aka, National Sozialistische - D.A.P)
Ends: i) The Establishment of a Socialist state, inclusive, but not limited to, German soil.
ii) The Establishment of such a state for the heterosexual Aryan race exclusively .
iii) Sacrifice of Non-Aryans to the Aryan Race.

Means: i) State control of various industries, with private ownership of such industries; AND Expansionism, through the forceful annexation of land, as seen fit. (Lebensraum).

ii) Unspecified.

iii) Unspecified

(A person aiming for the same Ends, of a Socialist Aryan State, through the institution of State ownership of industries, and voluntary charities, is not a Nazi, since his Means do not match that of Nazism. (Although his Ends are just as racist. Still, he is not a Nazi - he does not fulfill this ideology.)

-------------------------------------------------------------

"Not everything we want to achieve in life can be categorized as an ideology ."

Of course not. Making a fruit salad is a chore, (and used in this context, was an example) ...unless a fanatic believes in the supremacy of cucumbers. :P

"In post #80 I state two axioms:
1. The justification and morality of an ideology is not judged by means - hypothetical or real ones.
2. An ideology is moral unless it explicitly violates human rights "

No. An axiom, is a truism , that cannot be denied, since you would have to use it in your denial. An example of an axiom is: "I am conscious." This is irrefutable, since I cannot attempt to refute it without being concsious in the first place.

So, your above statements, as they stand at the moment, are Arbitrary Assertions, not axioms, since you have not measured them against the logical methdology used in Post#81, on how an Ideology is defined. I must ask you to do so, if further progress is to be made.

[sharonbn]

A-Palestinian,

Ideology: Communism
Ends : Equal wealth for all.
Means: State ownership of the means of production

I searched the web for a definition of Communism (this is what I meant when I asked for "backed by references") and this (http://www.english.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/communism-oed.html) is what I found:

COMMUNISM
1.
a. A theory which advocates a state of society in which there should be no private ownership, all property being vested in the community and labour organized for the common benefit of all members; the professed principle being that each should work according to his capacity, and receive according to his wants.

This is, IMO, the definition of the ideology itself (what follows are other, more specific, uses of the word). It clearly states the goal of "no private ownership" but does not specify which body is to be the owner. In fact, it states that property is to be vests in "the community" (not the government)
A good example of (perhaps the only) successful implementation of the communist ideology is the Israeli Kibbutz. There is no private ownership of land or possessions, not even of cloths. The ownership belongs to the members of the Kibbutz as a whole. There is a central committee that determines tactical initiatives (e.g. a new line of products in the factory.) but strategic decisions are subject to the vote of the greater community. All this is not part of the ideology.

b. spec. [=specific sharonbn] A political doctrine or movement based on Marxism and later developed by Lenin, seeking the overthrow of capitalism through a proletarian revolution; = Marxism-Leninism. (Freq. with capital initial.)

This paragraph describes the implementation of communist ideology in USSR (that’s why it should be capitalized: Communism. Same as the difference between internet and Internet.) The confusion and double-meaning is further expressed in the next paragraph:

2.
a. Applied to any practice which carries out this theory in whole or par t; e.g. that mentioned in Acts ii. 44 seq., as practised in the church of Jerusalem, or that prevailing in monastic communities. spec. The communistic social order established in Russia after the revolution of March 1917, and later in certain associated countries; = Bolshevism. (Freq. with capital initial.) Also transf.

Again, this paragraph states that several implementations of the communist ideology titled themselves Communism.

Another, more simplified definition can be found here (http://www.slider.com/enc/13000/communism.htm).

Regarding your definition of Nazism, where did you get it from?
Specifically, State control of various industries is not mentioned in the definition I found.

remember, like the case of communism, you need to separate the Nazi ideology (Anti-Semitism, Social-Darwinism and Lebensraum) which is similar to Fascism, from the Nazi politlcal party which implemented Nazism as German despotism.
(the same with Zionism and the Zionist movement.)

Note: Lebensraum is a goal by itself, not means.
when you ask “Why did the Germans conquer all these countries in WWII?”
The answer would be “beause they believed they need more ‘living space’ (Lebensraum)"
If you try to ask “Why did the Germans believe they need more ‘living space’?"
The answer would be “Because this is what they believed.“

Regarding my two statements from post #80, you are right. They are my own conclusions based upon my definition of ideology (but I do stand behind them :))

[A-Palestinian]

Sharonbn,

"COMMUNISM
1.
a. A theory which advocates a state of society in which there should be no private ownership, all property being vested in the community and labour organized for the common benefit of all members; the professed principle being that each should work according to his capacity, and receive according to his wants . "

Actually, it goes: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" (not want).

"This is, IMO, the definition of the ideology itself (what follows are other, more specific, uses of the word). It clearly states the goal of "no private ownership" but does not specify which body is to be the owner. In fact, it states that property is to be vests in "the community" (not the government) "

OK - notice, that that ultimate Ends, are what I had stated in my previous post - the whole goal of that movement was to make sure that everyone was garuanteed equal wealth. There is a history behind this, which is irrelevant to this topic. (The struggle of the proletariat VS the bourgoiuse). Either way, its a Non Sequitor.

Yes, under communism, private property is abolished. The Means which I had stated in the previous post are also the ultimate. It is inferred through logical induction: If a government owns all property, then of course, it must follow that private property cannot exist.

Your last statement, "In fact, it states that property is to be vests in "the community" (not the government)", , is quite wrong.

Government ownership is also inferred deduction. "Communal Ownership" is "ownership" (supposedly), by everyone in the community. But to make sure that everyone complies with not owning any private property, the "commune" must now institute an authority. Since an authority over a certain area of land is known as a "Government", and since a Government in this case represents the "commune", then it is the sole authority sanctioned to "own" any of the property, since anyone alse (or any group thereof) owning property constitutes private ownership, excluding the rest of the "commune".

Thus, Government owns all private property.

(SideNote: It is physically and logically impossible for more than one person to own a piece of property - SOMEONE has the final say over the fate of the property).

Anyways, thats a sidenote, which is irrelvant to this discussion.

---------------------------------------------------------

Nazism:


"Regarding your definition of Nazism, where did you get it from?

The explicit definition, is provided via any reliable dictionary. Typing in "Nazism" at www.dictionary.com exemplifies this:

"Na·zism Pronunciation Key (nätszm, nt-) also Na·zi·ism (-s-zm)
n.
The ideology and practice of the Nazis, especially the policy of racist nationalism, national expansion, and state control of the economy. "

Specifically, State control of various industries is not mentioned in the definition I found. "

See above definition. Also, my references included "Mein Kamph", who's author was the head of the Nazi Party - the infamous Adolf Hitler.

The following excerpts I took out of his book, illustrate the Socialist (and thus state ownership) of the economy (I have highlighted the relevant statements in red):

The following excerpts are taken from:
Chapter 9, Volume 1 : "The German Worker's Party".
Chapter 1, Volume 2 : "Philosophy and Party".
Chapter 2, Volume 2 : "The State".
Chapter 12, Volume 2:"The Trade Union Question".
----------------------------------------------------------

"It will be said that the lower wage is in its turn the reason why the manual worker has less chance to participate in the culture of the nation; so that the ideal side of human culture is less open to him because it has nothing to do with his daily activities. It may be added that the reluctance to do physical work is justified by the fact that, on account of the small income, the cultural level of manual labourers must naturally be low, and that this in turn is a justification for the lower estimation in which manual labour is generally held.
There is quite a good deal of truth in all this. But that is the very reason why we ought to see that in the future there should not be such a wide difference in the scale of remuneration . "

(How do you lower the wage gap? Who will pay the difference? Ans: Government interference via price controls, and higher taxations. And who are "we"? Ans: The Government/State. This is State control.)

"...As I have already said, the germ cells of this State must lie in the administrative chambers which will represent the various occupations and professions , therefore first of all in the trades unions. If this subsequent vocational representation and the Central Economic Parliament are to be National Socialist institutions, these important germ cells must be vehicles of the National Socialist concept of life. The institutions of the movement are to be brought over into the State; for the State cannot call into existence all of a sudden and as if by magic those institutions which are necessary to its existence, unless it wishes to have institutions that are bound to remain completely lifeless.
Looking at the matter from the highest standpoint, the National Socialist Movement will have to recognize the necessity of adopting its own trade-unionist policy "

(Obviously, he is advocating State regultion of the economy, at the very top of this paragraph. He has even allocated a whole calculating department for this: The "Central Economic Parliament". Read on to see why trade-unionism as he called it implied State manipulation of prices, wages, etc).

"...They (the Marxists) created the economic weapon which the international Jew uses for the purpose of destroying the economic foundations of free and independent national States, for ruining their national industry and trade and thereby enslaving free nations to serve Jewish world-finance, which transcends all State boundaries.
In contradistinction to this, the National Socialist Trades Union must organize definite groups and those who participate in the economic life of the nation and thus enhance the security of the national economic system itself, reinforcing it by the elimination of all those anomalies which ultimately exercise a destructive influence on the social body of the nation. "

(The National Socialist Trades Union must "participate" in the economy? How does a State "participate" in an economy? Where does the state get its income from? Ans: Tax Payers. How do you "protect" from the destruction of the "social body" of a Nation? Higher taxes.)

"...Therefore in the hands of the National Socialist Trades Union the strike is not an instrument for disturbing and dislocating the national production, but for increasing it and making it run smoothly , by fighting against all those annoyances which by reason of their unsocial character hinder efficiency in business and thereby hamper the existence of the whole nation. "

(Just as trade unions strike when they demand higher pay, the National Socialist Party will go on "strike" against private industry if their prices are too high, and their wages too low. Such interference of the economy is said to "make it run smoothly." See below for the home run.)

contd...

[A-Palestinian]

contd from above...

"For the National Socialist Trades Union, therefore, the strike is a means that may, and indeed must, be resorted to as long as there is not a National Socialist State yet. But when that State is established it will, as a matter of course, abolish the mass struggle between the two great groups made up of employers and employees respectively , a struggle which has always resulted in lessening the national production and injuring the national community. In place of this struggle, the National Socialist State will take over the task of caring for and defending the rights of all parties concerned. It will be the duty of the Economic Chamber itself to keep the national economic system in smooth working order and to remove whatever defects or errors it may suffer from. "

(They dont come any more Socialist than this. The "struggle" between employer and employee he refers to are not that of fraud or cheating - rather, they are of prices - wages, that define the employer, and the employed, which he seeks to "take over", since they (prices) might be "unhealthy to the State". In short, he wishes to regulate the economy, to that any labour done is "for" the State - for whats good for the collective. This is explicitly exemplified in the next paragraph).

"Thus employers and employees will no longer find themselves drawn into a mutual conflict over wages and hours of work, always to the detriment of their mutual interests . But they will solve these problems together on a higher plane, where the welfare of the national community and of the State will be as a shining ideal to throw light on all their negotiations. "

(Wages detrimental to mutual interests? If they were, people would not own jobs. Sacrifice for the State?)

"...The task of the National Socialist Trades Union will be to educate and prepare its members to conform to these ideals. That task may be stated as follows: All must work together for the maintenance and security of our people and the People's State, each one according to the abilities and powers with which Nature has endowed him and which have been developed and trained by the national community. "

(Your life is not an END in itself anymore. Your life is now subordinated to the State. Your life has now become a MEANS to better the State. And finally, the mother of them all:)

"For these people change their convictions just as the soldier changes his shirt in war when the old one is bug-eaten. In the new programme everyone gets everything he wants. (A-Palestinian: I want a BMW ) The farmer is assured that the interests of agriculture will be safeguarded. The industrialist is assured of protection for his products. The consumer is assured that his interests will be protected in the market prices. Teachers are given higher salaries and civil servants will have better pensions. Widows and orphans will receive generous assistance from the State. Trade will be promoted. "

(Wonderful ENDS. Lovely. Who wouldn't want those Ends? Hmm...I wonder what the Means are ... How is Hitler to perform this act of wealth creation out of nothing? Ans: The State. Where does the State's wealth come from? Ans: Taxation, and price controls. How can all those be afforded? Ans: Ridiculously high taxes, and subordination of private industry to the National Socialist Trade Unions, if the need should arise.)

------------------------------------------------------------------

The following excerpts came from Adolf Hitler himself, leader of the Nazi Party.

Nazism advocates Socialism, and State controls.


"remember, like the case of communism, you need to separate the Nazi ideology (Anti-Semitism, Social-Darwinism and Lebensraum) which is similar to Fascism, from the Nazi politlcal party which implemented Nazism as German despotism.
(the same with Zionism and the Zionist movement.) "

The Ends and Means (if Specified) of an ideology, are what a person or group assign to it. A Nazi party, is for a Nazi ideology, which they have created themselves.

"Note: Lebensraum is a goal by itself, not means.
when you ask “Why did the Germans conquer all these countries in WWII?”
The answer would be “beause they believed they need more ‘living space’ (Lebensraum)"

Yes, Lebensraum is an End. Thats why I placed it in the brackets.

If you try to ask “Why did the Germans believe they need more ‘living space’?"
The answer would be “Because this is what they believed.“ "

Or more accurately, that was one of their Ends.
(End# (i) from the previous post).

"Regarding my two statements from post #80, you are right. They are my own conclusions based upon my definition of ideology (but I do stand behind them )"

Of course they are. It is obvious that our definitions of ideologies do not match, and thus, one or both of us is wrong. The method for establishing what a truth is, is to use Reason, and logic. Thus far, I have shown a logical tree of deductions (Post# 81), supporting my definition, whilst you have not done the same, and/or logically refuted my methodology. You can either show how your definition can be logically sought, or find fault in mine. If no such action is taken, then no progress can be made.

At any rate, you had asked for ideologies whose Means were explicitly stated, and I have provided you with those.

That ball's in your court.

[victot]

hey, this stuff got too complicated for me to follow a long time ago... but who is winning the debate?

[sharonbn]

A-Palestinian,

Communism:

It is inferred through logical induction: If a government owns all property, then of course, it must follow that private property cannot exist.
Maybe you can infer this logical deduction. However two things are clear:
a. this is not explicitly stated in the definition of Communist ideology.
b. by no means this is the only possible logical deduction from the goal of “no private ownership”.
Your statement falls into the fallacy known as

“Generalization” : making overall assumption based on one most prominent example, without referring to other cases.

I want to remind you that the communist ideology was not implemented on the country-level only. The examples that were given in the definition were church of Jerusalem and monastic communities . I also gave the example of the Israeli Kibbutz. In the kibbutz, an implementation of communist ideology by self declaration and world acknowledgement, all property, incl. Land, products, possessions and intellectual assets – belong to the general population. This means that in legal documents, ownership is given to all kibbutz members (it is written that the kibbutz is the owner.) Any change of ownership (e.g. selling the land), requires the consent of the general assembly where each kibbutz member has an equal say. The final decision is taken by means of voting, where the majority determines the outcome. Of course there is a “First Secretary” and central committee, both considered the de-facto leaders of the community and have great influence over the voting in the general assembly. However, this is certainly not part of the ideology and in any case, the fact regarding ownership and the decision making process remains.
All the above mentioned organizations, together with Bolshevik USSR, implemented in their own way the same ideology: the communist-Marxist ideology.

(SideNote: It is physically and logically impossible for more than one person to own a piece of property - SOMEONE has the final say over the fate of the property).
This statement is totally bogus. It not only contradicts the examples I’ve shown, its not even logical. All property owned by any organization (private or governmental), the legal documents will always state the owner as “Ministry of agriculture” or “Institute of technology” or “Holocaust Museum”, etc. Who has the final say need not be one person and may change depending on the circumstances: If the Hebrew University of Jerusalem wishes to acquire a piece of land to build a botanical garden, the negotiations with the prospect sellers will be handled by the administrative executive. The final approval will be given by the board of directors. The layout of the garden will be approved by the biological faculty. Maintenance will be managed by maintenance dept. – all these are decisions and actions that affect one piece of property. In any case, the issue of who has the final say is irrelevant to the identity of the owner.

-----------------

Nazism:

Regarding the definition of Nazism from http://www.dictionary.com , there are actually two entries for the term:

Nazism:
1. The ideology and practice of the Nazis, especially the policy of racist nationalism, national expansion, and state control of the economy.
nazism:
1. A form of socialism featuring racism and expansionism [syn: Nazism, Naziism, national socialism]

The first definition describes the ideological and practical basis for the Nazi political party of Germany, which was one movement following the nazism ideology. The second definition describes the general ideology itself. Note the beginning of the first definition “The ideology and practice…” which clearly hints that ideology does not contain practice.

Many groups that attempt to implement a political ideology, wish to identify themselves to the public as the sole embodiment of that ideology by encapsulating their ideology and plan of action into one term. In this way they attempt to persuade the public they are the true implementation of the ideology. This was the case with the Nazi political party, the Russian Bolshevik political party and the Zionist movement.

Also note that there is actually a term Naziism which is the equivalent –ism concept to such ideologies as capitalism, socialism, nationalism etc.

As an exercise, I looked up "ideology" in the dictionary. There are no less than 4 entries:

Ideology:
1.a. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
1.b. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.
2. (Metaph.) A theory of the origin of ideas which derives them exclusively from sensation
3.a. An orientation that characterizes the thinking of a group or nation [syn: political orientation, political theory]
3.b. Imaginary or visionary theorization
(the forth one points to medical dictionary which irrelevant to the discussion.)

I would like to point to several keywords in the text: aspirations(1.a), beliefs(1.b), theory(2) and specifically, Imaginary or visionary theorization (whole of 3.b) IMO, all of these keywords, together with the complete definitions, show that ideology is a theoretical (i.e. not practical), imaginary, inspirational concept. This explicitly contradicts the notion of ideology consisting of any practical aspect.
To use your words: I have shown a logical tree of deductions, supporting my definition, whilst you have not done the same, and/or logically refuted my methodology
Please show me where in the defining text is it even implied that ideology consists of a course of action or any practical aspect.

Regarding your lengthy excerpt from “Mein Kamph”, as I mentioned before, Hitler invented Nazi ideology as a mixture of previous existing sociological ideologies such as racism, expansionism and national socialism . He described his ideology in the book “Mein Kamph” and proceeded to outline the means by which this ideology can be achieved in Germany at the point of time of writing the book (1924). This by no means implies that Nazi ideology consists of the means to achieve it.

I pass the ball...

[A-Palestinian]

"Maybe you can infer this logical deduction. However two things are clear:
a. this is not explicitly stated in the definition of Communist ideology.
b. by no means this is the only possible logical deduction from the goal of “no private ownership”. (Like what other possibility? ... you dont give any.)
Your statement falls into the fallacy known as

“Generalization” : making overall assumption based on one most prominent example, without referring to other cases. "

Actually Sharonbn, the inferred statement of "government ownership" is an interchangable with the statement of "no private property owned/or no right to private property". Thus, in this context , (where it is known that property IS owned), if the abolishment of private property rights is true, then government ownership of that property must also be true. (Since SOMEONE owns the property). Thus the truism of one statement, must imply the truism of the next. (What other possible case is there? Unless Communism is also Anarchy, there can be none. And Comminism is not Anarchy.)

"Maybe you can infer this logical deduction. However two things are clear:
a. this is not explicitly stated in the definition of Communist ideology. "

This is a case of the antecedent, implying the consequent. Since the consequent is the only possible one, then the antecedent and the consequent are interchangable.
Thus, if an ideology holds a certain antecedent as a Means/Ends, that also means, that the said ideology must also hold its consequent as a Means/Ends.) There cannot be generalisation, when there is only one possibility.

A rough example is a law that might state "Don't steal property, or you will be punished." If I was to steal your car tires, then I cannot claim that "not stealing tires was not explicitly stated anywhere, so I cant be punished." The consequent of the law, which is the antecedant, includes ALL property. But that isnt stated - it is inferred.



"(SideNote: It is physically and logically impossible for more than one person to own a piece of property - SOMEONE has the final say over the fate of the property). "
"This statement is totally bogus. It not only contradicts the examples I’ve shown, its not even logical. All property owned by any organization (private or governmental), the legal documents will always state the owner as “Ministry of agriculture” or “Institute of technology” or “Holocaust Museum”, etc. Who has the final say need not be one person and may change depending on the circumstances: "

Come now. You are certainly more reasonable than that.
One irrefutable tenet of being an "Owner" of something, means that you have the right to dispose of that thing, at any moment you please.

-- If I own a couch, and I one day decide to throw it away, then I do not need to consult 10 others, since I OWN it.

-- If I decide to throw the couch away, but possess no right to do so unless I confer with the 10 of you first, then I
do not OWN it. We do not/cannot simultaneously "own" anything (since, it is NOT mine to dispence with.)

ownership

n 1: possession with the right to transfer possession to others 2: the act of possessing; "they took possession of the ball" [syn: possession] 3: the state or fact of being an owner
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University


In a group who owns a piece of property, I do not have the "..right to transfer possession to others . The group does. Not me. Thus, I cannot "own" it.

Either way, this (the side note) is totally irrelevant to the current discussion,
and I suggest we drop the subject.

--------------------------------------------------------------

"Note the beginning of the first definition “The ideology and practice…” which clearly hints that ideology does not contain practice. "

Incomplete phrases like this can successfully drop context. It says: "The ideology and practice-OF-the-Nazis" (dashes mine and CAPS mine). Meaning, "Whatever the Nazis DID, (not stated in their ideology) and what their ideology held. But I showed how ideology can hold Means. Basically, this definition does nothing but expand Nazism to include what the ideology held, AND what the Nazis did outside their ideology, which is actually correct. The actual Ideology is in this case is "nazism". Its a play with words.


"Ideology:
1.a. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
1.b. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.
2. (Metaph.) A theory of the origin of ideas which derives them exclusively from sensation
3.a. An orientation that characterizes the thinking of a group or nation [syn: political orientation, political theory]
3.b. Imaginary or visionary theorization "

"Please show me where in the defining text is it even implied that ideology consists of a course of action or any practical aspect. "

Here:

1a) Why cant the "body of ideas" not include Means? They can.
1b) Why cant a "set of doctrines and beliefs" include a Means? (Example: "We believe in State ownership (means) to achieve insert-End-here.")
2) This is regarding Metaphysics, and is irrelevant.
3a) Why cant the "orientation" towards State control (means) characterize the thinking of a group?
3b) "We 'Imagine' that happiness will be attained (ends) through our 'visionary theorization' of State control (means)."


"Regarding your lengthy excerpt from “Mein Kamph”, as I mentioned before, Hitler invented Nazi ideology as a mixture of previous existing sociological ideologies such as racism, expansionism and national socialism . He described his ideology in the book “Mein Kamph” and proceeded to outline the means by which this ideology can be achieved in Germany at the point of time of writing the book (1924). This by no means implies that Nazi ideology consists of the means to achieve it. "

No, that is wrong. You see, the facts are, the Nazi ideology existed prior to Mein Kamph (1924):

"On 5th January, 1919, not two months after the conclusion of the Armistice which ended the first World War, and six months before the signing of the peace treaties at Versailles, there came into being in Germany a small political party called the German Labor Party. On 12th September, 1919 Adolf Hitler became a member of this Party, and at the first public meeting held in Munich, on 24th February, 1920 , he announced the Party's program. That program, which remained unaltered until the Party was dissolved in 1945, consisted of 25 points. "

It was at THAT (red) date that the Nazi ideology was moulded. Mein Kamph does not contradict the ideology, but merely gives reasons Why its needed. Also, Mein Kamph went into the detail of how the Ends were to be achieved.
And the proof that the Original Nazi ideology contained Means, is etched in their consitution, of 25 points, which they engraved in stone: (My additions are in red).

The 25 points:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The program of the German Workers' Party is an epochal program.

The leaders reject the idea of setting up new goals after those included in the program have been achieved merely in order to make possible the further existence of the Party by artificially inducing discontent among the masses.


1. End: We demand the union of all Germans in a Great Germany on the basis of the principle of self-determination of all peoples.

2. End: We demand that the German people have rights equal to those of other nations; and that the Peace Treaties of Versailles and St. Germain shall be abrogated.

3. End: We demand land and territory (colonies) for the maintenance of our people and the settlement of our surplus population.

4. End: Only those who are our fellow countrymen can become citizens. Only those who have German blood, regardless of creed, can be our countrymen Hence no Jew can be a countryman.

5. End: Those who are not citizens must live in Germany as foreigners and must be subject to the law of aliens.

6. End: The right to choose the government and determine the laws of the State shall belong only to citizens. We therefore demand that Means: no public office, of whatever nature, whether in the central government, the province. or the municipality, shall be held by anyone who is not a citizen .

We wage war against the corrupt parliamentary administration whereby men are appointed to posts by favor of the party without regard to character and fitness.

7. End: We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole population, then aliens (non-citizens) must be expelled from the Reich.

contd...

[A-Palestinian]

contd from above...

8. End: Any further immigration of non-Germans must be prevented. Means: We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately.


9. All citizens must possess equal rights and duties.

10. Means: The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the (For this End: ) interest of the community to the benefit of all.

Therefore we demand:

11. Means: That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

Breaking the Bondage of Interest

12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, ( <--- The Prevention of this is the End.) all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. (Means: ) We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

13. Means: We demand the nationalization of all trusts. (The "practical" side, as you put it).

14. Means: We demand profit-sharing in large industries.

15. End: We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.

16. End: We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

17. End: We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to (Means: ) expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

18. We demand that (Means...: ) ruthless war be waged against those who (...To the avoidance of the following End: ---> ) work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.

(Notice how Unspecified the Ends of Point 18 are - what exactly is bad for the "common welfare?". Its left open. They readily provide the Means however, for anything they believe to work towards the injury of the "common welfare" ... - "Ruthless War"! It can safely be said, that in more than one ways, Point 18 is the full embodiment of the immoral Nazi ideology).

19. End: We demand that Roman law, which serves a materialist ordering of the world, be replaced by German common law.

20. In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, ( <--- For those Ends, ) (Means are: ) the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.

21. End: The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by (Means: ) providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.

22. End: We demand the abolition of the regular army and the creation of a national (folk) army.

23. End: We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press. In order to make possible the creation of a German press ( <--- an End), we demand:

(a) Means: All editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German language shall be German citizens.

(b) Means: Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State. They must not be published in the German language.

(c) All financial interests in or in any way affecting German newspapers shall be forbidden to non-Germans by law, and we demand that the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression ( <--- End) of the newspaper and the (Means: ) expulsion of the nonGermans from the Reich.
Newspapers transgressing against the common welfare shall be suppressed. We demand legal action against those tendencies in art and literature that have a disruptive influence upon the life of our folk, and that any organizations that offend against the foregoing demands shall be dissolved.

24. End: We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or offend the moral and ethical sense of the Germanic race.

The party as such represents the point of view of a positive Christianity without binding itself to any one particular confession. It fights against the Jewish materialist spirit within and without, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our folk can only come about from within on the principle:

COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD

25. In order to carry out this program ( <-- The End..), we demand: (Means: ) the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.

The formation of professional committees and of committees representing the several estates of the realm, to ensure that the laws promulgated by the central authority shall be carried out by the federal states.

End: The leaders of the party undertake to promote the execution of the foregoing points (Means: ) at all costs (In essence, Unspecified Means) , if necessary at the sacrifice of their own lives.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Whew! That was some tedious typing, so I really hope it was worth it. As you can see, they go into specific intricancies, on how their various goals (Ends) are to be achieved, and in those cases where they dont, such Means are unspecified. (Yet they "Demand" it).

Hitler's Mein Kamph came 4 years after this was written, and he merely complimented it, with reasons for all those "Demands", justification for all those "Demands", and Means that do not oppose those provided here, but go into more detail in explanation.

"This by no means implies that Nazi ideology consists of the means to achieve it. "

There's the proof that it did.

On a final note, I will also add, that the above, does not fundamentally conflict in any way with my original rough draft of:

-----------------------------------------------------

Idealogy: Nazism (aka, The German's Democratic Worker's Party, aka, National Sozialistische - D.A.P)

Ends: i) The Establishment of a Socialist state, inclusive, but not limited to, German soil.
ii) The Establishment of such a state for the heterosexual Aryan race exclusively .
iii) Sacrifice of Non-Aryans to the Aryan Race.

Means: i) State control of various industries, with private ownership of such industries; AND Expansionism, through the forceful annexation of land, as seen fit. (Lebensraum).

ii) Unspecified.
iii) Unspecified

-------------------------------------------------------------

"To use your words: I have shown a logical tree of deductions, supporting my definition, whilst you have not done the same , and/or logically refuted my methodology "

Actually, I have, in post#81. Such intellectual dishonesty is not appreciated.


To sum up: I hope you see by now, after the ample proof given from the above posts, that Ideologies can contain Means. If you still do not, then you have to criticise my rationale in Post#81. For it is through that derivation, that it is shown how Means can be part of an Ideology. (And the Emperical evidence is in the original Nazi constitution).

I await your reply.

[sharonbn]

I have become a little busy these days.
I will replay as soon as I am able to.

[A-Palestinian]

No Prob.

[sharonbn]

A-Palestinian,

Sorry for the long wait, I have a new (first) beautiful baby girl, that requires all of my attention. I expect my responses to be less frequent from now on, but I'll try my outmost to continue this discussion.

on with the reply:

by no means this is the only possible logical deduction from the goal of “no private ownership”. (Like what other possibility? ... you don’t give any.)
[...]
the inferred statement of "government ownership" is interchangeable with the statement of "no private property owned/or no right to private property". Thus, in this context , (where it is known that property IS owned), if the abolishment of private property rights is true, then government ownership of that property must also be true. (Since SOMEONE owns the property).
[...]
There cannot be generalization, when there is only one possibility.
I cannot believe I have to defend one of the most fundamental concepts of Marxism, Communism and Socialism: Collective ownership (look up “Collectivism” in the dictionary)
In posts #86, #90 I gave several examples of “Collective ownership”. Twice I mentioned the Israeli Kibbutz. This unique organized community is perhaps the most true-to-the-origin and successful implementation of Communist-Marxist ideology ever (certainly more truthful and successful then Communist Russia.) I will not detail the concept of ownership in the kibbutz a third time. I will only say that although the kibbutz itself may own a lot of property (some Kibbutzim are quite wealthy), in the kibbutz there is absolutely no private ownership by individuals and no “state control” or “central committee” control.

The statement SOMEONE owns the property is outright Capitalism.

To make matters clear I will state that “no private ownership” and “government ownership” are NOT interchangeable since a third option “collective ownership” exists in theory AND practice throughout the world (there may be even more options.)

In a group who owns a piece of property, I do not have the "..right to transfer possession to others . The group does. Not me. Thus, I cannot "own" it.
True, in Collective ownership, no individual has possession. However, this “group” need not be the government or the leading group of the community. It can be any group of people, including the whole society in question.

--------------------------------------------------------------

"Note the beginning of the first definition “The ideology and practice…” which clearly hints that ideology does not contain practice. "
Incomplete phrases like this can successfully drop context. It says: "The ideology and practice-OF-the-Nazis" (dashes mine and CAPS mine).
OK, I see I now have to defend English-reading-comprehension.
IMO, if you read the sentence “The ideology and practice of the Nazis” then according to rules of English semantics (and common sense?) it means “The ideology of the Nazis and practice of the Nazis”. Not whatever you meant. This clearly separates ideology and any kind of practical, real action.

1a) Why cant the "body of ideas" not include Means? They can.
No they can’t, means are actions, not ideas.
1b) Why cant a "set of doctrines and beliefs" include a Means?
Means are actions. people believe in ideas. People support or conduct actions.
(Example: "We believe in State ownership (means) to achieve insert-End-here.")
Now you are playing with words. The word “believe” is used here to state an opinion (like in "Are we late?" "I believe so")
For the above sentence to be correct (in English at least), it needs to be: "We believe that State ownership (means) will achieve insert-End-here." This is the same as saying “It is our opinion that State ownership is needed to achieve insert-End-here."
3a) Why cant the "orientation" towards State control (means) characterize the thinking of a group?
The definition gives the synonyms: “political orientation, political theory”, again, veering towards the theoretical realm, away from practical reality.
3b) "We 'Imagine' that happiness will be attained (ends) through our 'visionary theorization' of State control (means)."
Yet again, semantics juggling. I would have to say it takes true imaginary vision to find reference to practical aspect in “Imaginary [=of the imagination] or visionary theorization”

Regarding the Nazis’ 25 points, I think you can drop the quoting of various declarations and writings of Nazi groups and leaders. The self-evidence of the Nazis regarding their ideology and actions only demonstrate the first definition of the term “Nazism” as was given in my post #90 (The full definition, not the partial one you conveniently gave in post #89, such intellectual dishonesty is not appreciated )

Nazism
1. The ideology and practice of the Nazis, especially the policy of racist nationalism, national expansion, and state control of the economy.
This is the Nazi political party’s interpretation of the Nazi ideology (which is, in turn, an interpretation of national socialism.) On the same post (#90), I mentioned the phenomenon of movements and parties that wish to identify themselves with the ideology by titling their actions with the same name as the ideology. This strategy is another means to achieve the ultimate goal, but it does not put the means inside the ideology.

The second definition of the term “Nazism” defines the ideology without historical context:
2. a form of socialism featuring racism and expansionism [syn: Nazism, Naziism, national socialism]
The definition also lists the root political and social doctrines of the Nazism ideology (racism, expansionism, national socialism.) The same roots yielded 1922 Fascist Italy and 1936 Fascist Spain.

On the same post #90, I give a detailed list of the Nazi ideology, and proceeded to detail their action-plan of implementing their ideology. You basically elaborate further the same goals and means, however you did not offer any new insight as to the definition of “Ideology”.

---------------------------------------------------------------

[...] you have to criticise my rationale in Post#81. For it is through that derivation, that it is shown how Means can be part of an Ideology.

Regarding your post #81, you gave two examples of ideologies. IMO, BOTH cases do not specify an ideology. A good test of an “Ends” (=ideology) is the “Why” question. As I exemplified in post #86, regarding one of the Nazi goals:

Note: Lebensraum is a goal by itself, not means.
when you ask “Why did the Germans conquer all these countries in WWII?”
The answer would be “because they believed they need more ‘living space’ (Lebensraum)"
If you try to ask “Why did the Germans believe they need more ‘living space’?"
The answer would be “Because this is what they believed.“

According to this test the Ends:
Ends: Make people laugh.
Why do you want to make people laugh? Make them happy? Make them think? (you may want to express social criticism through satire.) Wanting to make people Happy is an Ends by itself (why do you want to make people happy? Because I balieve its good for them. Why do you believe so? Because that's what I belive in.) Social satire is a means towards social reform.
Regarding the other case:
Ends: Make a fruit salad.
I think it speaks for itself.

Regarding the rest of the text in post #81, it stats your belief that ideology consists of an Ends and optionaly some Means. This is what I attempt to debunk ever since.

I don't know if this dispute can be resolved, since we are arguing over the definition of a somewhat vague and illusive term ("ideology") and we both seem to find supportive arguments in several resources, as well as contradicting interpretations of the definition itself.

[A-Palestinian]

Sharonbn,

I must say, congratulations on your new baby girl - I sincerely wish the best for you and your family. :)

---------------------------------------------------

Regarding the discussion:

I am sorry to say, but I cannot continue any rational discussion with you unless you cease and desist your sideswipe smears.

""To use your words: I have shown a logical tree of deductions, supporting my definition, whilst you have not done the same , and/or logically refuted my methodology "

Actually, I have, in post#81. Such intellectual dishonesty is not appreciated. "

Instead of addressing the above smear, you instead compound it with another:

"(The full definition, not the partial one you conveniently gave in post #89, such intellectual dishonesty is not appreciated ) "

Either apologise (or explain) the above smears, or retract them fully.

[sharonbn]

A-Palestinian,

Actually, I have, in post#81. Such intellectual dishonesty is not appreciated. "
Instead of addressing the above smear, you instead compound it with another:
"(The full definition, not the partial one you conveniently gave in post #89, such intellectual dishonesty is not appreciated ) "

If you look at the first line, you will see I was just responding to you with the same coin that you used (that's why the text in post #95 was in blue). Its just something I like to do, instead of bluntly asking for apologies or explanations (I rarely initiate such strong language.)

Regarding the issue, in post #89 you qouetd the definition for Nazism from www.dictionary.com . However, you chose to qoute only one out of the two definitions that apear there even though the second one was relevant to the issue (this is also something that I never do. I always qoute the full relevant definition from whereever I find it). Did you expect that I will not go to the site and look up the definition?
I will give you the benefit of a doubt that you made an honest omition and will close this issue.

[A-Palestinian]

Sharonbn,

"you will see I was just responding to you with the same coin that you used "

Correct. The question is, why do you use it, when it doesn't apply to me? (You did not provide logical methdology back then, whilst I did, so I simply reported it as so).

"Its just something I like to do, instead of bluntly asking for apologies or explanations (I rarely initiate such strong language.) "

Instead of insulting, usually it is best to ask for an explanation of contestable material. If you felt that my statement(s) insulted you, then you should ask for further elaboration instead of jumping to conclusions, when you are not sure.

"Did you expect that I will not go to the site and look up the definition? "

How can I reasonably expect that, if I told you where I got it from in the first place?

I am sorry if my statement(s) insulted you, since I did not intend nor plan to insult you in any way. It is quite a pity that you find blunt statements insulting, but I cannot help you in that arena... When my grade 2 Math teacher told me that 3 x 3 is 9, not 6, I did not give her the finger - I accepted the corrected fact.

Just bear in mind, that I am not directing my blunt statement towards you personally, but I am indeed directing them to your stances.

I trust we continue with the discussion from here...

[A-Palestinian]

Sharonbn,

"I will only say that although the kibbutz itself may own a lot of property (some Kibbutzim are quite wealthy), in the kibbutz there is absolutely no private ownership by individuals and no “state control” or “central committee” control. "

In a Kibbutz, who is going to stop me from owning my *own* property. Property Police? Probably more along the lines of "the community will stop you", which is precisely what a government is - the monopoly holder on the use of force.

"To make matters clear I will state that “no private ownership” and “government ownership” are NOT interchangeable since a third option “collective ownership” exists in theory AND practice throughout the world "

Again, just who is going to stop *me* from owning my own property in this society? If it's the "comminuty", and this "community" also initiates force on individuals to stop them from ownership, then that is a government, like it or not.

Bear in mind, that a government, as a rule of thumb, is the guy-with-the-gun.


"1a) Why cant the "body of ideas" not include Means? They can.
No they can’t, means are actions, not ideas. "

Eh? Means cant be ideas? Dont planned actions come from ideas?

"1b) Why cant a "set of doctrines and beliefs" include a Means?
Means are actions. people believe in ideas. People support or conduct actions. "

(!?) Can't people believe in a certain way of doing something? (ie, a certain Means of doing something?) If not, why can't they? Example: "We support the undeniable fact, that praying to god five times a day (means) will lead to paradise. (ends)." (The contents of this statement are not reflective of my opinion by the way - its just an example). This is part of an ideology, and it clearly includes the Means.

"3a) Why cant the "orientation" towards State control (means) characterize the thinking of a group?
The definition gives the synonyms: “political orientation, political theory”, again, veering towards the theoretical realm, away from practical reality. "

This is nonsense. (Just to be safe, this is *not an insult*). Theoretical realm? ALL things start at the theoretical realm. Why cant one say: "In our political theory, we will achieve richness galore (ends), by having all men work the fields 18 hours a day. (means)." ?

"3b) "We 'Imagine' that happiness will be attained (ends) through our 'visionary theorization' of State control (means)."
Yet again, semantics juggling. I would have to say it takes true imaginary vision to find reference to practical aspect in “Imaginary [=of the imagination] or visionary theorization” "

"True imaginary vision" is not an argument. Its a probability. And why is this juggling with Semantics? What part of
"...our 'visionary theorization' of State control (means)...." do you find contestable? Please show how a group of people cannot "theorize", through "vizualisation" on what a Means to some of their Ends can be. (I urge that you answer at least this part.)

"Regarding the Nazis’ 25 points, I think you can drop the quoting of various declarations and writings of Nazi groups and leaders. The self-evidence of the Nazis regarding their ideology and actions only demonstrate the first definition of the term “Nazism” as was given in my post "

This is a Circulus in Probando argument. (A circular argument). To a responce to your stance, you say, "that responce is wrong, as evidenced from my stance." But the responce is addressed TO your stance.

Since this is a circular argument, you have not *at all* addressed the Nazi Constitution. I suggest you do, because it was written by *themselves*, encompasing *their* ideology, along with all its embedded Means. This is a hallmark of emperical evidence. If you cannot accept what the Nazi's themselves tell you, then just who (or what)will you accept?

---------------------------------------------------

"Ends: Make people laugh.
Why do you want to make people laugh? Make them happy? Make them think? (you may want to express social criticism through satire.) Wanting to make people Happy is an Ends by itself (why do you want to make people happy? Because I balieve its good for them. Why do you believe so? Because that's what I belive in.) Social satire is a means towards social reform. "

Who cares? Please show how that has *any* bearing on weather or not Means are be included in ideology.

It is too much to quote here, but in your previous post you now want to take into account the "why" question to the Ends. (Before your definition was just the ends, but now its the ends ANY why they want to do it.) But "why" some people want to achieve their ends is irrelevant, as I will demostrate:

Ends: Make a fruit salad.

Why: Because of the superiority of the Pineapple race.

This is a Non-Sequitor, or irrelevant, since it does not address the possible existance of the Means which you are contesting.

I did not intend you to take a look at all of post 81 - perhaps I should have been clearer. This is the part I want you to focus on: (pasted from Post#81).

"Since an ideology must work towards some Ends, and since Ends cannot be achieved without undertaking some sort of Means, an ideology can either explicitly Specify its Means (if its specific), or have the Means remain insubstantial. (Unspecified, and Unspecific).

But since the Ideology is defined as some End that must be achieved, a specific route/Means will eventually be taken. And since an ideology can have Unspecific Means, this means that any specific means may be chosen. Since any specific means are allowed by said defined ideology, that means that specific immoral Means are also allowed. (As well as moral ones, since none are specified). "

This is the derivation of why Ideology can indeed include means. (The Nazi constitution I gave is emperical data too, but I guess you decided to avoid it). Please refute the derivation, by stating what in the above paragraph you are contesting.

[sharonbn]

A-Palestinian,

In a Kibbutz, who is going to stop me from owning my *own* property. Property Police? Probably more along the lines of "the community will stop you", which is precisely what a government is - the monopoly holder on the use of force.
There are two things I wish to say here :
1. government != the community.
2. The concept of ownership, as you so articulately put it in post #91 (One irrefutable tenet of being an "Owner" of something, means that you have the right to dispose of that thing, at any moment you please.) has nothing to do with who deals with perpetrators (in a Kibbutz, as well as Communist Russia, private ownership is regarded as stealing from the community) In any given country in the world (even in Capitalist USA) the government has monopoly over the use of force. It is never the private owner who punishes/prosecutes thieves. (You know, In USA, it is illegal to shoot at someone if he/she breaks into your house, as long as your life were not threatened.)

-------------------------

The issue of our understanding and interpretation of the definition of ideology is in the center here (IMO). So I will focus on this section:

1a) Why cant the "body of ideas" not include Means? They can.
No they can’t, means are actions, not ideas.
Eh? Means cant be ideas? Dont planned actions come from ideas?
Planned actions come from ideas. However, Planned actions themselves are not ideas.

1b) Why cant a "set of doctrines and beliefs" include a Means?
Means are actions. people believe in ideas. People support or conduct actions.
(!?) Can't people believe in a certain way of doing something?
People may believe that a certain way of doing something will achieve a desired result. This is the same as saying that people support this action (i.e. people think it is a good action, i.e. it is the people’s opinion of that action). Support is stating an opinion, not a belief. As I said before, the use of the word believe may be misleading in certain cases. When we use the word in a sentence here, we have to make sure we mean the belief of people (as stated in the definition), not the opinion, the support, contemplations, hesitations, etc.
"We support the undeniable fact, that praying to god five times a day (means) will lead to paradise. (ends)."
I don’t understand what point you were making here: I agree that Praying (being an action) is Means towards some afterlife prize. Religious ceremonies are not part of Religious ideology. Christian ideology is the belief in one god, the belief in afterlife retribution to sinners, etc. Catholics support confession as part of paying for one’s sins, Protestants do not support this action. Catholics, Protestants, Baptists – they all believe in the same Christian ideology, but support different Means.

3a) Why cant the "orientation" towards State control (means) characterize the thinking of a group?
The definition gives the synonyms: “political orientation, political theory”, again, veering towards the theoretical realm, away from practical reality.
ALL things start at the theoretical realm.
That’s true, all actions you do, have a idealistic goal you wish to achieve.

Why cant one say: "In our political theory, we will achieve richness galore (ends), by having all men work the fields 18 hours a day. (means)." ?
Again, when someone says that, he/she do declares their political theory, but continues beyond the theory (and ideology) to specify a plan of action. The fact the someone may declare a plan-of-action as an ideology does not make it one (more on this later).

3b) "We 'Imagine' that happiness will be attained (ends) through our 'visionary theorization' of State control (means)."
Yet again, semantics juggling. I would have to say it takes true imaginary vision to find reference to practical aspect in “Imaginary [=of the imagination] or visionary theorization”
[side note: happiness is not an Ends. You can say that all ideologies ever conceived by mankind had one goal of making people happy. Capitalists, Communists, Nazis, liberals – all wanted to achieve happiness for their own people.]
"True imaginary vision" is not an argument. Its a probability. And why is this juggling with Semantics? What part of
"...our 'visionary theorization' of State control (means)...." do you find contestable? Please show how a group of people cannot "theorize", through "visualization" on what a Means to some of their Ends can be.
When I said it takes true imaginary vision to find reference to practical aspect in “Imaginary [=of the imagination] or visionary theorization”, I meant that visionary theorization, is maybe the furthest you can go away from practical actions (close to day dreaming). As I mentioned before all Means are actions (state control is a practical plan-of-action that includes many actions that together comprise the control of the government over the people. For example, strict censorship of the media is one such action listed in state control plan of action) To draw this plan of action, one does not require visionary theorization but rather be a shrewd and ruthful politician with an in-depth knowledge and experience in manipulation, administration, etc.
visionary theorization is something that is required when you invent the idea of Social-Darwinism, Nationalism, Lebensraum, etc.

-------------------

Regarding the Nazis’ 25 points...
This is a Circulus in Probando argument...
Since this is a circular argument, you have not *at all* addressed the Nazi Constitution. I suggest you do, because it was written by *themselves*, encompasing *their* ideology, along with all its embedded Means. This is a hallmark of emperical evidence. If you cannot accept what the Nazi's themselves tell you, then just who (or what)will you accept?
Like I said before: as absurd as it may sound, when a group of people declare *their* Ideology, it does not necessarily make it a valid ideology, at least according to the definition of the term. You may declare your ideology as “Make a fruit salad.” This does not make the making of a fruit salad a valid ideology by any means. The confusion is sometimes, but not always, deliberate. This is since the term Ideology itself is vague to begin with. The “Why” question I talked about earlier is a suggestion of how to identify and excerpt the true ideology from other aspects in any given “25 point list”. The test is as follows: if you can take a statement and ask “why” and get (or think of) an answer, it is not an ideology. If the answer to the “Why” question is “because we believe so” (or “because this will make our people happy”) then the statement in question is part of the ideology. (Try that on “Because of the superiority of the Pineapple race”.) As for the particular case of the Nazis, I said before, that the Nazi leaders, when they were struggling to get to power, declared their ideology as encompassing a practical plan of action for propaganda purposes. This strategy does not make the Nazi declarations a valid ideology just because they said so, even if they said it on themselves.

---------------------------------------------------

Regarding your excerpt from post #81:
yes, this is your definition of the term "Ideology". I addressed this statement in my response in post #82 by declaring that my definition is different. This is where it started.
To address your definition, I will say that its all true (regarding the relationship between an Ends and its Means) but the above statement does not refute my definition of ideology, being only the Ends and not the Means. What I’ve tried to do ever since post #82 is focus on the definition of the term, as it appears in the dictionary, look at examples of the definition of ideologies (again, from the dictionary, not the declarations of a motivated group of people.) and from there, try to see if an ideology does contain Means or not.

If it pleases you, I will say that all ideologies do not specify any means to achieve them.

[A-Palestinian]

Sharonbn,

This is not a rebuttal post. This post is an information gathering post. I cannot rebut as yet because I need some more info on your stance. I have one question:

I strongly suspect that that you are mis-using the definition of "Means". To be sure that there is no confusion over this, I will state/ask the following:

You seem to think that Means are what one does in reality, as he is in the process of doing it.

I.e, you think that Means are the actual action, not the idea of such an action.

Is my suspicion correct? If no, then there is no need to read any further, and I will re-post in due time. If yes, then please read the following:

--------------------------------------------------------------

This is the definition of *Means* that is relevant to this context. I got it from www.dictionary.com, and I intentionally omitted alot of the irrelevant version definitions of it. Here is the one that is relevant:

"means (used with a sing. or pl. verb) A method , a course of action , or an instrument by which an act can be accomplished or an end achieved. "

(All the underlines are mine, where I seek to stress).

The above definition couldn't be stated any better. Thus, I will now state the following:

1) A "method" is not action. It is a PLAN to action. As such, it can be "theorized", "planned", "written on paper". etc. Thus, a "Means" could have existed, without it ever have been Implemented. It can exist as a thought - an abstract.

2) A "course of action" is NOT the actual action. It is a COURSE to action. A PLAN for said action. As such, it can be "theorized", "planned", "vizionarily theorized", etc.

The *Implementation* of Means, is NOT Means. An Implementation, is a Means, in the process of being excecuted.

Are you agreed on the above? If not, please refer to what statement you are in disptute with, and why.

[sharonbn]

A-Palestinian,

Well, I see the point you’re making. It made me think of my definition of “Means”. I believe that when I said “Means” I meant every aspect of a physical action (regardless of when or if this action will ever occur in real life.) I understand that planning and thinking of the action is part of the action.

The making of a fruit salad is an action. This action constitutes the visualization-in-mind of the size and contents of the salad, the listing of the fruits (this list may be put on paper or exist in your mind), the arrangement of the day to make time for the making, etc, up to cutting the fruits, mixing them together and serving the finished product.
The action does not consists of the feeling of hunger or any other reason that made you want fruit salad.

So we can agree that Means may have some intellectual property. However, I’m still not at ease in regard to the definition of “Ideology”. I can see why “body of ideas” and “set of doctrines” (from the definition of ideology) can be construed as “Means”. I will no longer refute you on your interpretation of these terms. Yet, I want to outline my contemplations of the above terms and the efinition in general:

When I look at the whole definition of Ideology, it talks only about intellectual concepts, not once is it mentioned “action”, “ practice” (or practical) “physical”, “implementation”, etc. This issue is further demonstrated when you look at the two definitions for Nazism:

Nazism:
1. The ideology and practice of the Nazis, especially the policy of racist nationalism, national expansion, and state control of the economy.
2. a form of socialism featuring racism and expansionism [syn: Nazism, Naziism, national socialism]

you see how the second definition, which speaks solely of theoretical concepts, is more in line with the definition of Ideology. The first definition speaks of Nazism in the historical context of Nazi Germany. It includes the Nazi ideology, and in addition, the actions the Nazis did (or intended to do) to implement this ideology.
The same conclusion can be drawn by looking at the definition of Communism:

Communism:
1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
2a. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
2b. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.

Again, the definition makes specific distinction between the theoretical economical idea (def. 1), the political doctrine that aims to achieve the economical ideology (def. 2a) and the most prominent historical implementation of the political doctrine (def. 2b).

IMO, Nazi ideology consists of only def. 2 of Nazism. Communist ideology consists of only def. 1 of Communism. The other definitions give other interpratations to the terms as was given in various historical contexts.

All these observations led me to the conclusion that all the above definitions (incl. that of “Ideology”) make a distinction between:

- A theoretical, visionary ideology, that when conceived, do not specify course of action, but rather consists of one radically new idea that is the result of the inspiration of (usually) one person of how to better the world and bring happiness and prosperity to his/her people.

and

- The visualization, contemplation, planning, and possible execution of actions performed by a large group of people (possibly a whole nation, but usually one political movement) that is part of an attempt to implement the theoretical ideology.

what do you think?

PS
I forgot to thank you for the congratulations, so I gave a kiss to Noa on your behalf... she sends a thank-you smile :p

[A-Palestinian]

Sharonbn,

"The action does not consists of the feeling of hunger or any other reason that made you want fruit salad. "

Correct.

"So we can agree that Means may have some intellectual property. "

This is partially correct. The Means to something is only intellectual in nature. (An abstract). An Action however, is not a Means - it is the Implementation of a Means.

"I can see why “body of ideas” and “set of doctrines” (from the definition of ideology) can be construed as “Means”. "

Correct.

"When I look at the whole definition of Ideology, it talks only about intellectual concepts, not once is it mentioned “action”, “ practice” (or practical) “physical”, “implementation”, etc. "

Correct. An Idealogy is not an Action. An Action, is the implementation of Means, and a Means is abstract. An ideology is also but an abstract notion, which can thus, contain a "plan of action", or Means.

"Nazism:
1. The ideology and practice of the Nazis, especially the policy of racist nationalism, national expansion, and state control of the economy.
2. a form of socialism featuring racism and expansionism [syn: Nazism, Naziism, national socialism]

you see how the second definition, which speaks solely of theoretical concepts, is more in line with the definition of Ideology. The first definition speaks of Nazism in the historical context of Nazi Germany. It includes the Nazi ideology, and in addition, the actions the Nazis did (or intended to do) to implement this ideology. "

What you have stated is essentially correct. "Nazism" apparently contains the Ideology, and the action of the Nazis. And since Means are abstract, then they can be included in the ideology, (as evidenced in their constitution). Thus, this definition contains the ideology, and the Implementation-of-their-Means, (which had to come from somewhere), and they came from the Ideology.

"- A theoretical, visionary ideology, that when conceived, do not specify course of action, but rather consists of one radically new idea that is the result of the inspiration of (usually) one person of how to better the world and bring happiness and prosperity to his/her people. "

This concerns how an ideology is born. When an ideology is born, it is usually, (as you have stated), born out of inspiration and love towards some goal (End), which the creator wishes to attain. This is how an ideology starts. Thus, it can be said, that to create an ideology out of stratch, the pre-requisite is an End - or Goal of some sort. This makes sense, since you have to aim for something. Furthermore, one cannot simply start an ideology by first stating its Means - Means to what? Therefore, yes, an ideology will always start with a defined Ends.

Now, once this is done, the creator can either Specify the Means to those Ends, or he can simply leave the Means as Unspecified. If he chooses to specify some sort of distinct Means, then that is now part of his Ideology, since they are distinct. (If they werent distinct, and thus specific, he wouldn't bother specifying them). If he on the other hand, chooses Not to specify his Means, then his ideology contains no Means, as they are Unspecified.

Thus, to recap:

--- If Means are specified, (not recommended - Specified), then they are part of the Ideology.

--- If no Means are specified, then the Ideology contains Unspecified Means, and thus sanctions *any* Means which can be used to attain its Ends.

I will give a small example:

-- Compare the Democratic Party in the US, with the Communist party. Their Ultimate Ends (out of their common concerns for poor people, unlike the Nazis) are exactly the same:
(Yes I know they both want eternal happiness. :) )

Ends: Make the poor wealthy.

But their Means are different:

Democrat Means : Highter taxes. (Not communal ownership of all property - private property allowed).
Communist Means : "Communal" ownership. (No private property allowed).

Now, they are definately not the same ideology. A Communist does not attest to a Democrat's Ideology, and vice versa. And the only difference is their Means. They have near exact Ends, but vastly different "Plans of action" of achieving their ends - ... i.e, vastly different Means.

I hope this clear up the little details of this... Are we now agreed upon this now?

----------------------------------------------------

"PS
I forgot to thank you for the congratulations, so I gave a kiss to Noa on your behalf... she sends a thank-you smile "

Thats just very Sweet. :) I would kiss her if I had the chance too. :)

[gev]

Hello,
I am new to this forum, and i found the posts on this thread very interesting. i would like to contribute to this thread:

A-Palestanian,

I would like to ask you how do you conclude from the fact that Means = Unspecified ---> Means = "everyhting goes"
i dont agree with that. if zionism would have said everything goes, then zionst founders would have said it.
i would like to offer another option: Means = would be specified.
can you conclude if an ideology with these means is moral or imorral? you cant, you would wait until the means are specified.

[sharonbn]

A-Palestinian,

Generally speaking, I agree with your last post, regarding the possible inclusion of Means in an ideology.

gev,

Welcome. You made a good point. I made a similar observation in post #77:
...IMO, an ideology that does not specify the means to achieve it does not render itself automatically as immoral (in any case, why not render it automatically as moral?)
In other words, an ideology should not be judged by what it does not say, but rather by what it does.
It is possible that omitting the “Means” from the ideology is done on purpose in order to make the ideology (on the time of its creation) just and moral no matter what means are later specified. Furthermore, any ideology (and especially those that do not specify Means), needs to be judged in the mirror of history. If an ideology does not specify the means by which to achieve it, it need not be judged by hypothetical Means that it did not sanction explicitly, but rather by how the followers of the ideology choose to interpret it and which Means they choose implement. It is possible that several groups of people will choose different Means to achieve similar goals (like Communist Russia, Communist China and the Israeli Kibbutz.) In this case, history judges the paths on a case-by-case method. The groups that choose moral Means will be stamped by history as moral people with moral cause. The groups that choose immoral Means will be stamped by history as immoral people with moral cause. (side note: This is my personal opinion of the Palestinian people: People that use immoral Means to achieve a justified and moral cause. Just because the Palestinians are using terror and bloodshed doesn’t mean they don’t deserve a country of their own.)

Specifically speaking about Zionism, and why Zionism did not specify the Means to achieve its goal, I will start with a little (subjective) “speech”:
I believe the Jewish people to be inherently moral in nature (i.e. genetically). Certainly this is what they think of themselves. This does not mean that some Jewish/Israeli individuals may not be immoral and commit hideous crimes (there are always bad apples), or even follow an immoral ideology (like Rehavam Ze’evi and his idea of transfer.) But they will always be a tiny minority and will always be condemned by the vast majority of Jewish/Israeli society (for example, the outlawing of Rabbi Kahana and his “Kach” movement.)
The ideologies and aspirations of the Jewish/Israeli people have always been just and moral – in their eyes, as well as in the eyes of many people in the world. Furthermore, Jewish thinkers and philosophers have played an important role in the creation of many radical ideologies for the purpose of creating a better and moral world (e.g. Karl Marx, born as son of Heinrich and Henriette Marx, both children of Jewish rabbis. They did convert to Christianity a year before Karl was born, but this did not change his ethnic background). Nazi ideology or any other racist ideology could never have come out of the mind of a Jew and be accepted as a just cause by the Jewish people.
OK, I gave the above “speech” for arriving at the following conclusion: Any Jewish/Israeli ideology that is aimed for the Jewish people, take into account the fact that the Jews are moral by nature. In other words, The thinker who conceive the ideology did not bother to explicitly specify “using only moral Means” because he/she knows that the Jewish followers will always interpret it that way. The historical fact remains that the Jewish people did choose moral means to pursue the Zionist cause and continue to do so to this day.

This is what I mean when I say that ideologies need to be judged in the mirror of history.

Happy Passover to you all :)

[gev]

Sharonbn,

Rehavaam Zeevi and liberman did not offer transfer as a mean to acheive the goals of Zionism. The support of transfer came because they believed its the only way for the jewish people to stay in israel (after the zionism cause acheived), it is not offered as a way to get more lands for the zionism cause.

I think that most of the jewish people are morral people too. but they are resonable too. I think that in some circumstances the support of transfer would become a majority. for example, large terror attacks with chemical and biological bombs, or after the retreat of israel from the occupied terretories, the new palestanian state would arm itself and attack israel. I too, although i consider my self from the left wing will support such actions.

[A-Palestinian]

Gev and Sharonbn,

"I would like to ask you how do you conclude from the fact that Means = Unspecified ---> Means = "everyhting goes" i dont agree with that. if zionism would have said everything goes, then zionst founders would have said it. "

Not "everything goes". It's that "anything CAN go". (i.e, anything is allowed to pass, that would achieve the Ends).

I have stated in quite a number of posts in the past, of how Unspecified Means allow for any Means. I will summarise here again: A given Ideology can contain Means, and it cannot, depending on weather its creators decided to give it one (or more) or not. The driving goal of an Ideology are its Ends. This is what is set out to be achieved. (Usually, they are quite "important" Ends or else we wouldnt call them ideologies).

So it is a given that the Ends are known. Now, if the creators did not specify (ie, outline specific) Means, then the followers of the Ideology are not bound by *ANY* specifications *whatsoever* of any method of conduct, in so far as to attain their Ends. That is, the Ideology sanctions ANY means, so long as its Ends are attained. This being the case, it thus sanction *both* Immoral Means, as well as Moral ones.

Now: Do not confuse yourself between what a moral person might sanction, and what an immoral person might sanction. A moral person who is also a follower of an Ideology with Unspecified Means , will decide upon moral Means of excecuting it, (by definition of being a moral person). An immoral person who is a follower of the Ideology can (possibly) excecute immoral Means to achieve the Ends of the ideology. (Understand the full implications of this: He will be fully following his Ideology, while in the process of butchering 5 people, or 5 million. That is, the slaughter of 5 million people is totally sanctioned under his Ideology. How can it possibly be "moral"? ).

Weather one decides to be nice fuzzy rabbit or a bloody butcher while achieving the Ends of his Ideology with Unspecified Means is a Non Sequitor. I.e, its irrelevant to the inherent immorality/morality of the Ideology .

They are BOTH following their Ideology perfectly .

"can you conclude if an ideology with these means is moral or imorral? you cant, you would wait until the means are specified."

This is flawed, (and extremely dangerous) reasoning. It is best refuted with examples:

If the Nazi Ideology called for the extermination of the Jews, but then all the Jews left to Mars, and they (the Nazis) never executed anyone, would this make the Nazi Ideology moral now? No! It would still be immoral, regardless of *what* was implemented.

Sharonbn,

"The historical fact remains that the Jewish people did choose moral means to pursue the Zionist cause and continue to do so to this day. "

We haven't gotten to historical facts yet. :) (The underworkings of the theories must be understood first).

Your speech is true for the most part, but its a Non-Sequitor. The only thing wrong in your speech is when you say this:

"The thinker who conceive the ideology did not bother to explicitly specify “using only moral Means” because he/she knows that the Jewish followers will always interpret it that way. "

This is racism. You *cannot* say that "so-and-so" people will interpret this as "so-and-so" because of their semetic makeup. Interpretation, is NOT dictated by blood. The belief that interpretations belong to the dictat of blood and ethnicity, is racism.

[sharonbn]

gev,

Rehavaam Zeevi and liberman did not offer transfer as a mean to acheive the goals of Zionism. The support of transfer came because they believed its the only way for the jewish people to stay in israel (after the zionism cause acheived), it is not offered as a way to get more lands for the zionism cause.

Well, that depends on the definition of Zionism. As any other intellectual concept, the definition of Zionism has and still is a highly controversial issue. In the beginning of this thread, NewsGuy gave us this article from the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/unracism/story/0,1099,546868,00.html
It shows just how controversial the issue of the definition of Zionism has been ever since its creation. The article also states some "official definitions":
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary offers a tersely neutral definition: "A movement for [originally] the reestablishment of a Jewish nationhood in Palestine, and [since 1948] the development of the State of Israel."

and

The Political Dictionary of the State of Israel is understandably more garrulous. Its account of Zionism covers three-and-a-half pages [...] Even after the bloody birth of the state of Israel in 1948, Zionism has continued to elude an exact definition. As the Political Dictionary puts it: "Since 1948 Zionism has been broadened to imply the identification of world Jewry with Israel ... Zionism has also given financial, political and moral support to the Jewish state."

So, Zionism has indeed acieved a major checkpoint in 1948 with the creation of the state of Israel, but since then the Zionist movement has redefined its goals (and its Means) and continues to play a major role in present Israeli and Jewish life.

Thus, you can see how it is possible to view the opinions of Rehavaam Zeevi and the likes as an extension of Zionism (Zeevi did define himself as a Zionist.)

Regarding your second paragraph of your post #106, the issue is totally irrelevant to this thread. So, as much as I would like to answer it (and I do have some strong words to say about it), I will refrain.

[sharonbn]

A-Palestinian,

Weather one decides to be nice fuzzy rabbit or a bloody butcher while achieving the Ends of his Ideology with Unspecified Means is a Non Sequitor. I.e, its irrelevant to the inherent immorality/morality of the Ideology.
Couldn’t have said it better myself :)

if the creators did not specify (ie, outline specific) Means, then the followers of the Ideology are not bound by *ANY* specifications *whatsoever* of any method of conduct, in so far as to attain their Ends. That is, the Ideology sanctions ANY means, so long as its Ends are attained. This being the case, it thus sanction *both* Immoral Means, as well as Moral ones.
This is where I disagree (and I believe gev too). I will restate what I said in post #105:
an ideology should not be judged by what it does not say, but rather by what it does.

I am yet to see an ideology, where in its definition, it states “Achieve <Ends> using only moral Means” or even something like “Achieve <Ends> using any Means you see fit” Such general means are never specified in an ideology, simply because no thinker imagines having to put such general statements that do not contribute additional information to the ideology.
In the cases where the thinker did bother to specify Means, they are always very specific and contribute further information to the Ends.
If the creator of an ideology choose not to specify Means in his/her ideology, its only because he/she could not think of specific ones that may be useful leads for the followers at the time of the creation of the ideology.
This is true in the case of Zionism. At the time if the creation of the ideology and movement (mid 19th cent.) The Jewish thinkers who invented the ideology wished only to express that the only solution to the endless persecutions of Jews in Europe and other parts of the world would be the return of the people to their homeland. They had no plan of action and could not imagine how this goal may be achieved (they didn't even know if its achievable at all). This does not imply that they allowed all Means. Mind you, the single most important cause for the creation of the state of Israel was not the doing of the Jews (I’m referring, of course, to the Holocaust). This is certainly not something anybody could have imagined or wished for a 100 years earlier.
I believe in all cases where the ideology does not specify the Means then it should be interpreted as what gev wrote: “Means = would be specified”. In these cases, the morality of the ideology is judged by the morality of the Ends alone.

The above conclusion is something I expressed in my post #80:

Ends: I will save my ailing mom, by getting her a kidney.
Means: Unspecified.

Under the two assumptions:
1. The justification and morality of an ideology is not judged by means - hypothetical or real ones.
2. An ideology is moral unless it explicitly violates human rights
Then,
This ideology is just and moral. period.

Moral people will pursue moral means to attain it. If such means are unavailable, then moral people will abandon the ideology (maybe they will try again at a later point in time.) Unmoral people will go on and commit a crime. The ideology in the two cases is exactly the same.
This implies another assumption - The fact that an ideology is attainable or not in one or another point of time - does not affect its morality (since it always can be said that it is attainable in the future.)

Furthermore I would like to say that because of the generality of such statements as the examples I gave above, the inclusion of such statements cannot change the morality of the ideology. Nazi ideology is immoral because it promotes racism (as shown in the definition given in post #82)

What did the Nazis believe in?
Anti-Semitism - Hatred of Jews. They believed that the Jews were the cause of ALL of Germany's problems.
Social-Darwinism - Only the strongest survive.
The Aryan Race - 'Pure' Germans (men with blue eyes and blond hair) are the strongest race and far superior to any other.
[...]

If you add at the bottom “Please achieve these goals using Moral means only, thank you.” It does not change the immorality of the Ends or of the whole ideology.

Now: Do not confuse yourself between what a moral person might sanction, and what an immoral person might sanction...
To clarify things: The possible combinations of people and ideologies are as follows :
- Moral people follow a moral ideology only (since following an immoral ideology would contradict theit internal sense of morality.)
- Immoral people may follow a moral ideology or immoral ideology.
This means that all followers of Nazi ideology, no matter what Means they took, are immoral people. It does not say anything about Zionist people. However, the above statements imply that if an ideology has moral people as followers, then the ideology itself is moral. So it does say something about Zionism.

[A-Palestinian]

Sharonbn,

One small FYI: Just notice, that we are continuing from where we left off from Post#81. (Since all the posts after that were about the nature of Ideology, which has since been settled).

Ok:

First off, let it be known, that we are talking about Ideologies with Moral Ends, and Unspecified Means .

"...This is where I disagree (and I believe gev too). I will restate what I said in post #105:
an ideology should not be judged by what it does not say , but rather by what it does . "

(Bold Mine).

A couple things need to be understood:

1) The Means Sanctioned by a person or society, are totally different than the Means Sanctioned under an Ideology. (We can expect certain Means to be chosen over others, (a Non Sequitor) depending on conditions, but this still does not change what is actually Sanctioned by the Ideology). They are divorced from one another, and have *nothing* to do with one another.

To illustrate this, I will give an example of an ideology, with moral Ends, but Unspecified Means.

------------------------------------------------------

Ideology: Whateverism:

Ends: Food, money, wealth and education for the poor and needy . .
Means: Unspecified. (I have not specified any, and will not care to).

-----------------------------------------------------

Suppose I am the founder of this Ideology, and my followers so far are made up of great Moral people, who would quinch at harming a fly. They would only Sanction Moral Means (by definition of being moral people). But does my Ideology Sanction Moral Means only. No it does not. My current Moral followers can set out and work overtime and give charity, in order to fulfil the Ends of their ideology. Does the Ideology Sanction the Means they have chosen to employ?
Yes.

But this is not working too well on a voluntary level. The Means the followers above have employed are not achieving the desired Ends. So now a new batch of faithful followers join the Party, and set out to achieve its Ends. (The story line is irrelevant by the way). They decide to raise taxes to 80%, and institute a little slavery in order to be able to attain the Ends. Society might find it reprehensible, but does the Ideology Sanction the Means they have chosen to employ? (Slavery, choking taxation, etc)... Yes.

Thus, by virtue of the Ideology Sanctioning - allowing - being indifferent to - immoral Means, makes it inherently Immoral.


2) Bear in mind, that the Intention(s) the creator(s) had in mind when creating the ideology are also of no relevance. One can have the best of intentions in attempting to create a proper ideology, just as one can have the best of intentions in creating a parachute that doesn't fail. If the maker of a parachute wanted it to be safe, had the best of intentions to make it safe, made it for moral Ends, (saving people), and so forth, but made it out of A4 paper, is the parachute actually and inherently safe? No it is not, regardless of all those other factors.

------------------------------------------------------

"Ends: I will save my ailing mom, by getting her a kidney.
Means: Unspecified.

Under the two assumptions:
1. The justification and morality of an ideology is not judged by means - hypothetical or real ones.
2. An ideology is moral unless it explicitly violates human rights
Then,
This ideology is just and moral. period.

Moral people will pursue moral means to attain it. If such means are unavailable, then moral people will abandon the ideology (maybe they will try again at a later point in time.) Unmoral people will go on and commit a crime. "

What I said above addresses this.

"The ideology in the two cases is exactly the same."

No, not their Idealogies - their Ends are exactly the same.

[gev]

A-Phalestanian,

Because nobody will define in an Ideology the need to pursue the Ends only in moral Means, as Sharonbn stated,
What you are saying actually, is that an Ideology that is vague on an Issue - can be The Means to achieve an End, or can be the way to implement a Mean. for example Communism: (taken from you post #85):

Ends : Equal wealth for all.

Means: State ownership of the means of production.

How does the Means acheived, can be done in morral or immoral ways i persume. it never ends.

you have shown that in Ideology there can be Means specified, ok. but i think you will find that most Ideologies are "Immoral" by your defenition, maybe even every Ideology ever created.

[sharonbn]

A-Palestinian,

gev is, again, making a good point. I searched my mind and could not find an ideology that specify explicit moral Means (I'm talking about a socio-economical or political ideology, not a religious-philosophical onr like Taoism.)
I think we are entering a much more controversial, subjective and vague area of the definition of morality and what's moral and what's immoral.

Example:
"State control over all property" is this moral or immoral? IMO this is moral means, since it secures "Equal wealth for all" which is the ultimate moral Ends (something Capitalism never intended to achieve. Capitalism is an immoral ideology IMO). I believe state control does not necessarily mean terror reign via secret police etc, altough given the nature of man, it is impossibly hard to achieve. Maybe Communism can only be successfully implemented on a much smaller scale (like a Kibbutz). I assume lots of people will argue this conclusion with me.

Question:
Can you give an exmaple of an ideology that is moral in your optinion?

this leads me to a request,
If you give real life examples in your posts (as I have), instead of whateverism or saving ailing mothers, it would greatly increase the comprehensibility of your opinion.

[NewsGuy]

To make it easier for readers to follow this excellent and prolific discussion, this thread is being archived for reference and the very same discussion is now being picked up -- right where it left off -- in Part 2.

To respond to posts in this archived thread, just highlight the text you wish to reply to, copy it, and paste it into your new reply in Part 2.

Part 2 of this discussion is continued Here » (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=3264)