Zionism (and Nationalism in general)

[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 )

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?