Home | They couldn't have chanted that, since there is no such thing as People A.Originally posted by ibrodsky
NEWSFLASH: At large government-organized demonstrations around Iran today, militants were heard chanting "Death to people A!"
Tehre are only People X, People Y and Land A.
Yet another example of misinformation from the media...
"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?
Last edited by A-Palestinian; 03-11-2002 at 07:16 AM.
What do the means say about the goal?
Sharonbn,
I do not understand your question. Please elaborate by being more specific.
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
Last edited by sharonbn; 03-11-2002 at 07:29 AM.
"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.)
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
Classic quote.Originally posted by A-Palestinian
(You have to be flawlessly clear on this - it is essential.)
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.
Sharonbn,
I will begin the address shortly - I have been busy recently.
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
This is why, Zionism, is inherently immoral.
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.
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??
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,
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks