Home | 
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.
This is correct.
Also, the transfer of Arabs to their own lands is a means to bring freedom and security to the Arabs, and create a situation where they can live exactly as they please without any Israeli influence. This would serve to reduce tensions in the entire Middle East and further the interests of the whole world.
(This is not a rebuttal Post - it is an Information request post).
Gev and Sharonbn,
First off, what ideologies have actually existed in the real world is irrelevant. The existance of moral ideologies cannot help my argument, and their non-existance cannot harm it. Just because they do not exist, (or do exist) does not mean that they cannot BE, (or can BE).
-----------------------------------------------------------
"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. "
In the case of Communism, its Ends are moral, but not its Means. Therefore, the whole Ideology is Immoral. (Read the rest of this post for more details on this - I am not going into the detials yet for a reason).
"but i think you will find that most Ideologies are "Immoral" by your defenition"
So what? Please show how this is relevant to their inherent morality.
"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.) "
Why do you disgard religious ideologies? In short, what is the logical reason why ideologies based on a supreme diety should be ignored?
"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. "
There is only *one* proper morality. If morality is Subjective, then *anything * can be justified.
"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? "
Yes I can. But before I delve more into this, I want to make sure we are clear on a core issue:
---------------------------------------------------
Emergencies aside, is robbery moral? (Y/N)
---------------------------------------------------
I am asking this because we have to have the same answer before we can continue.
First off, what ideologies have actually existed in the real world is irrelevant. The existance of moral ideologies cannot help my argument, and their non-existance cannot harm it. Just because they do not exist, (or do exist) does not mean that they cannot BE, (or can BE).
You are right, of course, I am not trying to diminish the strength of your argument. I’m just saying that giving real life examples makes your argument something more comprehensible. It also helps the reader to gather his/her opinion while reading your post. Talking about concepts like Ends, Means and morality is too general and confusing (sorry, my limitations.) By giving an example of real life ideology (as we have over the course of this discussion) and stating your opinion (e.g. Nazism is immoral, Communism is immoral, etc.), the reader can take a stand whether or not he/she agrees with you.
For instance, if you are saying there are no moral political ideologies, that certainly sheds new light over your argument.
"Communism: (taken from you post #85):
Ends : Equal wealth for all.
Means: State ownership of the means of production.
I will state again: IMO, state ownership of all the country’s resources is moral Means, that ensures equal wealth for all. This is providing that the people understand and support the government (i.e. do not develop black market) and that the government is open enough to accept criticism and allow freedom of expression of the people and media (i.e. does not develop tyrannical laws and secret police.)
There is only *one* proper morality. If morality is Subjective, then *anything* can be justified.
and who’s to determine what’s moral and what’s not?
Believe it or not, the Nazis thought of themselves as the most moral people on Earth. There are probably still a lot of people living today that support Nazi ideology and believe it to be moral and just.
The above does not mean I believe that anything can be justified. I’m saying anything is justified by someone (the Palestinian terror attacks on Israel and some of the actions of IDF are another good examples.)
I hope we all agree that Nazi ideology is immoral. I can see we disagree on Communism (I believe it is a moral ideology, certainly more moral than its counterpart – Capitalism. It just had poor and misleading interpretations and implementations over the course of history.)
Perhaps it is appropriate to establish common grounds on morality (more on that later.)
Why do you disgard religious ideologies? In short, what is the logical reason why ideologies based on a supreme diety should be ignored?
This thread speaks about Zionism, which is a political ideology. It does not speak about the concept of ideology in general. Political and Socio-economical ideologies portray a society in which people may live in, specifically focusing on the social, economic and government systems. Religious ideologies concern themselves with a totally different area of life: the spiritual world of the people. Different terminologies, POVs, set of values and fields of science are attributed to these two areas of life. Of course religious ideologies can be graded by their morality, but comparing Zionism with Taoism is futile and will not help our cause of grading the morality of Zionism.
---------------------------------------------------
Emergencies aside, is robbery moral? (Y/N)
It depends. You need to question the motives for the robbery. In most cases, the motives are to better the situation of the robber himself/herself, in which case the act is immoral. However, Robin hood, a thief with his own gang of thugs, used to rob the rich and give to the poor (so the folk tale goes.) He was operating under an immoral government system (Feudalism) which totally ignored the needs and interests of the lower classes. IMO, under the given circumstances, he was a moral person, with moral Ends and moral Means (as long as he didn’t murder those who he robbed.) Had he operated in a modern democratic society, maybe he would be judged differently.
Another example: The Partizan groups that waged guerilla war against the Nazi occupation used all kinds of means to fund themselves, including robbing their own people. I'm not sure about the morality of these actions (or lack thereof) (or does this falls under the "emergency" label?)
Even murder can sometimes, in extreme cases, be justified. For instance, Israel's pursuit and killing of the group responsible for the Munich Olympics terrorist attack, or more recently, the reaction of USA to the terrorist attack of Sept. 11
If you want to establish common ground for morality grading, I will say this:
IMO, Racism and Xenophobia are immoral without any possible justification
Last edited by sharonbn; 04-01-2002 at 04:57 AM.
(This is not a rebuttal).
Sharonbn,
"Perhaps it is appropriate to establish common grounds on morality (more on that later "
This is true. However, I must mention one thing: If we delve into what is moral and what it not, that is going to take up alot of time, posts. My point is this: I will do it, if I need to. But I have a another idea - the whole reason why any discussion on morality is necessary, is because you are requesting real-life ideologies, (which have no bearing on the argument as you have stated). If I was to give real-life examples, then I would have to go into morality, which I would rather not. (For reason of it taking up too much time).
So, if you really do want the irrelevant real life examples, I will provide them. But I would rather not, and continue from where we left off from Post#81. Dont get me wrong - I will provide them - I am simply inviting you to re-think your request, for the sake of time, (and because real life examples are irrelevant).
One last thing: As long as you can imagine that such ideologies can Be, then that is all that is really required.
Thnx.
Fine.
Skip the real life examples.
However, if you state that Zionism is immoral, and I cannot understand your definition of what's moral or not (and we already know we have differences in our opinions of Communism), its gonna be hard for me to answer to you.
It just seems strange to me that you have no reservations about using hypothetical ideologies in abundance in your posts and even judge the example ideologies that were given as immoral (Nazim, Communism), but shy away from giving a real life example of a moral political ideology.
We can go back to our (gev and I) opinions regarding ideologies with unspecified Means. as we expressed them in posts #104, #105 and #109.
At the end of post#109, I suggested a way to identify an ideology as moral - if moral people follow it. Moral people will never follow an immoral ideology, since it contradicts their internal sense of morality, even if it has unspecified Means.
So, given my post #105 "speech", The Jewish people, being moral people in nature, can only follow moral ideologies (that is why Jews and Israelis have been more susceptible to the Communist idea than the Capitalist one.)
Also in post #109, I explained why the founders of the Zionist movement could not have imagined the situation that would lead to the creation of the state of Israel, some 100 years later. Furthermore, the first Zionists could not have thought of any detailed practical plan of action that would serve as Means to achieve the Zionist dream. They said to themselves (and to their followers) "we'll cross that bridge when we get to it." It sounds like they allowed any Means to be taken, but they did not. They meant: "When someone comes up with a plan of action sometime in the future, then we'll judge it and implement it if we believe it to be moral and practical."
Last edited by sharonbn; 04-01-2002 at 10:44 AM.
With Zionism being a term meaning a homeland for Jews controlled by Jews... how is the ENTIRE land mass of arab nations whose popluation is exclusively arab... with no other race or religions other than islam be considered anything other than total racism and apartheidism?
Where do arabs and pals criticize Jews for being racist by having a home to call their own, ruled by their....when this is exactly what the entire middle east is and is what the pals want
How is that not the ultimate in hypocrisy????
"It just seems strange to me that you have no reservations about using hypothetical ideologies in abundance in your posts and even judge the example ideologies that were given as immoral (Nazim, Communism), but shy away from giving a real life example of a moral political ideology. "
The only reason I hesitate, is because once I do state moral/immoral ideologies, the debate will shift into the "but why is this moral", which is totally irrelevant.
Anyway, I have decided to povide you with real life ideologies, and I will divide up the posts into two parts, in case a debate on "what is moral" ensues.
I will post shortly.
---------------------------
Flame, nice rant. Try elsewhere.
A-Phalestanian,
A point i would like you to consider:
Ideologies can be changed and constructed over time, and the judjement of Ideology in one point in history, can be different that in another point in history.
if there will be another Zionist Congress in the future and there will be a statement that the means of the Zionism should only be ahieved by moral means, will the Zionism become morral?
Now, if there was this Zionist Gathering in say 1950, and there has been a statement, that the Zionism Ends should be acheived only by morral Means, would you also think now (2002) that Zionism is Immorral?
thats my problem with your defenition of Morral and immoral Ideologies.
When you conclude that an Ideology is Immorral, you call all people who consider themself Morral to abondon this Ideology.
but, if you conclude an Ideology that has Moral Ends and Unspecified Means - Immorral, than even if the Ends can be acheived by morral Means, Morral people should abondon the Ideology....
Another Point:
when I try to think about what would have been different in the History of the Conflict, if the first Zionists Congress would have released a statement that the Means of the Zionism should only be morral. I dont think anything would have changed, also the core of the Ideology not changed.
Correct if I'm wrong, but I think that what you were trying to state in the begining of the Thread, is that if the Zionism Ideology would have stated that the Ends should only be acheived by Moral Means than it wouldnt be practical, because of the Statements you have offered. well, I think Sharonbn did successfully showed that the Statements are not completely correct and that Zionism can be practical when Moral Means are persude.
and now to your question:
Emergencies aside, is robbery moral? (Y/N)
well, an Emergency is subjective, and morrality is subjective too.
There is only *one* proper morality. If morality is Subjective, then *anything * can be justified.
The Sentence has two parts:
1. There is only *one* proper morality.
I disagree with that, what is morral to you today, can be seen immorral tommorrow. for example, animal rights movements - question the morrality of using animals in experiments, there are arguments and opinions about the morallity and Immorality of this issue - so Morrality IS Subjuctive.
2. If morality is Subjective, then *anything * can be justified.
That is Correct. the Emphasis should be on the word Can,
Anyhting can be justified, and Immorral acts are being justified by the people who commit them.
Last edited by gev; 04-02-2002 at 10:47 AM.
A-Palestinian,
The only reason I hesitate, is because once I do state moral/immoral ideologies, the debate will shift into the "but why is this moral", which is totally irrelevant.
If you judge Zionism as an immoral ideology, then your moral standards are a relevant issue indeed.
I see the point you're trying to make: You're saying any ideology that does not explicitly specify moral Means to achieve it, implies that immoral ones are allowed. This is also true for an ideology that does not specify any Means at all. This statement can stand regardless of your private moral standards.
Well, I disagree with you on the issue of the morality of such ideologies. An ideology should not be judged by what is implied from its statement (or what's not in the statement), because any such conclusion is an interpretation of the ideology.
As I have shown in previous posts, the lack of Means in the definition of an ideology need not be interpreted as a "green light" to take any Means (certainly not in the case of Zionism.)
The addition of Means to an ideology serves only the purpose of giving specific practical instructions how the Ends may be achieved in real life. When such instructions were not known, than it was left to future generations to decide the course of action. When such a course was devised, its morality was judged at that time.
There can be many cuases why an ideology does not specify Means. Yet, The creators never felt obliged to add a disclaimer: “Use only moral Means to achieve our ideologyâ€. In any case, given the subjective and historically dynamic nature of moral standards, such an instruction could still be interpreted in a way the creators did not wish to.
Regarding the establishment of moral common grounds, it seems to me gev agrees with me that:
a) Moral standards are subjective and underwent great changes in the course of history.
b) Your example with Robbery cannot be taken as the common denominator for moral standards.
What we can achieve (I hope) is common agreement on moral standards for the three of us (not *one* proper morality). I suggested Racism and Xenophobia as an immoral standard. Any ideology that does not explicitly promote these ideas may be eligible to be graded as Moral.
If one wants to examine Zionism, 1948 is a perfect example. In this year, Jewish gangs unleashed their fury upon the inhabitants. It was also the year the Israeli army embarassed an ill-equipped Arab army, but more on that later. Nevertheless, the Zionist slogan "a people without a land for a land without people" - something of that nature. Hello, wake up people. One of the reasons PLO and Barak couldn't agree was the right to return. This right would have allowed Arabs driven from their homes to return to Israel. From which war? There were many wars in which the Israeli army forced people to flee their homes. 1948, 1967, and many others are just a few. Also, why don't you just ask the British if that land was empty and ripe for claim. This isn't the South Pole! What is the purpose of all of this, one may ask. Quite simple, Zionism may have been founded on noble causes, but in practice, it was just as bad as communism.
Sharonbn and Gev, I will post my reply on Sunday. Too much school homework right now.
Thair,
First, the event in 1948, as unfortunate as it was, does not say anything about Zionism. If this is how you judge an Ideology, so one can say: to Examine Palestanian goals, Suicide bombings and terror attacks all over the world, is a perfect example, Palestanians and Arabs wants to kill as many jews as possible.
I dont think this statement and your statement is true.
Second, this history event was taken totally out of context. you see, if the Arabs would have accepted the UN Resolutions in 1948 as the Jews have, and establish their own state. we all would have lived happily ever after, and the middle east would have looked much different (and the palestanians would have had more land). but instead, the Arabs chose a war in which some of the Arab populatin have fled and some were driven out. yet if it was the Zionism goal to eradicate or drive out all arabs from Israel, how is it that a lot of Palestanians (now called Arab-Israelies) have stayed? you are saying Israel has failed to drive them out? have they fought so badly with the israeli army that he surrended and let them stay?
the fact that most of the Arab population in lands occupied in 1948 and 1967 have stayed in the region, and the fact that both wars (and actually all wars) were forced upon Israel contradicts your theory that Zionists wanted to drive Arabs out.
Last edited by gev; 04-03-2002 at 12:30 PM.
gev,
Every once-and-a-while, some hot-blooded light-headed yahoo enters the thread and "contributes" useless flamatory posts. A-Palestinian and I (both Houyhnhnms) have learned its best to ignore them.
Do you know what Israel is really supposed to look like? Well, I can tell you its a lot bigger than what Israelis currently have. As far as Zionism, the idealogy may have been good in the start, but application was a different process. In other words, communsiom is good in theory, but the only communism that was practiced was Bolshevism. Anyway, I grow weary of arguing with people who have a certain idealogy implanted in their heads. As a result, I have no choice but to throw in the towel. As you may have noticed, my posts tend to infuriate some people. And as I have explained in other posts elsewhere, the risk is not worth it. I tried to educate people, but people don't want anything at all contrary to their beliefs. Call me a quitter if you like, and by the way, NewsGuy, did you check out IDF's true credibility?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks