Maybe, but there are remnants of the Shalom Achshav, Beilin, Sarrid, maybe "Jorge," Uri Avnery, Gerald Steinberg (?) group. Usefull fools where there is no longer any excuse for being such a fool.
Originally Posted by Mediocrates
Home | 
Maybe, but there are remnants of the Shalom Achshav, Beilin, Sarrid, maybe "Jorge," Uri Avnery, Gerald Steinberg (?) group. Usefull fools where there is no longer any excuse for being such a fool.
From Mediocrates Post#141:
I'm a believer in national characters. I believe that the Palestinians are more interested in the fight than they are succeeding. I believe they are politically terrified of getting exactly what they've been demanding. Their leadership has played the failure card over and over to their advantage in fact it's a key part of their foreign relations. No one has any interest in collecting the garbage or running the post office or any of the mundane things it takes to run a country. Instead they will come to the world and explain how it is someone else's fault and someone else's problem. And even when they come to the US as Abbas did recently, their very inability to wangle any new concessions seems to play as a succes of failure. No I'm afraid that Palestine is one Independence Day away from being a failed state.
I must concede that, as a picture of present Palestinian society, the one drawn by Mediocrates in #141 is quite realistic.
I’m not myself a believer in “national characters†mostly because the idea connotes that there are some sort of inherent and permanent traits in a given nation. Societies change, evolve and, nowadays, pretty fast. What we may take for national characters, IMO, are traits of a society at a particular point in time, future generations may have entirely different ones.
I don’t think for instance we could make an accurate description of the Israeli national character. The Israelis at the times just before and after 1948, were quite different as a society from the one post- Yom Kippur and again quite different from our present-day society. As for the “national characters†of the Palestinians: the Palestinian nation is even younger than the Israeli one; difficult to believe that’s time enough for characters to crystallize.
Nevertheless, Mediocrates description of the symptoms of the pathos of the contemporary Palestinian society seems quite appropriate. He’s right I think when he points out that no one is interested in collecting the garbage or â€in any of the mundane things it takes to run a countryâ€. That’s not a trivial thing; without an efficient civil administration a country cannot hope to run adequate education or health systems even if it had the money for them; neither can you attract forign investment and even sympathetic donor institutions might get in the end fed-up of throwing their money to the wind.
As a nation, they can’t be really proud of their recent leaders which, as Mediocrates points out have had a record of continuous failure (nor can we, but that’s another story). Their political system is far closer to one of warlords infighting than to a parliamentary system.
If all that were a consequence of their peculiar “national character†the logical, or common sense conclusion would be that there’s no hope for real improvement. As Mediocrates rightly pointed out about a year ago in some other thread, peaceful co-existence requires as a necessary (but not sufficient) condition that ‘stability’ prevails in both sides.
The most sensible course of action would then be to perpetuate our rule upon them, since we are capable of keeping some semblance of order and organization. This is also the implicit conclusion of MGB8 in Post# 140 when he compares what the Israelis and Palestinians have achieved in the last decades.
On the other hand, if we were to accept that there’s not a fixed permanent national character but that societies show certain traits resulting from prevailing circumstances (so that if circumstances change so would the traits) a ‘common sense’ Israeli policy should be directed to change those circumstances. A case in point in our very days: since the disengagement from Gaza, the passage of goods to and fro the Strip has virtually stopped; whatever little is produced there cannot go out and whatever is needed (except foodstuff and medicines) cannot go in. To this blockade we are now adding daily “sonic booms†from our artillery to induce, I assume, some sort of collective neurosis. As punishments go these are pretty effective ones but, can we continue this course of action and expect that the people inside could take an attitude of business as usual and concentrate on “the mundane things that take to run a state�
I'd say on a scale of 1-10, 1 being equivalent to having one Jewish grandparent and 10 being equivalent to being the son of a Lubavitch Rebbe i'd say Israel is about 7/10. I mean come on. First its too Jewish for you and now its not Jewish enough!
Jorge,
That is 100% not the implicit conclusion of the my post.
It is if the focus is the Palestinians. But frankly, I neither love nor hate the Pal Arabs. I don't really care about them one way or another. They are people, humans, deserve certain rights, etc.... but its not my job, or Israel's job, to make sure they are successful or happy.
What is Israel's job is to protect its citizens and national character. That includes from political and demographic threats, as well as military/terroristic.
If the Pal Arabs were reasonable, they would accomodate Israel's needs, just as Israel is willing to accomodate theirs. However, they are not. So Israel needs to do what is necessary to best protect its people. And if that means that the Pal Arabs are allowed to kill themselves by launching an all out war against Israel... so be it.
The Pal Arabs will be given a state. It won't be everything they want (it won't be everything Israel wants, either). If they want to war after that... fine. But, if they make that decision, you expell them... they will have proved a two state solution is unworkable.
minusthejihad,
If I am correct, you live in Detroit. Is your area associated with any natural disasters,--- besides the large population of Arabs?
Ex-flippin-cuse me?
“This is a reality but I won’t deal with it in terms of recognizing or admitting it.â€
Khaled Mashaal, Hamas leader
The worst natural disaster of all: Boredom
I'm sure that you will want to contribute to this thread. So, I'll let you think now more seriously. Although, maybe some insights might be added here if you could pick a fight with Ophra.
From MGB8 Post# 150 :
"…empty rhetoric from lefties, not dealing with the reality of the situation, and trying to weasel out of designating as extremists those who actually care about not risking their family's lives too much. Those who don't pay attention to the reality of the situation, those who don't care about the question "what if I'm wrong", and those who ignore and/or dismiss the claims of their own in favor of those who want to kill them and their family (presuming, of course, that Jorge is Israeli, which is doubtful from previous incarnations on this board)"
MGB8 description of “lefties†borders on the absurd. I’d like to discuss one by one his propositions:
a) “Those who don’t pay attention to the reality of the situation.â€
By ‘situation’ I assume you mean the people and resources involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is a component of the larger Israeli-Arab conflict. By reality I assume you mean objective reality.
There is no “reality of the situationâ€, especially of one as complex as this; what there is are individual assessments of the situation based on the data that each individual has at hand. Since many individuals are observing the same situation you can usually round up those which are similar and come up with “group assessments†or, if you wish, “interpretationsâ€. None of these groups can claim that their assessment is objective; each group has a certain common worldview (beliefs, prejudices, opinions, etc. etc.,) that will perforce affect the selection of facts and their interpretation. You cannot expect Palestinians postulating the same “reality†as Israelis, no more than Americans and Iraqis postulating the same reality of “that†situation. May be a group of Martians observing the situation may get closer to the objective reality than we can; this not because they were more intelligent but because they could afford to be dispassionate and detached, not caring at all who’s right and who’s wrong.
“ Lefties “ as a group do have a different interpretation of the conflict than “rightiesâ€. Of course each group thinks that they are correct and that the opponent is wrong, but to say that the other group is wrong because their views do not correspond to “the reality of the situation†is untenable.
b) those who don’t care about the question ‘what if I’m wrong’.
I suppose there are many in the leftist camp guilty of that sin. I suppose that there are many like that in the rightist camp as well. Human beings are far from perfect. However, although I might be wrong, I think I perceive in Israel far more internal ideological debate within the Left than within the Right. For some reason the Left is more prone to “intellectualism†than the right; this trait may largely explain the apparent impotency of the Left to influence public opinion in favor of their views. By using empty slogans, a technique in which the Right excels, it's much easier to impact public opinion than through elaborate reasoning as leftist leaders are prone to make.
c) those who ignore and/or dismiss the claims of their own in favor of those who want to kill them and their family
I hope you’ll accept my proposition that “lefties†are human beings like you or anyone. If there is one basic instinct common to all humans, it is that of survival, not only personal survival, but also applied to their next of kin. Why on earth would I and the other leftists favor the cause of those that want to kill us and our families? I cannot think of a possible reason. Have you got any you want to propose?
A final note: I don’t see why my real or supposed “israelishness†should be an issue here. You claim to live in Philadelphia; it has never occurred to me that if you actually lived in Southampton or Beer-Sheva your views would be more or less valid.
Last edited by MGB8; 11-08-2005 at 04:20 PM.
The Left is prone to "intellectualism" for a very simple reason: the Leftist dogma is in its nature irredeemably Utopian. The ideology of the right is, by and large, oriented towards preserving the status quo first and foremost, and improving on it is but a secondary objective conditional on preservation of the system. As a result, any analysis from the right wing viewpoint will lean towards observable over the hypothetical, and is mainly preoccupied with seeking out dangers to the status quo. The ideology of the Left, on the other hand, is oriented towards striving for Utopian ideals- world peace, classless society, universal human brotherhood, etc. Since these ideals are not rooted in reality but rather rebel against the "unsatisfactory" nature of the real world, the Leftist analysis will invariably place theoretical possibilities over observable facts, abstract morality over pragmatism and style of argument over substance. Most people are naturally inclined to prefer the observable, and therefore will lean towards the right unless indoctrinated by the Leftist dogma in an organized manner or served one in the framework of scapegoating a group of people for the unsatisfactory nature of the reality outside the window.
Empty slogans versus elaborate reasoning? That's very... intellectual of you. Weren't you the guy that exactly one post ago said literally the following?By using empty slogans, a technique in which the Right excels, it's much easier to impact public opinion than through elaborate reasoning as leftist leaders are prone to make.
What is all your elaborate "intellectualism" worth if you don't practice what you preach in the very post in which you preach it?There is no “reality of the situationâ€, especially of one as complex as this; what there is are individual assessments of the situation based on the data that each individual has at hand. Since many individuals are observing the same situation you can usually round up those which are similar and come up with “group assessments†or, if you wish, “interpretationsâ€. None of these groups can claim that their assessment is objective; each group has a certain common worldview (beliefs, prejudices, opinions, etc. etc.,) that will perforce affect the selection of facts and their interpretation
I have. In the words of George Orwell,...
I hope you’ll accept my proposition that “lefties†are human beings like you or anyone. If there is one basic instinct common to all humans, it is that of survival, not only personal survival, but also applied to their next of kin. Why on earth would I and the other leftists favor the cause of those that want to kill us and our families? I cannot think of a possible reason. Have you got any you want to propose?
It is a major mental disease, and its roots lie partly in cowardice and partly in the worship or power, which is not fully separable from cowardice.
Suppose in 1940 you had taken a Gallup poll, in England, on the question ‘Will Germany win the war?’ You would have found, curiously enough, that the group answering ‘Yes’ contained a far higher percentage of intelligent people – people with IQ of over 120, shall we say – than the group answering ‘No’. The same would have held good in the middle of 1942. In this case the figures would not have been so striking, but if you had made the question ‘Will the Germans capture Alexandria?’ or ‘Will the Japanese be able to hold on to the territories they have captured? ’, then once again there would have been a very marked tendency for intelligence to concentrate in the ‘Yes’ group. In every case the less-gifted person would have been likelier to give a right answer.
If one went simply by these instances, one might assume that high intelligence and bad military judgement always go together. However, it is not so simple as that. The English intelligentsia, on the whole, were more defeatist than the mass of the people – and some of them went on being defeatist at a time when the war was quite plainly won – partly because they were better able to visualize the dreary years of warfare that lay ahead. Their morale was worse because their imaginations were stronger. The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory. But there was more to it than that. There was also the disaffection of large numbers of intellectuals, which made it difficult for them not to side with any country hostile to Britain. And deepest of all, there was admiration – though only in a very few cases conscious admiration – for the power, energy and cruelty of the Nazi rיgime. It would be a useful though tedious labour to go through the left-wing press and enumerate all the hostile references to Nazism during the years 1935–45. One would find, I have little doubt, that they reached their high-water mark in 1937–38 and 1944–45, and dropped off noticeably in the years 1939–42 – that is, during the period when Germany seemed to be winning. One would find, also, the same people advocating a compromise peace in 1940 and approving the dismemberment of Germany in 1945. And if one studied the reactions of the English intelligentsia towards the U.S.S.R., there, too, one would find genuinely progressive impulses mixed up with admiration for power and cruelty. It would be grossly unfair to suggest that power worship is the only motive for russophile feeling, but it is one motive, and among intellectuals it is probably the strongest one.
There you have it.
“This is a reality but I won’t deal with it in terms of recognizing or admitting it.â€
Khaled Mashaal, Hamas leader
Right wing dogma is equally utopian or apocalyptic depending on your PoV. Read anything by Ayn Rand or Ira Levin. And right wing fundamental Christianity is as utopian as you can get. In fact most science fiction is relentlessly right wing and conservative - "The Future Always Sucks, we need a better plan." Bradbury comes to mind. Philosophers no, but emblematic of the same thread.
Levin I have not read, but I am a huge fan of Bradbury and Rand. I never considered them right wing though. And I don't think Rand ever thought about Utopia, but about the perfect man existing in an imperfect society. I thought she drew the line at personal responsibility vs changing the system.
SteveK I think your tefflin is being wrapped way to tight
Right wing dogma is not Utopian, it doesn't strive for an ideal society. The Right generally tends to be reactionary and defensive of the status quo. If you read Ayn Rand more carefully, you will see that all her ideas boil down to refining the status quo, the existing system, rather than initiate change towards perfection of the system.
In fact most science fiction is relentlessly right wing and conservative - "The Future Always Sucks, we need a better plan."
You have read very little science fiction, I assume. Either that, or you weren't paying attention.
1)Bradbury wasn't a science fiction writer, strictly speaking.Bradbury comes to mind.
2)Does Fahrenheit 451 appear right wing to you
“This is a reality but I won’t deal with it in terms of recognizing or admitting it.â€
Khaled Mashaal, Hamas leader
Sure it does. It's as revolutionary as anything else. Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk? They specifically wrote about what makes a successful revolution.
That's a dictionary definition but I find that right wing politicians like James K. Polk, as well as writers like de Toqueville were really not talking about the Ancien Regime. They were trailblazers who saw in the American experience a profoundly revolutionary destiny built on very conservative socio-religious mores.The Right generally tends to be reactionary and defensive of the status quo.
It's only an example. Mostly I think her writing is trash.If you read Ayn Rand more carefully, you will see that all her ideas boil down to refining the status quo, the existing system, rather than initiate change towards perfection of the system.
A lot of PK Dick, because a lot of SF is unreadable garbage. But the basic slant of dystopian fiction is purely reactionary.You have read very little science fiction, I assume. Either that, or you weren't paying attention.
Well it does actually because it fights against an Orwellian 'collective' in a sense. It's the triumph of the lone individual. Is Planet of the Apes right wing? You betcha.1)Bradbury wasn't a science fiction writer, strictly speaking.
2)Does Fahrenheit 451 appear right wing to you
After all, what's the difference between an anti hero and Charles Whitman? Not much. 8>)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks