Political decisions based on errant religious beliefs.

[Cooper]

I am very puzzled by the desire to possess a land that one’s ancestors may or may not have controlled 2000 years ago. If the “Jews”, whatever that means, have a right to what constitutes the State of Israel I am compelled to bring up the following points and ask several very relevant questions. Why are these situations different?

The Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire occupied some combination of the following countries from roughly 27BC-1453BC:

France, Spain, Greece, Turkey, Lebanon, Israel, the sub-entity that constitutes England within the United Kingdom, Macedonia, etc. Why do the Italians not have a right to conquer these lands and return them to the Roman Empire? After all they had possession of many of these lands over 1000 years after the “Jews” occupied Israel.

But, you respond, the Roman Empire conquered these lands and took them away from their original owners. My question to you is, why then do the “Jews” who purportedly conquered the land of Canaan by gross acts of genocide have a right to Israel?

What also of the Native Americans. Under the same logic they should be given all of the lands in the Western Hemisphere. Furthermore they should be given the most of Siberia because that is where they came from 12,000-15,000 years ago before populating the Americas. It is highly probable that all of the inhabitants of Europe, Asia, and the Americas are descended from Homo sapiens who at some point in the last 150,000 years lived in our past through what now constitutes Israel. Perhaps we should break Israel up into 194 pieces and give part to each of the countries on the planet. Then the decision would be, should they be divided, equally, according to current population (differing and mixed ethnicities need to be considered), current countries landmass, etc. etc. etc.

Why not this solution? What makes the 700-1300 year of occupation by the “Israelites” different than any other migration, conquest, change of boundaries, etc? What of the lands controlled in the past by the Egyptians, Persians, Babylonians, and Mongols? That would mean we need to return lands to Egypt, Iraq, Iran, and Mongolia. How far back do we need to go? How about the Great Rift Valley and the very beginnings of the Homo sapien experience?

The decisions surrounding the State of Israel are based largely on a book, the Tanakh, that is of questionable origin. Large portions of the Tanakh are patently false and other portions grossly overstated. Furthermore the portion of the Tanakh that makes up the Torah is virtually devoid of anything that even resembles the truth. I fail to see anything rational surrounding the creation of the State of Israel.

My experience has been that the adherents of Judaism and Islam both suffer from the same problem. Both groups are trying to view the world through “lenses” based on theological fictions created centuries ago. Until the adherents of Judaism and Islam realize that large parts of their “histories” and sacred texts are fabrications the Middle East will continue to be problematic.

I have seen very few rational discussions concerning the situation in Israel and Palestine. Most interactions seem to come from the amygdala rather than the prefrontal cortex because the topic is so emotionally charged. As with most such situations the “thinking” if you can call it that is being done by the emotional centers in the reptilian portion of our brains rather than in the more aptly suited “higher” brain regions.

An additional problem is that the U.S. populous in general and much of the media has a strong pro-Israel bias. Calling on the U.S. to mediate the situation given population trends, historical opinions, and U.S. dealings in the Middle East creates a serious conflict of interests. Most of the U.S. populous believes in the same ethnocentric myths presented in the Tanakh (Old Testament) as do many of the more hard line Israelis. Asking people who believe in a 6000-year-old earth, the creation of the earth in six days, the universal deluge, etc to make balanced and rational decisions is seemingly flawed from the start.

In short there are many factors contributing to the violence in the Middle East. Unfortunately most solutions appear to be focusing on irrelevances and purposely yet unwittingly skirting the real causes of the problems. In my opinion the biggest causes are our 4,000,000+ million-year-old tribal mentality, the human propensity to seek religion, and the cognitive dissonance that makes it very difficult for us to realize that we suffer from the first two problems.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Why didn't you post this in Politics?

[The Atheist]

Or even in CT, since it is Teh Joos.

[Jackalgirl]

<stuff>

What's your solution?

[Lynx2174]

The difference is that the roman empire is dead and gone, and the native Americans have no chance of conquering modern day america. But the state of Israel has fought it's way to political independence, and it simply isn't going to just go away. There's not really any more reason to bitch about it than any other nation that came into existence by conquest and the ousting of power of the original inhabitants. See: Every nation in the Americas, Japan, Australia, and pretty much everywhere else at some point or another.

It doesn't matter who has a right to any given piece of land. Only who holds it, and how hard they hold onto it.

[Tumblehome]

...the “Jews”, whatever that means...


In case you didn't get the memo, Jews are those who follow the Jewish religion.


I fail to see anything rational surrounding the creation of the State of Israel.


Jews had been migrating to Palestine for centuries, with a dramatic increase in the 1900's. In 1945, Jews made up 33 percent of Palestine's population, compared to 22 percent in 1922 (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel)), and they accounted for much more than 33 percent of Palestinian commerce, so Palestine was already on the way to becoming Jewish.

A couple of other things that occurred to me off the top of my head. A lot of Jews, maybe millions, were left homeless and destitute after World War II simply because they were Jews. I don't know for a fact, but creating a Jewish state could have been a practical way for impoverished European countries to unload their homeless Jews.

There's also the angle of mid-East oil. Israel gives the West a strong, stable ally in a volatile region in which it has a vested interest. Whether or not that's just a coincidence, I don't know.

As with most such situations the “thinking” if you can call it that is being done by the emotional centers in the reptilian portion of our brains rather than in the more aptly suited “higher” brain regions.


That also applies to much of the negative reaction against "the Jews, whatever that means".


An additional problem is that the U.S. populous in general and much of the media has a strong pro-Israel bias.


First, it's "populace". Second, see "stable political ally in oil-rich region" above.


Asking people who believe in a 6000-year-old earth, the creation of the earth in six days, the universal deluge, etc to make balanced and rational decisions is seemingly flawed from the start.


Assuming that the people who make those decisions also believe the bible literally is also flawed.

The Jews didn't form the state of Israel. They wanted it, of course, but they didn't have the authority. It was the United Nations, following the lead of the League of Nations, that brought Israel into being. If you're looking for a boogeyman, look to the international community, specifically the West, not to the people living there today.

I'm not saying Palestinians don't have a beef. They do, and that's what makes it such a difficult, complex situation that can't be solved with simple, one-dimensional answers such as, "The Jews don't belong there".

[Cooper]

In case you didn't get the memo, Jews are those who follow the Jewish religion.

I am afraid you are the one who did not get the memo. There are adherents of Judaism and there are those who are ethnically Jewish. These two groups are not the same and what defines one does not define the other. As Isaac Asimov stated, "I am Jewish in the sense that if an Arab wanted to throw a rock at a Jew, I would qualify as a target as far as he was concerned. However, I do not practice Judaism or any other religion." Many ethnic Jews reject Judaism outright and many adherents of Judaism are not descendents of the original Jewish peoples. My contention about being ethnically Jewish is the same as my contention about someone being Irish, Japanese, etc. From a sociological perspective these are viable distinctions. Genetically the picture is very murky. Genetic divisions among groups of people are merely probabilistic and not deterministic. Any one person’s DNA will provide a certain probability that this person’s ancestors were of some given ethnicity. So is someone genetically “Jewish”? There is no way to know with 100% surety.

Jews had been migrating to Palestine for centuries, with a dramatic increase in the 1900's. In 1945, Jews made up 33 percent of Palestine's population, compared to 22 percent in 1922 (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel)), and they accounted for much more than 33 percent of Palestinian commerce, so Palestine was already on the way to becoming Jewish.

A couple of other things that occurred to me off the top of my head. A lot of Jews, maybe millions, were left homeless and destitute after World War II simply because they were Jews. I don't know for a fact, but creating a Jewish state could have been a practical way for impoverished European countries to unload their homeless Jews.

There's also the angle of mid-East oil. Israel gives the West a strong, stable ally in a volatile region in which it has a vested interest. Whether or not that's just a coincidence, I don't know.

Interesting points. However in the context of this discussion all of these points are logically fallacious. Look up ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion or irrelevant thesis). So the population of Palestine was 33% Jewish when the State of Israel was formed. So what? How does that logically justify what happened? The population of France is 10% Muslim. Should we run all of the other French people out of the country and create a Islamic state? The logic is the same as what you are suggesting.

Yes it is a travesty of the highest order that many Jews were destitute at the end of WWII amongst other heinous injustices. Again this is irrelevant in justifying formation of the State of Israel. Why take this out on the Palestinians? If a country was to be given to the Jewish peoples a much more just solution would be to give them Germany and run the Germans out. Jim pounded on Bob so we are going to beat the hell out of Scott to rectify the problem. Hmmmmm….I must be missing something.

Oil? Yes that probably plays a role. However this strong stable ally is creating a much bigger long term strategic problem for both themselves and the United States. Any way you slice that argument it appears to be riddled with problems. But then again the U.S. decision makers, like all humans, are fallible and made several decisions that were shortsighted and unwise.

That also applies to much of the negative reaction against "the Jews, whatever that means".

Ignoratio elenchi and an indirect form of ad hominem tu quoque

First, it's "populace". Second, see "stable political ally in oil-rich region" above.

First, ad hominem. Second, see my response to “stable political ally in oil-rich region” above.

Assuming that the people who make those decisions also believe the bible literally is also flawed.

Again a red herring/ignoratio elenchi.

The Jews didn't form the state of Israel. They wanted it, of course, but they didn't have the authority. It was the United Nations, following the lead of the League of Nations, that brought Israel into being. If you're looking for a boogeyman, look to the international community, specifically the West, not to the people living there today.

I'm not saying Palestinians don't have a beef. They do, and that's what makes it such a difficult, complex situation that can't be solved with simple, one-dimensional answers such as, "The Jews don't belong there".

Again, irrelevant as a rebuttal because I did not place the blame on “the people living there today” and I did suggest a one-dimensional answer. I am pointing out the flaws that caused and perpetuate the problem. It appears that you saw what you wanted to see in my post rather than truly reading. I did not see a single argument in your post that was not fallacious.

[Danai]

This immigration icrease was not going to continue to 100% Jewish if left to its own means, high immigration tends decrease after such an initial surge.Also mate, the fact that those of Jewish ethnicity had a better ratio of commerce to population is not the basis to form them an entirely new state under the noses of its current tenants.

[JoeEllison]

I'm not saying Palestinians don't have a beef. They do, and that's what makes it such a difficult, complex situation that can't be solved with simple, one-dimensional answers such as, "The Jews don't belong there".
You know, if everyone could agree to that up front, the discussions about Israel would be significantly more productive.

[Tumblehome]

I am afraid you are the one who did not get the memo. There are adherents of Judaism and there are those who are ethnically Jewish...


Debating the different flavours of Jewry is immaterial here. Anti-Semites in Europe around WWII didn't bother with those distinctions and persecuted all of them as a single group. Those who survived the war, no matter what kind of Jew they were, were in desperate straits.

I agree with you that the Jews have no moral claim to their supposed homeland, but that wasn't the real reason for the formation of a Jewish state in Palestine. That was just a feel-good sales pitch. To say Israel shouldn't have been created for that reason alone ignores the practical reasons for it.

Was it worth displacing Palestinians to prevent mass suffering? In the end, it's a judgement call, and from my point of view, it probably was worth it.

Give Germany to the Jews? Yes, you are missing something. Europe didn't want them. Everyone felt sorry for them, but they were still Jews.

[Cooper]

Debating the different flavors of Jewry is immaterial here. Anti-Semites in Europe around WWII didn't bother with those distinctions and persecuted all of them as a single group. Those who survived the war, no matter what kind of Jew they were, were in desperate straits.

This argument is still equivocation and you are making sweeping generalizations with no supporting evidence. Human behaviors and beliefs tend to be very diverse even within certain groups. For instance you speak as if all Germans in WWII held identical beliefs. What about the several attempts on Hitler's life by groups of German officers.

We also must consider the repercussions of these decisions and the difference between ethnic and religious Jewry because we are faced with the negative after effects today. Discussions of these after effects and possible solutions are often stymied by the unethical or uninformed relying on equivocation as you have here, creating a straw man, genetic fallacies, appeals to spite, ad hominem attacks, argumentum ad baculum, appeals to emotion, etc. For example when someone questions the authenticity of Jewish scripture (i.e. Silberman and Finkelstein) they are often branded as anti-Semites (i.e. Silberman and Finkelstein). Silberman and Finkelstein along with many others who challenge the validity of the Torah, etc are not being racist. They are pointing out the reality that the evidence actually indicates that the real history of Palestine was very much unlike what the Torah claims. Likewise criticizing the actions of the Israeli government by many is not anti-Semitic. Some people do use both types of criticism as racial blunt objects. However, many are looking at the situations strictly as evaluation of religious texts and foreign policy decisions respectively. Just because some people take valid arguments and use them out of context as slurs does not invalidate said valid arguments nor does it turn the valid arguments themselves into racial slurs. One really needs to twist the honest academic evaluation of the history of Palestine to make it become racist. Likewise, one must grossly distort the logical and balanced evaluations of the actions of the State of Israel to be an assault on Jewry. Those who cry anti-Semitism in such cases are either acting dishonestly and inappropriately by using a racial defense against religious and foreign policy discussions. Or they are acting out of ignorance of the true nature of the statements being made.

Debating the different forms of Jewry here is very relevant here. Although discussed for decades, and incidentally prior to Hitler's rise to power, the State of Israel was not formed until 1948. Under Allied control in the West things changed radically and anti-Semitism in Europe including Germany was on the decline. I will go into more detail below in response to one of your other claims.

Additionally, although there is and has been SOME bigotry against Jews in the U.S. and Western Europe many people bear no animosity toward Jewish people. I might add here that some very high ranking or highly decorated US troops were Jewish. For example:

General Maurice Rose, US Army
Major General Krulewitch, USMC
Admiral Ben Moreel, USN
Rear Admiral Louis Dreller, USN
Sergeant Isadore S. Jachman, US Army, Congressional Medal of Honor recipient
Second Lieutenant Raymond Zussman, US Army, Congressional Medal of Honor recipient


You state, "Those who survived the war, no matter what kind of Jew they were, were in desperate straits." I will address this below. You need to provide support for this assertion. From the materials I am familiar with, largely written by Jews I might add, does not support your statement. Also do a bit of reading about humanitarian aid provided to Europe by the Allies after WWII including the Marshall Plan.

I agree with you that the Jews have no moral claim to their supposed homeland, but that wasn't the real reason for the formation of a Jewish state in Palestine. That was just a feel-good sales pitch. To say Israel shouldn't have been created for that reason alone ignores the practical reasons for it.

Was it worth displacing Palestinians to prevent mass suffering? In the end, it's a judgment call, and from my point of view, it probably was worth it.

First you have committed the fallacy of creating a false dilemma or a false dichotomy. "Was it worth displacing Palestinians to prevent mass suffering?" So the only two options are to have mass suffering or to displace the Palestinians? That argument is ludicrous in the extreme. Here are two other possible options, among many, rather than "displacing the Palestinians to prevent mass suffering".

1. Provide protection and humanitarian aid for the Jews in there current homes within Europe. Something exactly like the U.S., British, and French troops actually did. Ever hear of something called the Marshall Plan? Look it up and it did not exclude assistance to Jews.

2. Allow the Jewish people who wanted to leave Europe the opportunity to enter other countries. Of course there would be limits from country to country. Limits are not limited to the Jews. The U.S. many limitations on immigration. In fact many Jews did go to other countries such as the U.S., Argentina, Brazil, Canada, South Africa, etc

You state a premise which you do not substantiate and the premise is also an appeal to emotion. You make the assumption that their would have been mass suffering among European Jewry if they did not leave. There are several problems with that contention. First not all European Jews left Europe after the war. There is no evidence to suggest they were treated differently than anyone else.

Other fallacies committed are the informal fallacies appeal to consequences, appeal to emotion, and argumentum ad lazarum.

Give Germany to the Jews? Yes, you are missing something. Europe didn't want them. Everyone felt sorry for them, but they were still Jews.

"Europe didn't want them." You need to support that broad assertion. So everyone in Europe wanted the Jews to leave and everyone in Europe was exhibited bigotry toward the Jews? You may argue next that it was not everyone but a larger percentage. You need to support that statement too. As I mentioned above many Jews stayed in Europe, were treated well, and prospered. In fact Western Europe and Germany specifically were probably some of the safest places for Jews after World War II. The Jews under U.S., British, and French occupation were actively protected by these Allied forces. For evidence see:

Safe Among the Germans: Liberated Jews After World War II by Ruth Gay

Jews in Germany after the Holocaust: Memory, Identity, and Jewish-German Relations by Lynn Rapaport

Jews in Post-Holocaust Germany, 1945-1953 by Jay Howard Geller

Now let us look at your last paragraph as a whole, "Give Germany to the Jews? Yes, you are missing something. Europe didn't want them. Everyone felt sorry for them, but they were still Jews." Interesting assertion. It seems that you now disagree with the establishment of the State of Israel. There is no logical difference between your paragraph and this, "Give Palestine to the Jews? Yes, you are missing something. Palestine didn't want them. Everyone felt sorry for them, but they were still Jews." You may counter by saying, "but there were many Jews already living in Palestine." Before using that threadbare argument consider that reworded as thus, "but there were many Jews already living in Germany and they had been for at least 1600 years."

After many years of listening to the arguments I have yet to hear a rational explanation for creating the State of Israel.

[remirol]

After many years of listening to the arguments I have yet to hear a rational explanation for creating the State of Israel.

I have yet to hear why a rational explanation should be necessary. Israel exists now because of decisions made long ago; arguing about whether those decisions were rational serves no purpose, as the point is long since moot.

Do you have a point to make, or were the entire OP and all your followup posts simply a complaint regarding history that didn't happen the way you felt it should've?

If you have a point, what is that point?

[Tumblehome]

After many years of listening to the arguments I have yet to hear a rational explanation for creating the State of Israel.


Then I'd say your agenda is blocking your view.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I mostly agree with Cooper.

I'm not as concerned with the injustices of 1948, though. I'm more troubled that the notion "Israel is our ally" means "Israel can do no wrong" and "Israel is above criticism".
Dropping cluster bombs in and around civilian areas, building an illegal wall within Palestinian territory, bulldozing houses, substituting helicopter strikes for due process when someone is accused of a crime. . . these are all wrong.

It is not anti-semitic or racist to criticize these actions.

Labeling any criticism of Israel as "anti-semitic" makes no sense at all. . .even linguistically. As mentioned, there are citizens of Israel and practitioners of Judaism who are not semitic. (In fact, Palestine is arguably more properly labeled a semitic nation.)


I think the larger problem is the policy based on defining an ally not as someone who is friendly or democratic or pro-human rights or pro-freedom, but as a certain country. Similarly, terrorism is not defined as any particular kind of crime (the US resisted such a definition in the U.N. in the '80s--because they know full well resisting an occupation would be defined as not being terrorism), but rather as whatever a "terrorist" does. In other words, we start by labeling allies and terrorists, then define whatever an ally does as acceptable and whatever a terrorist does as criminal.

Oh yeah, at the same time, ignore any movement toward international criminal courts and the rule of law and go with "might makes right".

[Cooper]

I have yet to hear why a rational explanation should be necessary. Israel exists now because of decisions made long ago; arguing about whether those decisions were rational serves no purpose, as the point is long since moot.

Do you have a point to make, or were the entire OP and all your followup posts simply a complaint regarding history that didn't happen the way you felt it should've?

If you have a point, what is that point?

If you truly felt this thread was pointless you would have said so in your first response. When you protest at this late stage it is obvious that you are grasping at straws. Unfortunately you have only further undermined your position.

You ask, am I only posting because history did not turn out the way I wanted it to. That is a very flippant response given the ongoing conflict between Israel and her neighbors that continues to kill and maim every year. If history does not matter then why do we even mention the holocaust? Why the hundreds of books, numerous laws, movies, and monuments? Are the Jewish people upset just because history did not turn out the way they wanted. These questions are uncouth and heartless toward those who suffered just as your comment is to those who suffered and continue to suffer in the Middle East. What is currently happening to the Palestinians is being perpetuated because of the faulty reasoning of the “Promised Land” within Jewish theology.

So my question to you is, why can everything ever done to the Jewish people be questioned and discussed ad infinitum and the things the Jewish people do others are inviolable? Your last post taken at face value smacks of bigotry. Is there a point that you are trying to make with your double standard? Why are Jewish people superior to all others and why do you want their actions to go unchallenged? Bigotry and racial supremacy is disgusting regardless of who engages therein.

Furthermore the issue surrounding the establishment of the State of Israel is far from being a historical issue with no bearing today. The problems continue today and people are dying today because of the same reasoning that guided the decision in 1948.

If you have an explanation for your seemingly racist response what is that explanation?

[Cooper]

Then I'd say your agenda is blocking your view.

What agenda would that be? Seeking the truth?

[Jackalgirl]

Cooper, what's your solution?

[beachnut]

What agenda would that be? Seeking the truth?
Was this similar to how Hitler started doing it. Saying half truths and get some followers, then...

[remirol]

I have yet to hear why a rational explanation should be necessary. Israel exists now because of decisions made long ago; arguing about whether those decisions were rational serves no purpose, as the point is long since moot.

Do you have a point to make, or were the entire OP and all your followup posts simply a complaint regarding history that didn't happen the way you felt it should've?

If you have a point, what is that point?

If you truly felt this thread was pointless you would have said so in your first response.


Actually, the above is my first response. If you want to be taken seriously, please bother to actually read the thread. You clearly haven't, and the remainder of your response is nothing more than evasion based on a strawman, since I have taken no position on this topic other than what can be read above in my original message. As such, I see no need to take your response seriously or waste time responding to it.

Now, again, do you or your original post have a point you're trying to make? If you do, please state it clearly, simply, and without ad hominem attacks or accusations.

[JoeTheJuggler]

It doesn't matter who has a right to any given piece of land. Only who holds it, and how hard they hold onto it.

I understand your point (every human is an immigrant from Africa, and most modern nations forcibly displaced some other older human group), but I disagree that it doesn't matter.

Just because "might makes right" has been the status quo throughout much of history doesn't mean we shouldn't at least try to manage international relations by the rule of law.

Also, it's interesting that the U.S. doesn't apply the 50-years-ago-is-ancient-history rule to Cuba.

[JoeTheJuggler]

As such, I see no need to take your response seriously or waste time responding to it.

Now, again, do you or your original post have a point you're trying to make? If you do, please state it clearly, simply, and without ad hominem attacks or accusations.
Hmmm. . .not that it's my role to defend Cooper, but I think he made a legitimate observation in the OP. He responded to those who disagree, even pointing out actual fallacies in their arguments. He has since been accused of having no point and compared to Hitler. That doesn't seem fair.

I admit that I mostly agree with Cooper's reading of the history. Also, the religious connection is always scary to me. The recent alliance between Jewish Israel supporters and the Religious Right (i.e. evangelical Christians) is really frightening. Many of these people are eagerly looking forward to the fulfillment of some prophecy or another and the coming of the End Times. Let's not forget that Israel has nuclear weapons (not a possible program for the possible future development of materials that might possibly be used for weapons---but actual weapons).

My own take is--along with Jackal Girl--that I'm more interested in what we can do to improve the current situation. From my point of view a solution will NOT be one meted out by a self-appointed world cop (the US), but through cooperation with the international community and a commitment to international law, treaties and so on. It's time that right and wrong were evaluated by the actions themselves and not who is doing them.

[remirol]

I have yet to hear why a rational explanation should be necessary. Israel exists now because of decisions made long ago; arguing about whether those decisions were rational serves no purpose, as the point is long since moot.

Do you have a point to make, or were the entire OP and all your followup posts simply a complaint regarding history that didn't happen the way you felt it should've?

If you have a point, what is that point?

Hmmm. . .not that it's my role to defend Cooper, but I think he made a legitimate observation in the OP.

Can you state _simply_ what that observation was?

What I saw in the OP was a classic case of "begging the question" (presuming that an explanation was necessary), followed by a lot of rhetoric designed to facilitate later evasion/arguing/muddying-of-the-waters if anyone disagreed.

So, then: What was that observation, and following that, what is his/your point? (since you mentioned you mostly agree with him, i feel the extra 'your' is valid)

My own take is--along with Jackal Girl--that I'm more interested in what we can do to improve the current situation.

What, stated simply, is wrong with the current situation?

[e-sabbath]

That the other arab nations threw out their brother arabs, using them as shields and political bargaining chips, as weapons and shields. That's what's wrong with the current situation.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Can you state _simply_ what that observation was?

You want me to paraphrase the OP for you?


What I saw in the OP was a classic case of "begging the question" (presuming that an explanation was necessary), followed by a lot of rhetoric designed to facilitate later evasion/arguing/muddying-of-the-waters if anyone disagreed.

So, then: What was that observation, and following that, what is his/your point? (since you mentioned you mostly agree with him, i feel the extra 'your' is valid)

How was it begging the question? How can you claim there is no point AND that he somehow wanted you to concede a point?

My point is what I said. I think Cooper's arguments on the history (basically about the justification for the founding of Israel) haven't been successfully rebutted. Where there was any rebuttal, I thought he did a decent job of answering. Comparing him to Hitler is unfair.

That's my point.

My added comment (my second point I suppose) is that I am more concerned about addressing the problems as they are now. (That is, we can't go back in time to "correct" history, and I don't see dissolving the state of Israel as desirable.)


What, stated simply, is wrong with the current situation?

Nothing, if you're OK with suicide bombers, kidnapping, mass punishment, knocking down houses of innocent people, barriers built to separate people from their schools and places of employment, tension that erupts into violence on a regular basis, unresolved major points of confilct, cycles of violence where the main reason for today's bloodshed was the bloodshed of last week, and the main reason for that was the bloodshed three weeks ago, and so on.

[remirol]

You want me to paraphrase the OP for you?

Well, you said you thought Cooper made a legitimate observation; I felt that he generated 11 paragraphs of deliberate obfuscation. If there was a legitimate observation, what did _you_ think it was?

How was it begging the question?

His initial sentence presumes that a rational explanation for the creation of the state of Israel is necessary, and the rest of the post drags on from there. That's begging the question to me, and that's why I wrote the first sentence of my OWN first post in this thread.

How can you claim there is no point AND that he somehow wanted you to concede a point?

I didn't claim that he wanted me to concede anything, as you can see from reading my own posts.

I'm sure he has a point in his own mind, and he appears to have spent 11 paragraphs preparing elaborate rebuttals to people he feels will disagree with that point; what I'm saying is that the 11 paragraphs sufficiently obscure whatever point he was trying to make as to render the post near-meaningless.

Hence, the request to restate the point clearly and simply. I'm not sure why this is so complicated, honestly.

My point is what I said. I think Cooper's arguments on the history (basically about the justification for the founding of Israel) haven't been successfully rebutted.

For the third time, why is a rational explanation even necessary? The decision was made and the state of Israel exists. If the situation as it stands is a problem, _START THERE_, don't waste 11 paragraphs griping about why it was or wasn't a good decision. Identify the problem and then recommend a solution.

(I think this may also be what Jackalgirl is saying; JG?)

Comparing him to Hitler is unfair.

Good thing that wasn't me, huh? Moving on.

My added comment (my second point I suppose) is that I am more concerned about addressing the problems as they are now.

While this isn't really what I was looking for, it's at least a start; one can now safely assume that you believe that the existence of the State of Israel creates problems. Excellent. We can start there.

(That is, we can't go back in time to "correct" history,

Begging the question of whether a wrong decision was made in the first place -- exactly the discussion I consider to be pointless, by the way, because it doesn't matter anymore if it was right or wrong -- it IS.

and I don't see dissolving the state of Israel as desirable.)

And a proposed solution (albeit considered and rejected)! I agree with this, by the way; I do not think that dissolving Israel improves conditions in the Middle East significantly.

What, stated simply, is wrong with the current situation?
Nothing, if you're OK with suicide bombers, kidnapping, mass punishment, knocking down houses of innocent people, barriers built to separate people from their schools and places of employment, tension that erupts into violence on a regular basis, unresolved major points of confilct, cycles of violence where the main reason for today's bloodshed was the bloodshed of last week, and the main reason for that was the bloodshed three weeks ago, and so on.

OK, that's a start, though it was still a bit too elaborate and appears to presume that I think nothing's wrong, even though I haven't said anything of the kind.

All that aside; I agree that your list are things which occur frequently in the Middle East today, and I agree that these things are "bad things", and it would be good if they could be minimized or stopped in some way. There are, indeed, problems with the state of affairs currently.

Now, how is the existence of the state of Israel related to these problems?

See, unless I'm quite mistaken, Israel is far from the only country in that region where these problems are happening. Isn't that true?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well, you said you thought Cooper made a legitimate observation; I felt that he generated 11 paragraphs of deliberate obfuscation. If there was a legitimate observation, what did _you_ think it was?

Pretty much everything he said in the OP. The founding of Israel and forcing the Palestinians was unjust, yet was justified by "errant religious beliefs".


His initial sentence presumes that a rational explanation for the creation of the state of Israel is necessary, and the rest of the post drags on from there. That's begging the question to me, and that's why I wrote the first sentence of my OWN first post in this thread.

That's not begging the question. Begging the question is an argumentative fallacy where you're basically asking your opponent to concede the very point in question as part of your argument.

I have no idea what your comment about a "rational explanation" for something. The founding of Israel--claiming the ancestral land as their own--was not just and was based at least in large part on Jewish scripture. That's pretty much the observation. Do you disagree?





I didn't claim that he wanted me to concede anything, as you can see from reading my own posts.
I understand now--you've misused the term "begging the question".


I'm sure he has a point in his own mind, and he appears to have spent 11 paragraphs preparing elaborate rebuttals to people he feels will disagree with that point; what I'm saying is that the 11 paragraphs sufficiently obscure whatever point he was trying to make as to render the post near-meaningless.
I don't read it that way. Besides, anticipating and addressing possible opposition arguments is a good thing.



Begging the question of whether a wrong decision was made in the first place -- exactly the discussion I consider to be pointless, by the way, because it doesn't matter anymore if it was right or wrong -- it IS.
Really--read up on "begging the question". Here's a good place (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html) to start.



OK, that's a start, though it was still a bit too elaborate and appears to presume that I think nothing's wrong, even though I haven't said anything of the kind.

I'm sorry, but it's a complicated situation with a lot of history and a lot of different points of view. Why must we avoid elaborate ideas?

And you asked what is wrong with how things are now, which seemed to imply that you thought nothing was wrong with the status quo. If not, it was a waste of time to ask about a point that's agreed upon.



See, unless I'm quite mistaken, Israel is far from the only country in that region where these problems are happening. Isn't that true?

You are mistaken. The occupation and Israel's relationship with Palestine is unique. Also, I'm pretty sure they're the only nuclear power among all their immediate neighbors. On top of that, the US gives more aid to them than to any other nation in the world (despite the fact that their median income is higher than my own modest income).

On top of that, Israel is the topic of this thread. If you want to discuss similar problems in other countries, maybe you could start a thread on that topic. (I'd recommend putting it in "politics" though. That's where this one belongs as well.)

[JoeTheJuggler]

Also, it would be nice if we could all figure out a solution to the ongoing violence between Israelis and Palestinians, but I don't think that's likely. Not having such a solution doesn't preclude analysis and discussion, and--especially--criticism of historical events and current policies.

[KateHW]

I'm not sure how effective or helpful this will be in the end, but something I noticed very much is that your (Cooper) language and tone are defensive, possibly to the point of alienating other forum-goers. Actually, my exact reaction was more like, "Oh great, another amateur logician with more sophomoric zeal than I can take at this hour." Now, interestingly enough, I agree with much of what you had to say but didn't realize the extent of it until Joe rephrased the stance. Without clarifying as you did in your second post, your reference to "Jews" made me want to distance myself from your side of the argument, as did your name-dropping of every logical fallacy known to reference (not literally, but you understand, yes?). It's a sad fact but knowledge of logical fallacies does not an argument make (or win) and can give your style an unpleasant and defensive tone.

So, basically, sometimes your style and tone are as important as the information you put out. If you agree to work on that I'll agree to give you the benefit of the doubt next time.

ETA: And I still don't understand why you labeled remirol's response 'seemingly racist.' Maybe I missed something but if not I'd be upset at that if I was remirol.

[remirol]

Pretty much everything he said in the OP. The founding of Israel and forcing the Palestinians was unjust, yet was justified by "errant religious beliefs".

And what I keep trying to say here is that just, unjust, whatever, it's also _done_, and hence largely moot except for the concept of "israel exists and there are a large number of pissed off palestinians as a result."

I really don't care if Cooper wants to argue that it was the Most Demonic Thing Ever. The only solution to the problems that engulf that area is going to be found by looking forward, not backward.

That's not begging the question. Begging the question is an argumentative fallacy where you're basically asking your opponent to concede the very point in question as part of your argument.

Fair enough. But you do at least understand what my point is now.

I have no idea what your comment about a "rational explanation" for something.
After many years of listening to the arguments I have yet to hear a rational explanation for creating the State of Israel.

It's a direct response to Cooper in his own words. He wants to argue, well, something; I'm noting that the primary something he seems to be griping about is pointless to argue about.

The founding of Israel--claiming the ancestral land as their own--was not just and was based at least in large part on Jewish scripture. That's pretty much the observation. Do you disagree?

See above; I consider it moot. I also think (per my OP) that it's just a bunch of pointless griping about history, and want to know if he had a point to make.

I'm sorry, but it's a complicated situation with a lot of history and a lot of different points of view. Why must we avoid elaborate ideas?

Elaborate ideas don't have to be phrased elaborately. I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and all these complicated rhetorical tactics confuse me. Why can't people just say what they're trying to say, without preparing an elaborate justification beforehand?

And you asked what is wrong with how things are now, which seemed to imply that you thought nothing was wrong with the status quo. If not, it was a waste of time to ask about a point that's agreed upon.

I tread carefully in political waters, and prefer not to assume that anyone believes a certain thing until they come right out and say it. (You actually did, a few posts up, and I missed it when going back through; I do agree that the US' unquestioning support of Israel and constantly turning a blind eye when they do things that are, perhaps, "a touch naughty" does no good to resolve the difficulties in that region.)

You are mistaken. The occupation and Israel's relationship with Palestine is unique.

The ever-shifting-border and constant bickering relationship is unique to Israel/Palestine, but the rest of the atrocities you listed are not; that's my point.

Also, I'm pretty sure they're the only nuclear power among all their immediate neighbors. On top of that, the US gives more aid to them than to any other nation in the world (despite the fact that their median income is higher than my own modest income).

OK. And? Remember, I'm a Bear of Very Little Brain.
Why do you think we give a big pile of aid to them?

(I'd recommend putting it in "politics" though. That's where this one belongs as well.)

Yeah, I'm not sure why it's still in "general skepticism" myself.

[remirol]

I'm not sure how effective or helpful this will be in the end, but something I noticed very much is that your (Cooper) language and tone are defensive, possibly to the point of alienating other forum-goers. Actually, my exact reaction was more like, "Oh great, another amateur logician with more sophomoric zeal than I can take at this hour."

I was mostly trying to ignore that part of it all, but your point here is quite valid. Responding to every statement with a declaration of what logical fallacy one thinks it is doesn't make me think that Cooper's here to actually _discuss_ anything at all, but instead to make a speech and receive accolades.

Now, interestingly enough, I agree with much of what you had to say but didn't realize the extent of it until Joe rephrased the stance

I find myself far more inclined to agree with Joe than Cooper, at least in part because I'm still not entirely certain that what Joe is saying is what Cooper wanted to say.

ETA: And I still don't understand why you labeled remirol's response 'seemingly racist.' Maybe I missed something but if not I'd be upset at that if I was remirol.

I'm used to people not reading before responding; there's little point in getting upset by it. But the lack of reading does support my notion that he wasn't necessarily here to discuss anything in the first place.

[JoeTheJuggler]

And what I keep trying to say here is that just, unjust, whatever, it's also _done_, and hence largely moot except for the concept of "israel exists and there are a large number of pissed off palestinians as a result."
So I guess you're opposed to the study of history?


I really don't care if Cooper wants to argue that it was the Most Demonic Thing Ever. The only solution to the problems that engulf that area is going to be found by looking forward, not backward.

I agree. I also think any solutions will have to take into account a long history of several peoples in the region. Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it.




It's a direct response to Cooper in his own words. He wants to argue, well, something; I'm noting that the primary something he seems to be griping about is pointless to argue about.

I completely disagree. The way people see the history of that area has a lot to do with how they form opinions and policies today.

Why is a criticism of something that happened in the past pointless? Seems to me the criticism is the point.


The ever-shifting-border and constant bickering relationship is unique to Israel/Palestine, but the rest of the atrocities you listed are not; that's my point.

Is any other country's military engaged in the destruction of houses (in the tens of thousands by now)? Do others respond to suspected criminals by blowing up apartment buildings by helicopter strikes? I'm pretty sure there's nothing like the wall anywhere else in the world these days.

Aside from recent developments in Iraq, that is. And those seem to be based on the same sort of policy--one of endless war against an undefined enemy.

As I said before,the deeper problem is one of definitions, I think. Our "friend" can do nothing wrong (no matter who heinous or illegal), and a terrorist is whoever we say is a terrorist, not necessarily someone who commits a certain type of crime.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Why do you think we give a big pile of aid to them?

That's a good question.

The fact that I'm critical of that policy doesn't mean it's up to me to figure out why it is that way, but I'll make a stab.

I see three groups of voters in the US that politicians here are generally afraid to cross. 1)Pro Israeli people (some Jews, some for whatever reason, Zionism or whatever), 2)Evangelical Christians (who hate "the Jews" as Jesus-killers, but see the blooming of the desert and the state of Israel's victory over its neighbors as fulfillment of End-Times prophecy), and 3)a lot of uninformed people who see things as black and white and have been trained for years that Israel is good, Muslims/Arabs are bad.

(Please note, category one is mostly Jews, but don't start saying I'm an anti-semite or racist or Conspiracy Theorist or whatever. I also know of a great many Jews in the US who are opposed to the policies in question. Not in My Name http://nimn.org, Jewish Voices for Peace http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/ and other organizations have grown in recent years.)

This is probably a horrendous over-simplification. I'm sure there are tactical (i.e. military) reasons for bolstering a "friendly" country's military to such an extent. I'm thinking more about the reason why no major politician or candidate is likely to stand up and say, Israel has gone too far this time. Or to complain about their cover nuclear weapons program.

By the way, despite the fact that the US frequently uses its veto power to shoot down U.N. resolutions sanctioning or criticizing Israel, there are a number that have passed. According to this site (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/un.html), Israel is the target of 65 U.N. resolutions (mostly condemning or criticizing specific actions).

[JoeTheJuggler]

Sorry to keep stacking post after post, but I wanted to make another remark about category 3 (the uninformed) from above.

The media here tend to mention suicide bombings, but doesn't usually give an accurate depiction of the violence done on both sides. Don't misunderstand, I think strapping a bomb on and exploding in crowded places is despicable and insane (another decision based in part on "errant religious beliefs"). However, violence done by a well-armed, well-funded military is no less heinous, if more sterile. Since September 29, 2000, some 4,528 Palestinians have been killed compared to 1,031 Israelis killed in the Israel/Palestine violence.

I deplore violence done on either side. I also condemn religious fanaticism wherever it lurks.

It is important to have a better idea of the facts when shaping policy.

[Cooper]

This has been a very interesting thread. I greatly appreciate the eloquent responses. My apologies to remirol, for some reason I thought your name appeared in a few of the previous posts. I did read the other posts as my point-by-point rebuttals should indicate. I am not quite sure how it has been construed that my responses pointing out logical fallacies in responses were premeditated. I addressed the points as they arose. Unlike KateHW I view discussions from the perspective of logical points as the least offensive way to engage but such is the nature of individual differences. I appreciate your position but I prefer points that have a solid foundation and I greatly appreciate when someone points out true weaknesses in my reasoning. There have been many errors in my reasoning in the past and I foresee a busy future in the same light. I do respond based on the principles of logic and respond to points that I feel are unfounded just as everyone on this forum and every other forum does. Your style is fine and I am comfortable with my style and have no intention of changing. I appreciate the critiques and JoeTheJuggler’s ability to state thoughts in such a non-confrontational manner.

The issues surrounding the State of Israel and the religious beliefs that comprise the various sects of Judaism are all to often conducted from an emotional perspective. I am not convinced that using the limbic system to discuss such topics and to make decisions of such great magnitude is the wisest approach. The emotional laden nature of the topics is nicely illustrated in the comparison of my comments to Hitler. My comments are so far removed from Hitler’s mindset as to render such a response laughable. The term anti-Semite is so often misused as to render it trite and perhaps in danger of becoming nothing more than another racial slur. Criticizing the political policies of the State of Israel or evaluating the foundations of the tenets of Judaism is not a racist endeavor. To some people it may appear to be so and some people may intend such discussions to be racist. However, it is misused in instances such as the writings of Silberman and Finkelstein. These two archaeologists have been labeled Anti-Semitic for publishing their research concerning the real origins of Judaism. It is what it is. It is merely a statement of evidence and plausible conclusions.

The situation with the State of Israel is similar in my opinion. The situation surrounding that event is far from being resolved as the Muslim world still weighs that event heavily in their decision making process. My point was just as was mentioned by JoeTheJuggler, it is merely an examination of the historical event. I am not suggesting the dissolution of the State of Israel. Quite frankly I am not sure what the solution is. However, I doubt that a solution will be found when even valid and objective criticisms are labeled as racist comments. I personally feel that the situation would be greatly aided by an open and as unbiased look as possible at the evidence. In my opinion a good start is a thorough rethinking of the tenets of Judaism and Islam. As I mentioned before I, and many others, view Judaism and ethnic Jews as being largely orthogonal. In reality ethnic Jews do not vary significantly from any other group of Homo sapiens when viewed at a genetic level. Race and ethnicity are largely social constructs. Interesting from a sociological perspective. However a realistic view of what really IS biologically tells a much different story.

If one looks through the works of Silberman, Finkelstein, and other archaeologists the situation in the Middle East takes on a much different hue. For starters everything in the Old Testament/Torah prior to the Battle of Jericho is highly in doubt. The geological record also soundly overturns the Jewish creation myth and universal deluge. Furthermore, the Battle of Jericho never seems to have happened either. Judaism seems to have been created by a small group or several small groups of Canaanites. They merely began to spread through the region and there was no great conquest. Jerusalem during the time of King David appears to have been little more than a burg and King David was no more than a petty tribal chieftain. The Jewish peoples cannot really be god’s chosen people based on at least two counts. First as I mentioned before there really is no genetic demarcation between “Jewish” people and other ethnicities. On what should one base the distinction? The history of hominids reaches back some four million years and that of Homo sapiens roughly 200,000 years. The ethnicities that have arisen in the last few millennia are inconsequential historically as well as genetically. Second, the divinity of the Torah, and any other sacred text, is highly in doubt. The internal inconsistencies in the Torah/Old Testament render the claims therein largely untenable. The situation with the Koran is virtually identical with the names and places differing.

How will our societies make sound decisions when looking toward Bronze Age myths? My contention is that we need to reevaluate the shaky and often non-existent foundations upon which we build our societies and lives. I do not pretend to know where that will lead us but the current path seems to be a dead-end that has already resulted in a continual low-intensity conflict. The repercussions of the decision in 1948 have not lessened over the last 60 years and I see no evidence that the warring factions are making any progress.