Leeuwenhoek2 wrote: ↑
Sun Dec 24, 2017 1:17 am
Budokiji - "I think you are ignoring a simple fact here" -- your post employed a writing strategy of using attributions of other people's thinking and capabilities. See for example the phrases:
- I think you are ignoring a simple fact here
- leadership fails to see is that history is a constant flux
This conflates a judgement about history (which is perhaps worthy of our attention) with your projection or attribution about the abilities of others.
Not good. If making assumptions about the thinking of others is to be the order of the day, it invites the reader to make the attribution that you want us to be grateful to have the instruction from the rare individual capable of recognizing the "simple facts" that so many others somehow miss.
When we engage in a discussion on a public forum, we present beliefs, ideas and positions with justifications ideally in an attempt to investigate the truth in relation to a particular topic. Usually, our input is open to challenge by other members and the act of disagreement is in itself an act of recognition in the sense that the input was interesting and worthy of a reply, so why the knee jerk reaction?
Why, if i may ask, the above might not be "attributions of other people's thinking and capabilities", but you being overly defensive to any kind of disagreement, which might be driven by a sense of infallibility?
You are free to analyze my "writing strategy" but it can also be beneficial to look at your own interpretations of other people's input. On this thread, this is the second time you are expressing what seems to be deep insecurity in relation to disagreeing views. The above is one example, and the other is example is:
Generally a good policy to assume the other person is as smart or smarter than you. And better informed.
Which in this case I probably am. I can play your game at least as well as you can. For example ...
Snark back on. See, I can combine sound advise, facts, and a bit of one upsmanship in a single sentence! Good on me.
I win this round. Thanks for the exercise. Snark off.
So, if you choose to remove the glasses of which you are using to read other discussants interactions with you, you would see that a statement such as "you are ignoring a simple fact here" is NOT
my projection or attribution about the abilities of others, but simply highlighting a subtle bias in your input and allowing you to expand if you choose to.
Furthermore, the above is not conflating a judgement about history with my projection or attribution about the abilities of others, but it is you
conflating a statement highlighting a bias in relation to your input (which is the first point) with a statement about the current Israeli leadership (the second point). To state that history is a constant flux is not a judgement, but an observable fact, and which is related to my point about the current Israeli leadership, but not related to you. The fact, which you ignored in my opinion, is that Palestinians are encouraged to keep rejecting solutions, as if accepting the 1967 borders as a basis for a solution is not a sign of willingness to compromise and reach a solution:
Furthermore, one might conclude that the actions of many in the international community to encourage the Palestinians to keep rejecting solutions and offers of peace is part of the problem.
I'm going to ignore the first phrase. Interesting point about UN resolutions acting as a kind of prior restraint on freedom of choice. But is that apropos historically?
1) I seem to recall peace process attempts that offered to take previous positions off the table. Am I wrong?
2) I am thinking maybe you got the wrong resolution. In what way does 242 constrain the Palestinians?
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
-- excerpt from Resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967
https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal. ... E700686136
Yes, it constrains all
parties to recognize "territorial integrity and political independence of every State". What part of 242 somehow prevents discussion of any lands other than the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in 2017?
Here, i want to make a distinction between morality and law, which are interrelated, but not the same thing. In my previous reply to you, i tried to differentiate between "peace" and a "treaty". The former is built on morality and good intentions, and the later is a legal document which is used as a reference point to regulate future relationships between parties.
The UN resolution 242 mentioned occupied territories, not THE
occupied territories (hence you chose to underline it). What you are doing now is exactly what i have been describing which is the lack of good intentions. Both, Israel and its Arab neighbors know the 1967 borders, and UN resolutions are usually written with the intent of securing cease fire and giving the opportunity for parties to go to the negotiation table and solve their problems. East Jerusalem did not belong to Israel before 1967, and by declaring Jerusalem as a unified city under Israeli rule is capitalizing on the current
asymmetrical nature of the conflict which favors Israel at the moment, and which is based, as i said before, on political opportunism, and which is going to backfire long term. Why? because its based on greed and insensitivity towards other people's aspirations.
Winning or neutralizing a legal argument is one thing, and the truth (which cannot be known without good intentions) is something totally different. It seems that Israel has its own interpretations of law, which not surprisingly, in a way that always serves to justify its whims and insensitive actions. For example, Israel disputes that settlements are illegal, does not recognize the right of return for refugees and uses the vagueness of UN resolutions to justify occupation or to try to squeeze as much gains from the Palestinians as possible. It makes you wonder if there is something more than survival in this world.
The danger is that this might work short term, but long term, it is going to harm Israel.
3) How is your argument relevant to the US moving their embassy? Or to the comments I offered as quoted above?
I quoted two paragraphs when i replied to you. The first, by appearing to investigate different possibilities, you laid the responsibility of the failure of the peace process on the Palestinians by saying "keep
rejecting solutions and offers of peace is part of the problem" which is based on a misleading Israeli propaganda in my opinion that "Palestinians never miss a chance to miss a chance" and that Israel is the generous flexible party and that Arabs are the stubborn ones who refused every generous Israeli offer. This is why i started my reply with "the simple fact you ignored" which is the great amount of flexibility that Palestinians showed by accepting the 1967 borders, and how Israelis, nowadays, view this as "too much to give away" considering the change in conditions in a way favored them.
The second paragraph i quoted , you raised the question if the US recognition of Jerusalem the best choice, and i tried to explain how the current Israeli leadership is short-sighted considering that the US decision was driven by Israeli requests, advocacy from the Jewish lobby and it was not only welcomed by Israel, but with emphasis that this should have been done long ago and that other countries should follow suit.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"
This was the last word of the Tathagata.