Israel calls on world Jewry

A place to bring a contemplative / Dharmic perspective and opinions to current events and politics.
chownah
Posts: 7333
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Israel calls on world Jewry

Post by chownah » Fri Dec 22, 2017 3:54 am

Member states that voted against the resolution
G: Guatemala
H: Honduras
I: Israel
M: Marshall Islands, Micronesia
N: Nauru
P: Palau
T: Togo
U: United States

:jumping: :rofl: :jumping:
chownah

alan
Posts: 3087
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:14 am
Location: Miramar beach, Fl.

Re: Israel calls on world Jewry

Post by alan » Fri Dec 22, 2017 3:56 am

Got a shekel or two by bringing other backpackers in to a youth hostel where I had a bunk bed. Allowed me to live in Jerusalem, while I was figuring out what I thought about religions.

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 193
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Israel calls on world Jewry

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Fri Dec 22, 2017 4:22 am

DooDoot wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:33 pm
When will they ever learn? Keep fueling resentment & violence via bullying? :shrug:
The post is confusing <REVISE: I am confused by the post>
  • Who is the "they" that will never learn?
  • What is the act of "bullying"?
  • Who is said to be bullied?
  • What would the argument look like in reciprical form with the shoe on the other foot? If "not-they" were doing the alleged "buddying?

Taking note of the use of a Reductio ad Hitlerum argument - the post seems to be an example of the theory that analogies with Hitler or the Nazi party often signals the lack of a good argument.

-------------------------------------------
ASIDE: Implications for Right Speech. I'm developing the theory that a factor of "divisiveness" is vague, ambiguous, tacit rather than explicit reasoning; statements that can be interpreted in several contrasting ways.
Last edited by Leeuwenhoek2 on Tue Dec 26, 2017 1:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 2095
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Israel calls on world Jewry

Post by DooDoot » Fri Dec 22, 2017 5:48 am

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Fri Dec 22, 2017 4:22 am
The post is confusing.
Hi. Do you mean you are personally confused?
Who is the "they" that will never learn?
The Zionist lobby & other self-appointed self-declared leaders of the Jewish people who make calls to the common Jewish people to support their schemes that may result in conflict, harm & suffering to the common Jewish people & others. Are you unable to at least consider that certain Jewish power brokers who called for an economic boycott of Germany in 1933 may have indirectly influenced harm to Jewish people living in Germany, as it did, & also reinforced the views Nazis had towards Jewish people? Do you believe economic boycotts, which are similar to blockading nations or cities to starve them to death, are wholesome actions?
What is the act of "bullying"?
I think that was self-evident in the post (highlighted in red colour).
Who is said to be bullied?
I think that was self-evident in the post.
What would the argument look like in reciprical form with the shoe on the other foot? If "not-they" were doing the alleged "bullying?
Irrelevant. An evil deed is an evil deed & a good deed is a good deed, regardless of who performs it. Buddhism teach every person is heir to their kamma; whatever they do, for good or for ill.
Taking note of the use of a Reductio ad Hitlerum argument -
Sorry, but I am confused by your point here.
Reductio ad Hitlerum or playing the Nazi card, is an attempt to invalidate someone else's position on the basis that the same view was held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party, for example: "Hitler was against tobacco smoking, X is against tobacco smoking, therefore X is a Nazi".

:roll:
the post seems to be an example of the theory that analogies with Hitler or the Nazi party often signals the lack of a good argument.
Sorry but I am confused about what you are saying here. Are you confused about what Reductio ad Hitlerum is? Personally, I have never read the phrase before today.
ASIDE: Implications for Right Speech.
None. Trying to prevent conflict by discussing causes of conflict is not wrong speech.
I'm developing the theory that a factor of "divisiveness" is vague, ambiguous, tacit rather than explicit reasoning; statements that can be interpreted in several contrasting ways.
Donald Trump & his Jerusalem Embassy supporters were/are engaged in divisive speech because it has been proven most nations disagree with their proposals, believing those proposals will cause division. My posts support this view; that such proposals will cause division; often with tragic results, as occurred from 1933.

Buddhism teaches about wholesome & unwholesome behaviours. To end conflict, each party must acknowledge the unwholesome in order to develop the wholesome.

In Buddhism, speaking about 'praise' & 'blame' is allowed, as long as it is has a wholesome intention, as stated in AN 4.100 below. In my opinion, Israel calling on world Jewry about the embassy is very dangerous & blameworthy because it can lead to attacks on Jewish people.
POINTS OF PRAISE & BLAME CONCERNING SAMMAVACA

Potaliya, four kinds of people exist and can be found in the world. What four kinds? The four kinds are:

* Some people blame those who should be blamed, according to the truth, at the proper time, but do not praise those who should be praised, according to the truth, at the proper time.

* Some people praise those who should be praised, according to the truth, at the proper time, but do not blame those who should be blamed, according to the truth, at the proper time.

* Some people do not blame those who should be blamed, according to the truth, at the proper time, and do not praise those who should be praised, according to the truth, at the proper time.

* Some people blame those who should be blamed, according to the truth, at the proper time, and praise those who should be praised, according to the truth, at the proper time.

Potaliya, these four kinds of people exist and can be found in the world. Of these four kinds of people, that kind should be the most fair and right, the most refined, to you?

Venerable Lord Gotama, of all those four kinds of people, the kind of person who does not blame those who should be blamed, according to the truth, at the proper time, and does not praise those who should be praised, according to the truth, at the proper time; is the kind of person who is the most beautiful and refined to me. What is the reason for this? Because this is fair and right with upekkha (equanimity).

Potaliya, of all those four kinds of people, whichever kind of person blames those who should be blamed, according to the truth, at the proper time, and praises those who should be praised, according to the truth, at the proper time; this kind of person is the most beautiful and refined of these four kinds of people. What is the reason for this? It is fair and right because such a one knows the right time in those circumstances.

https://suttacentral.net/pi/an4.100
:alien:
Last edited by DooDoot on Fri Dec 22, 2017 6:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

chownah
Posts: 7333
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Israel calls on world Jewry

Post by chownah » Fri Dec 22, 2017 6:22 am

Doodoot,
AS a friendly comment, I find some of your posts to be confusing too. I think that you sometimes try to present too much information about too wide of a topic.
Of courses it is entirely up to you to post in the way you see as best.
Also, it seems to me that you post as if people are making the same value judgements that you make and assume that they can see who you think is right/wrong or good/bad easily when in fact what I have to do is to first decide what I think is right/wrong or good/bad which isn't always easy especially for me since I don't come to the table with much of a political position at all....and then after I make my own jugements (or decide that there is not enough info for making a jugement which is often the case) I have to figure out what you think is right/wrong or good/bad since I usually take the position that I do not know a posters position unless the declare it....which you don't. This leads me to usually ignore most of your post as being too much work to decipher and just focus on some small part which I find comprehensible.
Of course it is entirely up to you to post in the way you see as best.
I'm just trying to point out in a friendly way somethings which I think would help people understand your posts better and thus to engage in a better quality of discussion.
Of course it is entirely up to you to post in the way you see as best.
chownah

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 193
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Israel calls on world Jewry

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Fri Dec 22, 2017 9:13 am

DooDoot wrote:
Fri Dec 22, 2017 5:48 am
Who is the "they" that will never learn?
The Zionist lobby & other self-appointed self-declared leaders of the Jewish people who make calls to the common Jewish people to support their schemes that may result in conflict, harm & suffering to the common Jewish people & others. Are you unable to at least consider that certain Jewish power brokers who called for an economic boycott of Germany in 1933 may have indirectly influenced harm to Jewish people living in Germany, as it did, & also reinforced the views Nazis had towards Jewish people? Do you believe economic boycotts, which are similar to blockading nations or cities to starve them to death, are wholesome actions?
Good thing I asked. A several part description of who "they" is.

RE: self-appointed self-declared leaders of the Jewish people
I was wondering why the OP quoted from from all of the article in /www.israelnationalnews.com except for the lede paragraph.
Israel's Foreign Ministry called on the Jewish communities around the world to appeal to their governments
Israel's properly appointed representatives to the world made a request of people in other countries. A request similar to how Palestinians representatives called on the UN. Seems like normal human relationships to me. But using your calculus these relationships & requests become self-appointed leadership. By this calculus we should thereby proclaim that @doodoot thinks of him/herself as the self-appointed, self-declared leader of <something or other>.

RE: Are you unable to at least consider ...
Oh come on dude! Are you able to consider that I might be at least as smart and/or informed as you?
And, tee hee, do you usually pose your ad hominems in the form of rhetorical questions? Question mark. Oh ... woops!

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. :woohoo: :woohoo: I win this round. Thanks for the exercise. Snark off.

But FYI -- all the questions in my last post were genuine inquiries.
Last edited by Leeuwenhoek2 on Sun Dec 24, 2017 2:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 2095
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Israel calls on world Jewry

Post by DooDoot » Fri Dec 22, 2017 12:53 pm

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Fri Dec 22, 2017 9:13 am
Israel's properly appointed representatives to the world made a request of people in other countries. A request similar to how Palestinians representatives called on the UN. Seems like normal human relationships to me.
It might seem that way to you but, to me, it obviously not a normal human relationship because:

1. Palestinians, similar to Jews post-WW2, are appealing for some type of basic humanitarian rights; similar to the Buddhist requisites of food, clothing, shelter & medicine.

2. Where as the embassy issue is not about humanitarian rights but is about consolidating Zionist power over Jerusalem, which most nations wish to keep open as an international religious city and, most importantly, will offend some Xtians & most Muslims. The embassy issue is not about humanitarian rights but about something unnecessary that is extremely divisive. Given 90% or more nations are against it, it obviously is not a normal human relationship. Instead, as I originally posted, it is a form of bullying; like when you ask your big brother to beat up the other children so you can eat the lollies (candy) of the other children.
Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Fri Dec 22, 2017 9:13 am
But using your calculus these relationships & requests become self-appointed leadership. By this calculus we should thereby proclaim that @doodoot thinks of him/herself as the self-appointed, self-declared leader of <something or other.
This comment, in my opinion, is not particularly constructive or relevant.
Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Fri Dec 22, 2017 9:13 am
Oh come on dude! Are you able to consider that I might be at least as smart and/or informed as you?
I might if you provide some evidence for it. ;)
Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Fri Dec 22, 2017 9:13 am
Generally a good policy to assume the other person is as smart or smarter than you. And better informed.
I try to avoid assumptions & merely seek to view things according to reality.
Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Fri Dec 22, 2017 9:13 am
But FYI -- all the questions in my last post were genuine inquiries.
If they were, I could only suggest to read the original post.

Regards :hug:

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 193
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Israel calls on world Jewry

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Fri Dec 22, 2017 11:40 pm

Some of the best minds in foreign policy have tried and failed to move the situation with Israel in the middle east and failed.
Now it seems that some, with cries of bullying!, want to bully the world into accepting their view of what is best.

What is numerically undeniable is that by vote count the UN seems obsessed with condemning Israel while other, arguably more urgent and pressing human-rights problems were largely ignored. I don't see the humanity, wisdom or compassion in that. Thus, I think we are justified in doubting the wisdom of a body that consistently singles out one nation for condemnation while down playing the arguably greater and more obvious suffering caused by others.

In my view it's not obvious that recognizing Israel’s capital does harm to the possibility for peace. Some argue the opposite. There is a coherent foreign policy theory that supports the US position. Others may argue for a different policy but the logic of the US position can not be ignored. 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. Arguably Palestinians as a whole are not helped by encouraging their decades long policy of maintaining the status quo.

Is the US recognition of Jerusalem the best choice? Maybe. Maybe not. I say that all moves and positions are risky. I acknowledge reasonable doubts about the change in policy. It is obvious that the situation has been gridlocked for decades under the previous stance. Yes, a Palestinian spokesperson compares the decision to a “declaration of war”. We should understand that as the claim of a partisan advocate of one side in a conflict that has frustrated peacemakers for generations. It's also claimed by others that the change will "derail the peace process". But one might very well question if there was a peace process worthy of the name to derail.

The principle of right speech calls for us to say "we are not sure" when we are not sure. I say the right view is that we are not sure. We should not be impressed with table pounding and posturing of certainty in this forum or on the world stage.

----
As a personal note: I say we should be cautious and on the watch for the taint of facile, unsupported, and/or dogmatic assertions of what is or isn't relevant, best or allegedly "compassionate".
Signs of this taint include:
  • Asserting that the opposite is true without explanation, support or reason given. Such exchanges devolve into some variation on a Monty Python skit. "I'm here for an argument". "No your not!" "You can't just contradict me for no reason." "Yes I can!"
  • Blanket assertions that thus-and-such are not relevant. Relevance depends on context. The players of this game pretend that only the context that "makes them right" is relevant.
Last edited by Leeuwenhoek2 on Sat Dec 23, 2017 1:28 am, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 2095
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Israel calls on world Jewry

Post by DooDoot » Sat Dec 23, 2017 12:28 am

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Fri Dec 22, 2017 11:40 pm
Some of the best minds in foreign policy have tried and failed to move the situation with Israel in the middle east and failed.
This is not relevant to the topic of the embassy.
Now it seems that some, with cries of bullying!, want to bully the world into accepting their view of what is best.
The world wishes to prevent conflict, which is compassion.
What is numerically undeniable is that by vote count the UN seems obsessed with condemning Israel while other, arguably more urgent and pressing human-rights problems were largely ignored. I don't see the humanity, wisdom or compassion in that.
Compassion is the wish to end suffering. Similarly, wisdom is knowing the causes of suffering & the method of alleviation. To have the US embassy in Jerusalem is not related to compassion or wisdom
Thus, I think we are justified in doubting the wisdom of a body that consistently singles out one nation for condemnation while down playing the arguably greater and more obvious suffering caused by others.
The embassy is not related to compassion for Israel; apart from preventing conflict between & against Jews & others.
In my view it's not obvious that recognizing Israel’s capital does harm to the peace process.
In 1947, the original plan was to keep the city international & divided into two zones; to make both sides & also other religious people of the world happy.
To the contrary, some argue the opposite. To the contrary, the actions of the many in the international community to encourage the Palestinians to keep rejecting solutions and offers of peace is a real problem. Arguably Palestinians as a whole are not helped by encouraging their decades long policy of maintaining the status quo.
In 1947, the UN made a decision, without any plans or infrastructure. Zionist terrorists expelled Palestinians from their villages & homes. They had nowhere to go. This may provide understanding towards the resistance. In 1947, the UN made a decision to create two nations, even though there was no housing & no public infrastructure for the Palestinian nation. This is why those expelled people had to live in tents.
Is the US recognition of Jerusalem the best choice? Maybe. Maybe not. I say that all moves and positions are risky. It is obvious that the situation has been gridlocked for decades under the previous stance.
The Israeli-US embassy hope is unimportant. It is a trifling matter. Also, Trump is probably just lying about it anyway, after he stopped the war in Syria, at the disapproval of Netanyahu, who wanted ISIS to defeat the democratic Syrian govt.
Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Fri Dec 22, 2017 11:40 pm
Yes, a Palestinian spokesperson compares the decision to a “declaration of war”. We should understand that as the claim of a partisan advocate of one side in a conflict that has frustrated peacemakers for generations. It's also claimed by others that the change will "derail the peace process". But one might very well question if last week there was a peace process worthy of the name.
There is no peace process. Israeli politicians such as Ariel Sharon made it clear there will never ever be a Palestine.
Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Fri Dec 22, 2017 11:40 pm
The principle of right speech calls for us to say we are not sure when we are not sure. We shouldn't be impressed with the table pounding and posturing of certainty in this forum or on the world stage.
Right Speech is unrelated to this; apart from Speaking Rightly to prevent harm, suffering, violence & conflict. Right Speech is not Zionist Anti-Defamation-League political correctness.

This link of photographs might help to understand & open the Heart of Compassion: https://www.google.com.au/search?q=pale ... 36&bih=771

And also this link of photographs for comparison: https://www.google.com.au/search?biw=15 ... dBq8ZD55bA

May all beings be happy, safe & free from suffering, which is the wish of Buddhism.

User avatar
Bundokji
Posts: 1536
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Israel calls on world Jewry

Post by Bundokji » Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:17 am

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Fri Dec 22, 2017 11:40 pm
In my view it's not obvious that recognizing Israel’s capital does harm to the possibility for peace. Some argue the opposite. There is a coherent foreign policy theory that supports the US position. Others may argue for a different policy but the logic of the US position can not be ignored. 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. Arguably Palestinians as a whole are not helped by encouraging their decades long policy of maintaining the status quo.

Is the US recognition of Jerusalem the best choice? Maybe. Maybe not. I say that all moves and positions are risky. I acknowledge reasonable doubts about the change in policy. It is obvious that the situation has been gridlocked for decades under the previous stance. Yes, a Palestinian spokesperson compares the decision to a “declaration of war”. We should understand that as the claim of a partisan advocate of one side in a conflict that has frustrated peacemakers for generations. It's also claimed by others that the change will "derail the peace process". But one might very well question if there was a peace process worthy of the name to derail.
I think you are ignoring a simple fact here, that the Palestinian willingness to have negotiation based on the UN resolution 242 is already a big compromise considering that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip constitutes only %20 of what Palestinians view as "historical Palestine".

While the world is far from perfect, i think the condemnation of some Israeli actions is praiseworthy in the sense that the establishment of the state of Israel caused a lot of suffering to the aborigines who lived there. Considering that the Jewish people themselves endured a lot of suffering, it is natural to expect them to show more sympathy.

The real risk to the Jewish state in my opinion is the arrogance of the current Israeli leadership. The current situation in the middle east gives the impression that Israel can afford imposing its own conditions and to capitalize on the current historical events. All of Israel's enemies are divided, the world started to recognize Islamic terrorism as a real danger, conflicts between Sunni and Shia versions of Islam and promoting the idea that Iran is the real danger, all of this led Israelis to political opportunism, which is based on arrogance.

However, what the current and short-sighted Israeli leadership fails to see is that history is a constant flux and that conditions always change. After the six days war, Israelis underestimated their enemies and got blinded by their arrogance which led to the defeat in 1973.

Finally, there is a difference between peace and a treaty. Political opportunism and trying to capitalize on certain historical conditions will not result in peace, the treaty of Versailles is a good example. A political solution and peace cannot be achieved without mutual respect nor by advancing the aspirations of one side in a manner that ignores the aspirations of the other side.
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.

ToVincent
Posts: 418
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Israel calls on world Jewry

Post by ToVincent » Sat Dec 23, 2017 1:13 pm

Mediterranen drama, with a pinch of bumptious headlong northern mind - Hoho.

I like the old Indian philosophy, first because the great mitochondrial genetic evolution took place in India. But mostly because the lesser mitochondrial evolutions, that took place later on, lead to a hark back in India. It was some sort of a reflection.
That did not happen with the other evolutions found in Semitic or Northern European genetic changes; of the even later evolutions or mix up.
They both have an ingrained tendency to go forward. While Indians, by atavism, do reflect a lot more.

I am just a Northern European, fascinated by this contemplative mind of the Indians - unfortunately corrupted by the puranic minds and later defilements.
The old Indian philosophy should be the way. But it won't for most; if not for all.
In this world with its ..., Māras, ... in this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------
We are all possessed - more or less.
------
And what, bhikkhu, is inward rottenness? Here someone is immoral, one of evil character, of impure and suspect behaviour, secretive in his acts, no ascetic though claiming to be one, not a celibate though claiming to be one, inwardly rotten, corrupt, depraved. This is called inward rottenness.”
SN 35.241
------
https://justpaste.it/j5o4

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 193
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Israel calls on world Jewry

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » 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.

----------------------------------------------

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Fri Dec 22, 2017 11:40 pm
In my view it's not obvious that recognizing Israel’s capital does harm to the possibility for peace. Some argue the opposite. ... .
Bundokji wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:17 am
I think you are ignoring a simple fact here, that the Palestinian willingness to have negotiation based on the UN resolution 242 is already a big compromise considering that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip constitutes only %20 of what Palestinians view as "historical Palestine".
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?

3) How is your argument relevant to the US moving their embassy? Or to the comments I offered as quoted above?

It seems to me that you used my comments as a coat rack upon which to hang comments about somewhat related, but different topics.
As the movie line goes "are you talking to me?" I think you are not really addressing me.

User avatar
Bundokji
Posts: 1536
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Israel calls on world Jewry

Post by Bundokji » Sun Dec 24, 2017 9:11 am

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. :woohoo: :woohoo: 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.

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 193
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Israel calls on world Jewry

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:45 pm

Is there a working DRAFT MODE in this forum software?
(That is a real request for information on how to use this forum, no ulterior motives that I'm aware of)

INCOMPLETE - a work in progress

Social science and practical experience supports the practical wisdom behind the first rule for this forum: "playing the ball, not the man". My discussion of making attributions about others was my attempt to offer an expanded view and way of understanding the rule and the practical wisdom behind it. I propose this expanded view tends towards a richer understanding and practice of the dharma.
For relevance I also note that a lot of positions about Israel/Palestine contains a number of attributions regarding the predicted actions, intentions, sensitivity, greed etc. of 'the other'. Each of them often offered as if they were to be taken on faith or as self-evidently true thus bypassing a working distinction between facts and predictions/possibilities/probabilistic reasoning. For evidence see Bundokji's recent post. (See phrases: good intentions, lack of good intentions, greed and insensitivity, whims and insensitive actions, by appearing to)

To be more transparent let me say that:
  • I'm far more interested in the topic of productive speach -- of which the recognition of attributions is one part than I am with the specifics of US foreign policy. Productive speach is an important element in foreign policy, diplomacy, treaty making and peace or peace and reconciliation processes. I also believe it's an import aspect of effective Buddhist practice.
  • I am consciously focusing on US policy re moving the US embassy. I will probably not engage in wider international issues unless the relevance to the embassy location is evident to me.
  • I am attempting to follow practices of more productive dialog. At the same time I admit I only have limited skill at using those practices. Your constructive feedback, especially examples of how to do it better, are gratefully requested.
I thought I made a good attempt to separate what I judged as Bundokji's unhelpful use of personal attributions from this other comments. Also that I explicitly recognized the parts of Bundokji's comments that IMO were, to borrow Bundokji's description, "beliefs, ideas and positions with justifications ideally in an attempt to investigate the truth". Is there something I could have done to make that more clear?

Regarding Attributions
  • I'm working on the theory that useful meta discussions require a sufficiently concrete and powerful theory. I'm using some of the most powerful stuff I know of from applied social psychology.
  • Such discussion also benifit greatly from a skilled communicator. I admit to doubts about whether I am sufficiently skilled.
  • People's suspicion that such discussions are manipulative, an attempt at "political correctness" etc are understandable given past history. If you think so I ask that a) if the shoe really doesn't seem to fit your "cynical" suspicions might be partly right and b) please let me know what I wrote that lead you to so believe or suspect.
  • I accept (and come to expect) that a single argument, even a single sentence will contains productive and likely counter-productive elements. That is, a single sentence may both "play the man" and "play the ball". Dukkha making but true.
  • Society tends to teach us to use attributions to express our ideas. Learning to communicate without the use of attributions is hard. Failure is normal. I'm more interested in the rare and super-normal.
  • I believe that in the context of a discussion, especially with people you do not know, making attributions about other's internal motivations or capabilities with explicitly testing them belongs to a cluster of values and practices that tends to an inability to persuade others, discourages the open exchange of information and ideas, encourages defensive/motivated reasoning and poor judgement.
ATTRIBUTIONS and INFERENCES
Attribution - to explain by indicating a cause.
In social psychology, attribution is the process of inferring the causes of events or behaviors. In real life, attribution is something we all do every day, usually without any awareness of the underlying processes and biases that lead to our inferences. The attributions you make each and every day have an important influence on your feelings as well as how you think and relate to other people. Attributions are also implicated in bias, misplaced blame, faulty or selective memory of events and inaccurate uses of stereotypes.

I propose that awareness of the attribution process in ourselves is highly compatible with the dharma's understanding of the causes of suffering. Attributions, especially here attributions about the motivations, abilities, capabilities or character of others, are our way of making sense of the world but it's easy to become attached to them in the sense of clinging. Such clinging tends towards less rational thinking and to suffering.

Attribution theory looks at how the average person constructs the meaning of an event. The theory basically looks at how people make sense of their world; what cause and effect inferences they make about the behaviors of others and of themselves. There is a strong need in individuals to understand events by attributing them to my or other's disposition or to characteristics of the environment. Understanding of the meaning of a behavior or event depends on the cause to which we attribute to it. The process of attribution can fundamentally alter our perception of reality.

A working short definition of unproductive communication include 1) ‘making inferences about another person’s behaviour (e.g. making attributions) without checking whether they are valid and 2) advocating one’s own views abstractly without explaining or illustrating one’s reasoning’.

--------------------------------



That idea of "playing the ball" is a variation of (or super set of) Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem. Argumentum ad hominem is variosly described as:
  • An argumentative strategy that addresses the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument in contrast to attacking the substance of the argument itself.
  • Original meaning was an argument "calculated to appeal to the person addressed more than to impartial reason".
  • Can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes. The result of an ad hominem attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it.
  • Note that I have used edited versions of popular definitions because IMO many definition of argumentum ad hominem themselves verge on the ad hominem! Instead I offer definitions that focus more on the form than on assumptions about intentions.

Bundokji wrote:
Sun Dec 24, 2017 9:11 am
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. ...

... 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.
In the last paragraph above -- Did you intend to express that as an either/or choice or were you reaching for another meaning?

I propose that your sentence that included the phrase "you are ignoring a simple fact here" included both a attribution and your attempt to offer your opinion about a subtle bias in my opinion.

Allow me to offer a better alternative:
My statement that "you are ignoring a simple fact here" is NOT my projection or attribution about the abilities of others, but rather my attempt to highligh a subtle bias in your input and to offer you a chance to expand if you choose to.
Even better in my opinion:
My statement that "you are ignoring a simple fact here" was NOT intended as my projection or attribution about your abilities, but rather my attempt to highlight a subtle bias in your input and to offer you a chance to expand if you choose to.
Shorter, no controversial, unprovable distance diagnosis of my psychology, less Sturm und Drang, and less prone to error. I would even dare to say more intellectually honest.

Wearing Glasses. Of course I am. It comes with being human. I may have picked them up with my package of karma at birth. Unfortunately, as with other humans, I've found that swapping them out has proved to more challenging than first supposed.

I put it to you that one implication of your words that a reasonable person might draw is that if only I would put on your glasses I would necessarily agree with you. If I did make the glasses swap and we still disagreed what then? I put it to you that we can wear the same glasses and disagree or wear very different glasses and agree. The wearing of glasses misframes the important result -- pun intended.
<groans from audience followed by light :clap:>
Last edited by Leeuwenhoek2 on Mon Dec 25, 2017 1:33 am, edited 13 times in total.

User avatar
CedarTree
Posts: 254
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 9:37 pm

Re: Israel calls on world Jewry

Post by CedarTree » Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:52 pm

Whenever I see the word "Jewry" it makes me think certain people need to practice more.

Whatever ideology or spiritual tradition one may hold or even political views.

When people start resorting to alienation, hate, "other" and trying to entrench those things in reality and or foundational in frameworks they are wayyyy of the path.

(Before someone that hates jews tries to twist my words I am not condoning the actions of the Israel state of the incredibly complex narratives of that region)

Just honestly surprised people aware and practicing the Dharma bring this kind of shit up.


Practice, Practice, Practice


Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 14 guests