Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

138Re: A Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Problem

Expand Messages
  • Shlomi Fish
    Nov 18, 2004
      On Thursday 18 November 2004 15:44, Ofir Carny wrote:
      > On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 18:01:38 +0200, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
      > > On Wednesday 17 November 2004 16:25, Ofir Carny wrote:
      > > > Many factual and logical errors,
      > >
      > > Can you point them?
      > To many for me to point to right now, but as an example for factual -
      > AFAIK, non same religion couples can be wed in Israel, only same
      > religion couples may have a problem (e.g. Psuley Hitun).

      No, they cannot. If a Jew wishes to marry a non-Jew, no Rav will allow that.
      And you said, AFAIK. I know of a few Jewish guys who wanted to marry a
      Russian immigrant who wasn't technically a Jewess, and she had to convert to

      > Another, more subtle one is grouping soldiers and settelers together.

      Where exactly did I group soldiers and settlers? I never did that.

      > Examples for logical errors abound, but are dwarfed by the next point.

      Please enlist them all.

      > > > plus failing to state the premises
      > > > and definitions (e.g. 'facts'),
      > >
      > > Why?
      > Because they are not stated, saying something is a fact does not make
      > it so, without proving it, it is left as a premise or definition,
      > making the whole foundation shaky.
      > Because your definitions and premises are not standard (outside Rand's
      > cult that is), the foundation cannot stand.

      First of all, Objectivism is not a cult. It's an idea system. And I explain
      why they hold. I said that for example a person has no right to force another
      person to protect himself, because you are forcing a person to do something
      pro-active against his will. Why isn't it true?

      > > > plus ignoring all problems that would
      > > > result from said plan,
      > >
      > > Which problems?
      > The problems are many, I'll leave the result of arming all
      > palestinians and settelers, then moving the army out as an exercise
      > for the reader.

      I never said we should pro-actively arm the palestinians. But if they wish to
      arm themselves so be it. What I said, is that soldiers who do not wish to
      protect the settlements should be allowed to relocate to somewhere else. I
      don't care if settlers stay there and get killed. Their blood would be in
      their head in that case.

      > You may not see the result as negative but that
      > depends on the next point - namely, your goal.
      > > > plus the aim of the actual plan is nowhere to
      > > > be found.
      > >
      > > The aim of the plan is to solve the Israeli-Palestinian Problem and it is
      > > said so at the beginning.
      > Two words: Define solve.
      > Solution does not mean getting to a quasi static state, not does it
      > mean taking action which is desireable by some critiria, it means a
      > way to get to a desirable state. If you accept this definition, define
      > the desireable state, and show how your plan would achieve it,
      > otherwise, as I said, define solve.

      Fine, I'll give some words of the state:

      1. Israel will be able to protect itself effectively.

      2. The settlements will no longer be an issue.

      3. It will not need to support the Palestinians any longer.

      4. Arabs will have less and less reasons to criticize Israel and to actively
      hate it.


      Shlomi Fish

      Shlomi Fish shlomif@...
      Homepage: http://www.shlomifish.org/

      Knuth is not God! It took him two days to build the Roman Empire.
    • Show all 17 messages in this topic