Ho Ho.

This endless story is like the favourite Aunty who was a prostitute, and nobody in the family will ever raise the subject; especially when she’s around!

Israels favourite Aunty in this case, is it’s “friend and Allie”, the US…(SIC..or can we say with honesty, now the favourite Aunty is in her death throes, a meddling loud mouth), is at the root of more evil and destabilisation of Israel than its Arab neighbours?

Quite frankly, and personally speaking, I think traitors should be shot.
There is something to be said for shooting protesters.

A democracy must not favour one ethnic or religious group over another. A Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Jewish state cannot also be a democracy. A country may have a majority of a particular ethnicity or religion, but it cannot be a democracy if it favours that particular ethnicity or religion. Israel is not and has never been a democracy. It is a Jewish state. India is called a democracy. It is not. It discriminates against Muslims. Australia is not a democracy. It has Christian chaplains in the state schools.

S 116 of the Australian Constitution states:

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

Christian chaplains in state schools are a violation of the Australian Constitution.

Agree.
Alan B.

What David f says.
Alan B.

"how many Israelis completely distort the nature and the ultimate objective of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank."

Israel as such has no objectives, ultimate or otherwise - Israel is a divided country!

The people who historically took over the West Bank are not the people who now occupy it, albeit both live side-by-side and are therefore technically called "Israelis".

The declared objective of those who took over the West Bank in 1967, was to force Jordan to make peace with Israel. That objective has been long achieved.

The true and undeclared objective of those who took over the West Bank in 1967 was to rob its archaeological wealth for Moshe Dayan's private backyard collection. That too has long been achieved.

The ultimate objective of those who now occupy the West Bank, is to hasten the coming of their Messiah (a descendant of King David, who would then rule alone over Israel and the whole world, that much for their love of democracy). That objective has not been achieved and hopefully never will.

---

Dear David F.,

One cannot legitimately produce false expectations by claiming that "democracy is... ___{fill-in-one's wish-list}___".

Democracy is plainly the tyranny of the majority as opposed to the tyranny of just one person, family, party or tribe. For the ordinary victim it makes no difference whether their life is controlled by one person or by a majority of those surrounding them.

Israel, as much as we hate its recent policies and direction, is by far more democratic than Australia, not to mention the U.S.A - it is indeed a bloody democracy!

Dear Yuyutsu,

We define democracy differently. To me a tyranny of the majority is not a democracy. Democracy to me includes the rights of the minority which majority opinion cannot override. The first ten amendments of the US Constitution specifies some of those rights.

Amendment 1 Freedom of religion, speech and assembly
Amendment 2 Right to bear arms
Amendment 3 Quartering of soldiers
Amendment 4 Search and arrest
Amendment 5 Rights in criminal cases
Amendment 6 Right to a fair trial
Amendment 7 Rights in civil cases
Amendment 8 Bail, fines, punishment
Amendment 9 Rights retained by the People
Amendment 10 States' rights

Addition rights were specified in later amendments such as abolition of slavery and female suffrage. Democracies extend freedoms. Tyrannies limit them.

The right to agree with the majority existed in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia and other tyrannies.

Dear David F.,

What you (or the American constitution) describe as "rights", I rather describe as mitigation.

So in a democratic state, the majority can generally take away your freedom, it can search and arrest, it can punish and otherwise cause you so much harm as long as the majority voted for it. However, in America, the constitution somewhat mitigates or limits what the state can do to individuals: it can still impose its will, but if you fail to accept it then it must for example give you a fair trial (as if that helps).

Even a softened version of tyranny is still tyranny: a majority (of some cohort you never voluntarily agreed to have anything with) can still take away your freedom. Another way to describe this, is imagine your freedom was a $100 note, so the state takes away your freedom and in exchange returns you some nickels in the form of "rights".

Not good enough!

Dear Yuyutsu,

We can only strive to be more democratic. "Not good enough" is simply not good enough. Current Australia is more democratic than current China. The perfect is the enemy of the good. Who of us is completely fair and impartial? No government is completely fair and impartial since it is made of imperfect people.

While I was away in the US in 1993 Marie got a caravan and drove around Queensland. She filled three notebooks with an account of her travels, encounters with people, poetry & philosophical musings. Shortly before Marie died she gave me those notebooks.

They contained the following:

I think it's the absence of any goal that has given me this freedom just to be. We are always told we must have a goal in life, whether it be to accummulate wealth, achieve professional success & recognition or to make the world a better place. One must have a goal. I have always unconsciously rebelled against this idea, the idea of an "ultimte aim in life." There are always "goals" in the plural that give life zest & meaning - the goal to reach the mountain top & enjoy the view, the goal to help a friend in need, the goal to pass exams so one can work in an interesting field.

The "ultimate aim in life" I think is life destroying, a negation of the present which is after all, all we ever have, and ultimately, I believe unachievable. When is rich, rich enough, power great enough, recognition satisfying enough?

The meaning of life is life itself. How it came about is a wonderful question to explore. "Why" is meaningless. It implies purpose. It implies a creator. It implies that we have a purpose in the mind of the creator....

I think she was happy when she wrote that. Perfection is an unreal goal. If you want or expect it you will be disappointed.

David F,

Your wife was an insightful woman, my compliments to you for your having her as a companion.

Australians would do well to decide whether there is one rule for all or no rule for any.
On the present rationale used to justify the subjugation of the Palestinians because of prior claim by the so called Israelis, then the right to bear arms by the indigenous of Australia to reclaim their heritage and land would be just as righteous.
The indigenous claim would be based on far greater length of time than a mere three thousand years as claimed by the Jews in claiming their entitlement to be based on.
So if China, as example, were to arm the indigenous with all required to implement a violent uprising such as the UK and US for the Jews in Palestine, would we all pack up and leave?
I think not!

Here's the thing, the Palestinas are the ethnic cousins of the Jews and are also the sons and daughters of Abraham. And unlike the wandering Jew stayed on THEIR LAND!
Alan B.

Dear Alan B,

Many of the Jews who went into exile were deported by the Romans, Persians and other occupying powers. It was often not a choice to stay in the land. However, regardless of the peregrinations of our ancestors we can recognise each other as fellow human beings and refuse to be divided by the evil nonsense of religion.

Dear Special Delivery,

«a mere three thousand years as claimed by the Jews in claiming their entitlement to be based on.»

1) There is no such body as "the Jews". Jews are extremely diverse and as the saying goes, "wherever there are two Jews there are three opinions"!
2) Such silly claims, which archaeology refutes, are only made by SOME silly Jews who don't know their history.

«On the present rationale used to justify the subjugation of the Palestinians because of prior claim by the so called Israelis»

The subjugation of the "Palestinians" is not by the Israelis, but rather by certain Jews who now try to steal away Israel from the Israelis.

As opposed to the above-mentioned Jewish claim, the claim of the Israelis to their land (which does not include the West-Bank) is based on:

1) purchasing the land, which the local Arabs were too happy to sell them.
2) making the land inhabitable, where it was previously mostly swamps and desert.
3) building and modernizing the land.
4) defending the land from invading foreign armies.

---

Dear Alan B.,

«Here's the thing, the Palestinas are the ethnic cousins of the Jews and are also the sons and daughters of Abraham. And unlike the wandering Jew stayed on THEIR LAND!»

Not merely cousins - BROTHERS AND SISTERS, part and parcel of the original Jewish people (not that the legendary biblical Abraham actually existed).

---

Dear David F.,

«Many of the Jews who went into exile were deported by the Romans, Persians and other occupying powers.»

Many perhaps, but not the majority who left Israel on their own for economic reasons.
The Persians did not exile Jews - quite the contrary, they resettled [some of] them in Israel, while the Romans only exiled the residents of Jerusalem, not the rest of the country.

«We can only strive to be more democratic.»

Yes we can, but that's not my cup of tea, I rather strive for freedom, with or without bombastic names.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You want freedom without a bombastic name. Humans are a social animal and organise in groups. Some humans stay outside of groups and are hermits. They are a small minority. Those are the choices. Either be part of a social group or be a hermit. Social groups have names. Democracy is one of the names. Bombastic means high sounding but with little meaning. What social organisation with a non-bombastic name can you suggest?

Any discussion on Israel by casual yappers is a complete waste of time. Nothing changes in Israel, where the main concern is defence against lunatic Islamists, the United Nations, its own Leftist Fifth Volumn and, increasingly, a Marxist West. A back-and-forth by a couple of old codgers with nothing better to do is absurd.

Still agree with David f.

Ok YUYU, so the Palestinians were and remain brothers and sisters with undeniable claims to territory they never left! I bow to your superior knowledge.

So, what is the rational that allows the occupier to annex their land a displace them. Might is right perhaps? And because we can?
Alan B.

Dear David F.,

«Humans are a social animal and organise in groups.»

I do not deny this - I only insist that humans ought be able to organise themselves in groups of their own choice.

«Some humans stay outside of groups and are hermits. They are a small minority. Those are the choices. Either be part of a social group or be a hermit.»

Being a classical hermit is one end of the spectrum, there were historically also hermit couples, families, hamlets and tribes - and speaking of choices, even classical hermits are not permitted by the modern state, the modern state neither permits you to form your own smaller social group nor to remain hermit undisturbed.

«Bombastic means high sounding but with little meaning.»

Indeed. That big democracy, the United States of America, took over the peaceful people of the islands of Hawaii, out of sheer greed, they forced their own culture (including their Christian sexual "morality") over the natives, outlawed their culture and language and even forbade parents to teach their language to their children.

But it was completely democratic because the vast majority of the people of America elected representatives which approved that disgusting behaviour.

Thus "bombastic" is a fairly decent description of democracy.

---

Dear Alan B.,

«So, what is the rational that allows the occupier to annex their land a displace them. Might is right perhaps? And because we can?»

You really care for their rationale?
Well, what they claim is that God ordered them to do it.

Do you also care for their real reasons?

Their real reasons (which they wouldn't admit) are political and are not even related to the Arabs or to this or that land - they want to overthrow the Israelis who started and built Israel and take it over for their own mob!

Dear Yuyutsu,

I agree with your description of the takeover of Hawaii. The Philippine-American War was even worse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_War

My family benefited greatly from coming to the United States. Many people haven't. The US was far better than Czarist Russia. The US is free enough so that people can protest its wrongs.

https://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/1898/league.html

"On June 15, 1898, the Anti-imperialist league formed to fight U.S. annexation of the Philippines, citing a variety of reasons ranging from the economic to the legal to the racial to the moral. It included among its members such notables as Andrew Carnegie, Mark Twain, William James, David Starr Jordan, and Samuel Gompers with George S. Boutwell, former secretary of the Treasury and Massachusetts, as its president. Following the signing of the Treaty of Paris, the league began to decline and eventually disappeared."

The US has committed wrongs, but it has mechanisms whereby people can protest and sometimes redress those wrongs. Protest is not allowed in many other countries.

No ifs or buts; there was an insurgence started by Mohommad in 8th
century into Mesopotamian by Arab armies driven by Islamic belief that
the world has to become Islamic.
It continued after the Prophet's death and is still following the
same rules.
Submit to Allah, pay the Jizaz or die !
The same rule is being currently applied in parts of Africa today.
Thousands of Christians are being slaughtered, but the press just
calls them insurgents, rebels etc or in Europe "Mentally Disturbed".
After the Prophet's armies finished in Mesopotamia they turned to
Nth Africa, Persia and India where the battle still rages.

Wherever Moslems go there is trouble because their religion is totally intolerant.
There are interesting developments in that some Moslem groups are
becoming embarrassed by some of their beliefs and try to ignore them.
However the fanatics then call them blasphemers and the punishment for that is death. Watch what is happening in Pakistan.

If you think that is all over the top then you need wake up and not
ignore all that is happening around the world.

Did you know that in the UK you can be prosecuted for having
Islamophobic thoughts or at least be questioned by police.
A man in the UK was arrested when he admitted that he was a Christian
and was praying quietly to himself in a public place.
I never heard what the result was, wouldn't be surprised if it got
dropped because of lack of evidence.

Dear Bezza,

Islam is less intolerant than Christianity. It regards itself as superior to other religions. However, it has respected people of the book, Jews and Christians. In areas where Muslims dominate non-Muslims may have to pay a special tax, but they were usually allowed to practice their religion and have their own courts. In Australia in the mission stations Aboriginal children were not allowed to speak the language of their tribe. They were forced to follow the Christian observances. In other areas of occupation by Christian countries missionaries tried to eliminate the indigenous cultures including the belief systems. I have read that one reason the early Arab conquests were so effective was that Christian rulers were intolerant of other branches of Christianity, and the people of those areas preferred Muslim rule to the rule of intolerant Christians of another sect. Some of the Christian Crusades were directed at other Christians. Christian Crusaders sacked Christian Constantinople. In their first three centuries Muslims regarded their religion as only applicable to Arabs and discouraged conversion as Muslims didn't have to pay tax. However, they never were as evil as the Christian Germans who tried to eliminate people of another religion. The Holocaust was a triumph of missionary Christianity. If you can't convert them wipe them out. That was in the spirit of Martin Luther whose diatribes against the Jews were used by the Nazis to spread their hate.

David F said-

You want freedom without a bombastic name. Humans are a social animal and organise in groups. Some humans stay outside of groups and are hermits. They are a small minority. Those are the choices. Either be part of a social group or be a hermit. Social groups have names. Democracy is one of the names. Bombastic means high sounding but with little meaning. What social organisation with a non-bombastic name can you suggest?

Answer- I think that one label for Yuyutsu position might be Sovereign Citizen- which has been given bombastic connotations from the communists- but I'd need to research more to confirm. Democracy like Communism often has multiple overlays depending on scale and jurisdiction.

Sovereign citizen seem to ignore group ethnic ownership of territory in a sense as does Liberal Democracy both on the Communist and Business sides.

I believe that ignoring ethnic ownership of territory ignores evolutionary territorialism in nature and is what Ayn Rand classifies as a looting and mooching philosophy- at a group level- but she would disagree because she doesn't believe in group ownership either probably because she was a moocher when she came to America- but she does have strong views on individual property ownership. Communists don't believe in ownership at all- and say that property should be "owned" by the government- basically power becomes centralized under a dictator.

Property ownership and how it's embodied in political ideology is interesting. Does the nation state own it, does the culture or ethnicity own it, does the community own it, does the family own it, does the individual own it. In reality all of these entities have a stake and these interests are expressed in different paradigms. For example a community may express it's claim when it says that a built house must be in character with the street. Estate laws are an expression of a families interest that property should be passed to members of the family even if the will expresses a different view.

Territorialism principles in non-humans seems to overlay human principles of ownership.

Bezza- talked about the rise of Islam in the Middle East

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=22481#390827

Answer- It seems that Islam is much focused on the principle of justice but there is an ethnic component- seems similar to the Pharises of the Bible- but maybe correlating legalism with justice is wrong.