SJF,
Naturally, “Hezbollah and Hamas have no obligation to understand the ‘tikkun’ any more than Israel has an obligation to understand the religious concepts of Islam and Islamic militancy”, but without even an affected form of understanding (i.e.tolerance) the only alternative outcome is the one as portrayed by the ‘New Scientist’.

Both the Israeli’s and the Palestinians have now reached an impasse where the international ‘voice’ no longer penetrates and is mostly, to them, irrelevant. The statement, “Israel wiped Palestine off the map, and now lives in a permanent state of fear of retribution” obviously delegitimizes Israel and is quite absurd to consider.

A post-historical paradise of peace and relative prosperity, perhaps in the realisation of Kant's "Perpetual Peace," is also a great humanitarian ideal, embodied within the U.N. Freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion, freedom from want and freedom from fear is currently bound to Israel’s political sovereignty. The greatest hypocrisy of the west, with all of her humanitarian idealism, will be to expect Israel to sacrifice these notions, as integral to her sovereignty as it is to ours.

Good on you , Relda, and am glad that SJF also goes your way,

Further we can only pray that an article on the Obama Agenda in the latest Guardian also bears what we might call an attempt to use the Sermon on the Mount concept of Sharing the Blame.

As any historian knows, any argument against sharing the blame, is usually from those who too much use phrases, such as - that’s only in the past – or, let’s forget it, because we think different these days.

I guess the only way to prevent such slippages of human nature right now is to either create a new UN based on Kantian Reasoning or mend the old one, in which we would need to sack most of the former executives, anyhow.

Finally, it is still well to remember that Kantian Reasoning dispels just one power running the global show as Bush et al were attempting to do.

Rather the far more honest concept of democratic multi-power which not only helped to end the Cold war, but is still recommended in our Uni’ Schools of Humanities, anyhow.

Hoping for Commonsense.
Regards, BB, WA.

Bushbred

‘Good on you , Relda, and am glad that SJF also goes your way …’

I do??

Sorry, BB. But I’m mostly opposed to relda’s position. I’m not sure what I have said to make you think otherwise. I do try to sympathise with Israel's stance on Palestine, but I have long since stopped making excuses for it.

Relda

‘Both the Israeli’s and the Palestinians have now reached an impasse where the international ‘voice’ no longer penetrates and is mostly, to them, irrelevant.’

Not to the Palestinians. To them, the international voice is extremely important because they have almost nothing else. They justifiably believe that the world neither knows nor cares for the suffering and injustice they have endured.

The international ‘voice’ I refer to is not the voice of world leaders (including Australian), who continue to discredit themselves with their own publics over Palestine. I refer to the voice of ordinary people of principle finally waking up to what Israel has really been doing to the Palestinians for over 60 years.

The US in particular has the leverage to end Israel’s state-sanctioned cruelty, but the US administration will change direction on its Israel policy only if and when there is a significant shift in US public opinion. Also, the US position greatly impacts on Israeli public debate. A change in the official US position on Israel would spearhead a change in Israeli debate.

Sorry, SJF, I misread what Relda was really getting at, and do believe he or she seems a bit in two minds about the problem.

Also what is mentioned about Immanuel Kant pressing for one courageous nation as being righteous in the way that Israel is acting, does not fit in quite with Kantian philosophy which I believe would not have one powerful nation like America arming and backing one single state.

Regards, BB, WA.

Bushbred,
True, SJF and I appear to have definite and differing views on Israel’s legitimacy – and I’m certainly singled minded in my support of her existence (read my posts for a 3rd time) – a distinct divide, however, is shown on Israel’s legitimacy amongst the so called 'united' 192 world member states.

Israel is by no means perfect - 50,000 ideological settlers living on the West Bank are at odds both domestically and internationally. But do the countries of Australia, America, Russia or China etc., reach anywhere near the same ‘perfection’ as demanded of Israel? Your avowed ‘expertise’ in political theory allows Henry Kissinger some authority on the Israeli armament policy; Kissinger’s foreign policy was a nemesis to the anti-war left under the Nixon and Ford administrations - his primary concern lay in the American Interest. "It is an act of insanity and national humiliation to have a law prohibiting the President from ordering assassination." - H.K. in 1975. Kissinger’s world was of the Realpolitik where, “…Israel is sovereign in this decision [for nuclear armament]."

The dynamic operating within the U.N. seriously undermines its credibility. Many members (a virtual Who’s Who of human rights violators) are determined mainly to prevent the Commission from accomplishing its purpose. As an effective ‘Abusers’ Defense Society’, they vote consistently to block any serious effort to investigate or condemn their own human rights record or abuses by fellow despots, e.g., Algeria, Bhutan, China, Cuba, Egypt, Indonesia, Kenya, Libya, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Togo, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe.

A steady build up of fuel led to an Australian fire without precedent in terms of human tragedy. Ignorance fuels an intense hatred on both sides of a divide within the Middle East. One perhaps wonders at the unparalleled conflict that may emerge, given the ‘perfect storm’ of political and economic events currently building.

Kant’s philosophy and the ‘democratic peace theory’ are certainly worthy of consideration. Perhaps ironically, George W. Bush and Tony Blair embrace these also, arguing that the democratic peace is a historical fact. Democracy, alone however, is an unlikely cause of the democratic peace.

Richard

Must say, Relda, that Immanuel Kant’s reasoning was not so much protecting democracy simply as said, but after his disappointment with Napoleon not carrying out Libertinian principles through his autocrat personalism, Kant thus made the following declaration in his quest for Perpetual Peace:

From this day on, not one personage alone, nor even one personage alone represent ing the Good Lord, should ever be allowed to make final decisions in front of what he called a Federation of democratic/libertinian nations to preserve Perpetual Peace.

Thus it was that the League of Nations was eventually founded, followed by the United Nations but both failing because of the very thing that Kant warned against, single party authority or virtually the same political behaviour, letting a single authority like an American President have the last say.

Much of this was discussed so much during the Korean War with challenges against former war leaders like Macarthur having too much to say, when there should have been more consensus.

Certainly there was consensus even near the end of WW2 with the Bretton Woods Agreement, from where it is said that though he only was allowed to speak for Great Britain at the time, wonderful ideas such as the Marshal Plan where derived from suggestion s by an aging Maynard Keynes.

The end of the Cold War was attained also not so much by direct authority but much informal discussion, Reagan and Gorbachev virtually playing their parts but more as figureheads.

Certainly more wisdom and understanding is needed, Relda, and let’s hope Obama comes up with it .

Regards, BB, WA.