tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3579003483038593135.post4759159534166635720..comments2023-05-13T11:01:55.918-04:00Comments on frost and clouds: can we talk?Joshua Gutoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17731207066330434709noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3579003483038593135.post-30352051205442646412014-07-28T18:01:32.688-04:002014-07-28T18:01:32.688-04:00A very useful set of principles.
Regarding Palest...A very useful set of principles.<br /><br />Regarding Palestinian right to a state, it does not seem accurate to compare them to the Kurds, the Roma, and the Basques.<br /><br />I agree, there is no necessary right to a state for any people simply because they share some common identity.<br /><br />But in the case of the Arabs residing in the Ottoman Empire prior to WWI, article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant conferred a legal right to a state. Resolution 181 offered a legal right to a state, and numerous UNSC resolutions since confirm their legal right to a state.<br /><br />So beyond any abstract absolute right, the Palestinians have clear earthbound legal right to a state under international laws, actually under the same terms as Jews had to form a state. For a variety of reasons, including lack of competence and bad leadership, they have not accomplished this. That in no way diminishes their rights.<br /><br />We might take your thought on moral reasoning: "Critiques of an action or strategy are not, in themselves, critiques of the cause they are claimed to support."<br /><br />and slightly amend it:<br />"Critiques of an action or strategy are not, in themselves, critiques of the cause OR GROUNDS TO CLAIM A SACRIFICE OF RIGHTS they are claimed to support."<br /><br />One of the most common arguments I hear justifying occupation and denying Palestinian rights to the West Bank is the 1948 war, as if that nullified any Arab land rights.<br /><br />There is a tragic element to how both sides viewed the 1947 partition of Palestine. For Jews it was a joyous occasion. For Arabs it was a terrible loss of land they had reasonable expectations to consider theirs.<br /><br />I can't come down on either side of this dilemma; I recognize both sides as valid, though they are contradictory.Jeffrey Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07097567850607367929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3579003483038593135.post-21770722596400492282014-07-28T15:31:59.030-04:002014-07-28T15:31:59.030-04:00Virginia - welcome, and thanks for your comments. ...Virginia - welcome, and thanks for your comments. You bring a fascinating perspective to the discussion.<br /><br />Arkadiy - Great to see you again!! I'm so glad to hear from you. Your question points to part of why I think the whole discussion of the right of a people to have a state is the wrong one (and again, yes, including for Jews). States are political constructions not metaphysical entities. They are created as attempts to solve political problems. Right now, a separate state for the Basques would be a political disaster, while a stable Palestinian state would, I think, be the wisest solution to a great deal of suffering and turmoil. But that's different than determining at what point a group has been a "people" long enough to have a "right" to one.<br /><br />And NCB, I think you'd need someone with Lori's pen control skills to get even a portion of it onto a bumper sticker!Joshua Gutoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17731207066330434709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3579003483038593135.post-16091542944801456292014-07-27T08:20:45.671-04:002014-07-27T08:20:45.671-04:00Joshua, this will be helpful when I'm choosing...Joshua, this will be helpful when I'm choosing words and statements while discussing this situation and others. My one criticism is that I'll never get all this to fit on a bumper sticker. On the other hand, I don't even have a bumper to stick it on.newcleanwarshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07172632661305715130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3579003483038593135.post-1173107727603024262014-07-26T10:50:35.445-04:002014-07-26T10:50:35.445-04:00Rabbi Gutoff!! Good to see you on here, and thank ...Rabbi Gutoff!! Good to see you on here, and thank you for sharing your thoughts. It was refreshing to read this.<br />One question that your post left me wondering pertains to your statement, "I’m not convinced that peoples have a categorical right to a state prior to that state’s existence"<br />Would you apply the same reasoning to peoples that had a state, at some point in time, and no longer do? In other words, suppose there is a state (say, state X), and that state has been taken over by other peoples, who turned it into their own state (say, state Y). If I am not misunderstanding your statement, as soon as X turns into Y, the original peoples no longer have a right to it.<br /><br />My point is that since most states used to be other peoples' states at some point, we probably have to get into discussing other factors, in order to understand whether peoples' have a right to a certain state, instead of just making absolute statements about peoples' rights to states based on the current situation. <br /><br />These details will probably have to include the temporal window of how long it takes for a state to be considered a rightful state of the peoples' before it becomes the right of the conquerors (1 day?, 4 weeks?...67 years?...etc,..). And also probably the worlds' consensus of (which, like you mentioned, should matter) regarding which state belongs to which peoples (this will inevitably have to do with the temporal window after the transition and the way in which the transition happened). There is also the nitty-gritty how the definition of an abstract "state" corresponds to all the various forms of "statehood" within the confines of international law (ie. colony, republic, land, country, etc,..).<br /><br />I am getting into all this, because I think that the temporal window from when the Palestinian people considered certain territory to be their own is too short, and other dynamics are too important to be ignored, to conclude that they do not have a "right" to a "state" (in an abstract sense), merely based on the fact that they currently do not have one.Arkadiyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16744498873262733822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3579003483038593135.post-87572326305840798562014-07-25T16:27:44.749-04:002014-07-25T16:27:44.749-04:00Oldie but goodie:
http://wirecuttertexas.org/thr...Oldie but goodie: <br /><br />http://wirecuttertexas.org/three-strategies-for-successful-conversations/Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16120521670068323052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3579003483038593135.post-40022519302769078652014-07-25T16:24:57.566-04:002014-07-25T16:24:57.566-04:00One other thing, and I know you know this, but it ...One other thing, and I know you know this, but it bears repeating. Listening -- for as long as people need to grieve, rage, be heard -- is more effective than arguing. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16120521670068323052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3579003483038593135.post-23410971521092827942014-07-25T16:10:23.788-04:002014-07-25T16:10:23.788-04:00I am so glad Mimi posted this blog. You're ve...I am so glad Mimi posted this blog. You're very smart and these notes toward a conversation are very helpful! <br /><br />Regarding "some thoughts on discourse": I think I see things a little differently than you do<br /><br />- the purpose of argument <br /> <br />I believe that the purpose of arguing is to <i>sometimes</i> convince someone....but a lot of times trying to convince someone is not the arguer's "real" purpose. I say this about myself, sometimes, and also about other people.<br /><br />Sometimes the underlying purpose is playing a part/grandstanding/positioning oneself, exactly as you pointed out at the beginning: "I'm the kind of person who thinks X"; "I'm a 'progressive,'" "I'm a radical,"; "I'm hot"; or whatever whatever. <br /><br />AKA, "this is MY fire hydrant." <br /><br />There seems to be a lot of this going on in electoral politics, radio, TV, and at least some graduate programs (I imagine it's far worse in anthropology than electrical engineering, but I've never been in an electrical engineering seminar. Do electrical engineers have seminars? That's how little I know!)<br /><br />Sometimes the purpose for arguing might be translated as "I want you to like me" or "I want you to see me as a friend [or ally]." Actually, those are also motives for silence or insincere assent. <br /><br />In my current incarnation as a lawyer, sometimes I make arguments that I know full well will not convince the judge, but I make them to put some kind of political or moral pressure (shame) on my legal adversary. Or I make an argument I know I will lose to "preserve the error" on appeal. <br /><br />Or I make an argument I know I will lose because it is the right thing to do. Sadly, this is happening to me a lot lately.<br /><br />In life (as opposed to the law), I like what Grace Paley's character says in "Wants": "I don't argue when there's real disagreement." She may be referring to people who don't share the same universe, though -- just as you've said.<br /><br />Sometimes argument is simply play, or play for one person. I don't think that's the case here, with Israel and Palestine, I don't think anyone's having fun. But there are "just for fun" arguments -- I've had those with my kids. <br />--<br />"Saying that everyone in a particular community believes something to be true is more a statement about the community than about the truth value of the proposition."<br /><br />Yes, but such a statement is even <i>more</i> about the speaker who makes the claim. <br />-- <br />Thanks, and I do hope you write more!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16120521670068323052noreply@blogger.com