ISRAEL: Most Hated Country in the World?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Because you're never going to convince someone of something if he recognizes different axioms than you.

The point is to state ones axioms, in the hope the other person will see the folly of the axioms they follow. Anyone unwilling to listen to the others arguments will never change their mind, regardless of whatever the other person says.

I doubt Siro and I will ever agree on the idea of nationalism. He is obviously a devout follower of it, and as I said I find it immoral. That simple.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by GePap
The point is to state ones axioms, in the hope the other person will see the folly of the axioms they follow. Anyone unwilling to listen to the others arguments will never change their mind, regardless of whatever the other person says.

Your ideas have been heard, weighed, and dismissed as a "pernicious, psycopathic form of idiocy." The difference between that and GBS' evaluation of patriotism is that nationalism works.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
The point is to state ones axioms, in the hope the other person will see the folly of the axioms they follow.

Anyone unwilling to listen to the others arguments will never change their mind, regardless of whatever the other person says.

What did that have to do with the previous sentence?

[Cort Haus]

GePap, you say you oppose all nationalism. Do you support the concept of national liberation?

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by GePap
You seem to be utterly incapable of understanding the fact that I do not view self-determination as being tied whatsover to the notion of ehtnicity or "nation." Self-determination means people being able to chose their own governance. Any system that would reserve that right for made up groups (aka "nations") is a system I do not support. That is the greatness of the EU, slowly fighting an hopefully in the far future finally defeating that nationalist claptrap.

I'm glad we finally reached discussing axioms. This means we could eventually agree to disagree, both understanding each other's view.

What is your grudge with nationalism?

Nationalism is not necessarily based on ethnicity, but rather on a common ethos. Americans have an ethos and values - they are hardly a homogenous ethnical bunch.

Israeli Jews have rather different ethnicities, dozens of different religious streams. They are bound together by very old ideas of tradition and a common-feeling, which is what nationalism really is.

If you grant self governance to everyone, on what basis will people decide to divide?

Can a person self govern? Can a building? A city block? A neighborhood?

If not - then what is the minimum requirement for a bunch of people to self govern?

If suddenly a group of people what self determination and self governance, on a territory previously belonging to a larger "self governing" group, then what? Who decides who gets what? What if they get into a brawl over conflicting interests?

And finally - if you have a bunch of people , united by what ever, that want to self govern and define themselves according to values they share... what other name would you call them, if not "a nation"? And what would be the difference in your eyes?

And you are historically wrong about when Arab nationalism began anyways.

I go by what I read and what I was taught in different places.
You're welcome to enlighten me if you are familiar with a different history. Saying I'm wrong without either proof or at least a competing narrative is not convincing.

[Sirotnikov]

I doubt Siro and I will ever agree on the idea of nationalism. He is obviously a devout follower of it, and as I said I find it immoral. That simple.

I actually find nationalism the most moral way because it promises a good stability, and protection for the common person. I also think it is much more like human nature to congregate in groups (based on faith / values / ethos) that eventually become nations.

I also believe that common interests (and especially - common outside threats) can drive smaller nations to unite. I believe that in the in the future, human kind might unite given there's an outside threat (end of the galaxy / alien invaders / apocalypse).

[Kidlicious]

I think if it weren't for nationalism people might not be so stupid.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I think if it weren't for nationalism people might not be so stupid.

and from this

Originally posted by Kidicious
I don't think the fact that there aren't enough smart people is a cause of the problems in society. ****, a lot of smart people are the cause.

We can infer that Kid approves of nationalism.

[Kidlicious]

Stupid is what stupid does.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
[ about Fatah being backed by Syria.
I'm not aware of a major Syrian involvement in that, and had always seen the Syrian interest in Jordan in 1970, as merely opportunism rather than a campaign.

I will check my own sources but I'll gladly accept reference and some more explanation about the subject.

Im not talking in 1970, by which time the Egytian puppet PLO had been taken over by Arafat and Fatah, IIUC. Im talking about in '65, '66, and early '67, leading up to the Six Day War. Syria was backing fedayeen raids by Fatah FROM the West Bank, as a way to both strike at Israel and to embarrass Jordan, among other things. See Michael Oren, The Six Day War.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Sorry LoTM, but the crimes of others do not absolve anyone of their own crimes.

You seem to be utterly incapable of understanding the fact that I do not view self-determination as being tied whatsover to the notion of ehtnicity or "nation." Self-determination means people being able to chose their own governance. Any system that would reserve that right for made up groups (aka "nations") is a system I do not support. That is the greatness of the EU, slowly fighting an hopefully in the far future finally defeating that nationalist claptrap.

I think DanS would like to self determine himself out of the US, and establish his own state, where he would be free of taxation Well, maybe DanS wouldnt in fact cause hes to tied in to the US economy. But someone who discovered an oil well, or diamond mine on his property, might well do that. Thats pretty much the story of Katanga, for ex, and has been a fear in many parts of Africa, and is an issue in Bolivia today. Self-determination would be simply a tool for whover lucked out in terms of national resources. It would be absolutely unworkable.

The EU is of course a grouping that has been formed voluntarily by preexisting soveriegn nations. It doesnt admit any group, much less invidiual person, who says "I want self-determination".

And yes, Im quite clear that your views on self-determination are your own. However you stated earlier something to the effect that those who established the League's Palestine mandate were hypocritically denying to the Pals what they considered a right for Europeans. That is false, as I have demonstrated. That they failed to agree with GePaps views, that they failed to despise nationalism as you do, is neither here not there.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

If you grant self governance to everyone, on what basis will people decide to divide?

Can a person self govern?

Yes, Bill Gates can, and then he can deny any state the right to tax his holdings, he can move his assets into any other state he wants, without a by your leave from any states hes the resident of.

Rich folks already try to do this, and to use tax havens, and such, but this would open up many more such possibilities, and would be especially helpful to folks who have fixed assets that cant easily be moved to a tax haven.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Im not talking in 1970, by which time the Egytian puppet PLO had been taken over by Arafat and Fatah, IIUC. Im talking about in '65, '66, and early '67, leading up to the Six Day War. Syria was backing fedayeen raids by Fatah FROM the West Bank, as a way to both strike at Israel and to embarrass Jordan, among other things. See Michael Oren, The Six Day War.

I wouldn't compare the influence Egypt had on the PLO in its early days, with the influence of Syria on Fatah prior to their resettlement in Lebanon.

PLO was IMO practically a tool (that went out of control).
Fatah was always independent.

But I will read up on that in my sources. I hope I remember that tomorrow.

[Sirotnikov]

Yes, Bill Gates can, and then he can deny any state the right to tax his holdings, he can move his assets into any other state he wants, without a by your leave from any states hes the resident of.

Rich folks already try to do this, and to use tax havens, and such, but this would open up many more such possibilities, and would be especially helpful to folks who have fixed assets that cant easily be moved to a tax haven.

I'm not talking about filthy rich folkes.

I'm talking about a principle.

Can Bill Gates set up his own state in the middle of the USA? Can he get away with being king? Can he get away with murder?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

I wouldn't compare the influence Egypt had on the PLO in its early days, with the influence of Syria on Fatah prior to their resettlement in Lebanon.

PLO was IMO practically a tool (that went out of control).
Fatah was always independent.

But I will read up on that in my sources. I hope I remember that tomorrow.

IIUC the pre-June PLO was based in Egyptian Occupied Gaza, and was very much a tool of Egypt. And Fatah may have been more independent, but was still closely aligned with Damascus.