We shouldn’t be misled by suggestions that the Palestine issue is problem of Muslims only, since all sorts of people occupy that region, and are even capable of getting along if they are permitted. Suggesting this ancient, land occupancy issue is delineated by religion is disingenuous.
We shouldn’t be misled by suggestions that the Palestine issue is problem of Muslims only, since all sorts of people occupy that region, and are even capable of getting along if they are permitted. Suggesting this ancient, land occupancy issue is delineated by religion is disingenuous.
Equating religion and race is another false representation that is used to keep conflicts going.
It’s time for people of conscience to stop playing along with those who fuel interminable war by setting up conflicts, and keeping people mad at each other. I see all of them as useful “tools” of intelligence community and corrupt leaders who are known for throwing away the “tools” when they’re no longer useful.
I'm not suggesting Palestine is a problem of Muslims. I'm saying that it's the front line in the battle of empire vs. sovereignty, the only war there's ever been. If you don't care about Palestine, then you are willing to go along with empire when it suits you. And if you say you believe in your own sovereignty, yet don't object when you're the empire, you are ethically inconsistent--which is redundant, since ethics are consistency.
I explained my system for determining my moral positions in my reply to Mary. I showed why Occupied Palestine, aka Israel, is consistent with my ethical system as the most important issue, since ethics is not what's done to us but what we do to others. You've yet to explain your ethical system and how you determine what positions you take a stand on. Since you started this by claiming those who pay attention to Palestine are morally inconsistent and only virtue signaling, please clarify the system of morality you're consistent with.
You inserted "Muslim is the new Black into this Palestine discussion. Why?
I contest your claim that 'empire vs sovereignty' is 'the only war that's ever been.' War is usually about stealing other people's stuff, and/or enslaving them. In few individual cases does it progress to empire building. That requires a longer attention span than most people have.
Between Israel (which is corrupt) and the corrupt organization that has been running the Palestinians, I see no good side to take. The aid that goes to Palestine falls into the hands of these billionaire corruptocrats. I do see most of the western world funding both sides in some way or the other, and preventing resolution. Currently I see the conflict between Hamas and Israel as the thing that has exacerbated just in time in to take our attention off of extreme criminality and corruption that preceded, and then fed into the Ukraine war. We are also not to see who destroyed the Nordstream pipeline, are not to remember the 20 year debacle of the U.S. in Afghanistan, and are not to pay attention to China's activities in the South Pacific, and plans for Taiwan. Most significantly for the U.S., the people within are not to see that they are ruled by a faceless oligarchy, and that the elected figureheads exercise little to no executive power nor decision making.
My ethical system is 'first of all do no harm'. (So of course I had to leave health care, which no longer allows for ethically practicing within that system. )
Any people should clean up their own house before they start telling others how to clean theirs. The house of the U.S.A. is absolutely filthy, starting at the top, and therefore neither it nor its people have any moral authority to be meddling in the affairs of other countries.
Since Israel first occupied Palestine, the US has given over $300B in foreign aid, most of it military: https://www.cfr.org/article/us-aid-israel-four-charts. The current Pres debates were over which candidate would give the most money to Israel. Netanyahu got 58 standing ovations in Congress. So I agree with you on 'first do no harm.' No one wants the US to 'clean Israel's house.' We want to stop paying for a genocide that couldn't happen if we weren't funding it.
I don't understand how China's activities in the South Pacific and plans for Taiwan fit your ethical system to clean up your own house. Do you live there?
Who do you think the faceless oligarchy are who rule the US? $300B might be a clue. If you think they're faceless, you don't know. I don't think you should be telling other people they're morally inconsistent and virtue signaling when you haven't put in the time to know who's pulling the strings and corrupting the US system, or whose interest 911 and the 20 yr war in Afghanistan has served.
So far, what I have gathered from your posts here is that you favor Palestine over Israel. You wish for Israel to be defunded, but don't mention this with respect to Palestine. I don't favor either one over the other. Both are led by very corrupt groups.
After I merely pointed out that there are other, larger conflicts going on in the world than your focus of interest, you assigned some of the observations of facts to my ethical system. Why?
Why did you initially insert the "Muslims are the new Black" statement into this topic? (I didn't forget).
Why did you, without evidence, accuse me of not putting in the time to understand who is pulling the strings and corrupting the U.S. system?
There has been no debate between the current presidential candidates as of 8-30-2024, therefore no debate between them about how much to fund Israel, (or whether to keep funding Palestine and Hamas and Iran). Therefore your claim about "current presidential debates" is not based upon reality.
That being said, I expect that the "intelligence community" will insist upon keeping money flow to both sides of the conflict, and have all sorts of compromat regarding the pertinent governmental figureheads to ensure that the flow continues.
I appreciate your help in demonstrating how to develop a consistent ethical framework. I've been copying our conversation into an article I'm working on regarding Kennedy. Would you prefer that I include your e-name, if others want to respond, or just link back to here?
What I talk about is systematic debate, starting with defining the question and why it matters, and then defining all the terms within it. I mentioned 'Muslim is the New Black' as the title of a radio episode I did 12 yrs ago, during the Israeli Operation Cast Lead, to show Mary that this wasn't a new concern for me. But it's not the topic we're debating.
You stated that those to whom Palestine is an issue are morally inconsistent and virtue signaling. 'The Palestine issue' means ending US military support for Israel. You stated your ethical framework as 'First, do no harm.' So the question is whether NOT ending US military support for Israel is morally inconsistent with 'First do no harm.'
Defining terms, 'First' would mean that this would be your priority for actions, donations or endorsements that you take. 'Do', to me, means not only direct actions to physically harm someone but those you pay for through your taxes and support with your voice and your votes. 'No' seems self-explanatory. And 'Harm' is something I quantified in my first response to Mary by what I would least want to have happen to my daughters, starting with torture, being buried alive under rubble, being starved to death, or anally gang-raped.
I showed you irrefutable proof that the US supports Israel causing these harms militarily with $300B and escalating, and politically with 58 standing ovations in Congress. You've said the 'intelligence community' is sending money to Palestine but have given no evidence for that. Even if it was covertly true, what we as taxpayers and voters endorse is what candidates campaign on. Bobby Kennedy has said that he'd do whatever it takes to help Israel and Trump is assembling his 'Zionist Dream Team,' which I'll be writing about in my article. You're splitting hairs to say that Kamala and Trump haven't debated, so you don't know how much money she'd give to Israel. Mary's post is on whether we should endorse Bobby and therefore Trump, and we know his views from the debate with Biden.
What I said: “Palestinians have become the current vehicle for morally inconsistent people to virtue signal. “
What you say I said: “You stated that those to whom Palestine is an issue are morally inconsistent and virtue signaling.”
These statements are not the same.
Therefore you lied about what I said.
You also imposed your definition of the Palestinian issue limited to “ending US military support for Israel”, on my statement. My definition of the Palestinian issue encompasses the entire history of the region.
Since you are not accurate in quoting nor paraphrasing what I say, you do not have my permission to carry my content elsewhere. I find your misstatements of what I say to be prohibitive to the so called effort to construct consistent ethical frameworks, and do not wish to collaborate or associate with you, nor engage what is at best, word salad, and at worst willful dissembling.
I didn't ask your permission, weedom. You posted in a public venue. But I will extend the courtesy of changing your name to a different pseudonym, if you don't want to be associated with what you've said. I've copy-and-pasted your comments so they are accurate quotes. Readers or listeners can decide for themselves if my paraphrase is dissembling or word salad.
When you wrote, "Palestinians have become the current vehicle for morally inconsistent people to virtue signal" it was in response to my comment talking about: "the sacrifice of Palestinian children," that Bobby "could have stood up for Palestine," "no candidate is anti-war when they say they'll do whatever it takes to defend Israel" and "Israel is engaged in genocide."
You weren't making a generic comment, you were telling me I was morally inconsistent in a third-person roundabout way. And I certainly wasn't talking about the history of the region, I was talking about US military support for genocide.
You're insulting, not just me, but all the people who oppose US support for Israel. Some of these have been expelled from college without the degrees they paid for. Some have lost jobs. Some have been beaten and injured. Some journalists have been imprisoned. They've lost the freedom to travel, homes have been raided, and criminal charges filed against them ... for journalism.
And you have the nerve to smugly call this virtue signaling. And to have compete confidence that you're right until you realize other people won't see it that way. I publish my comments under my own name and I stand behind them. If you don't want to defend your position, that's your prerogative. But to insult me and others and then forbid me to quote you is not a choice you have.
Here's what I posted as a comment in Tereza's most recent piece: "I've been struggling with how to respond to the back-and-forth that I "hosted" in my comment section. My instinct is to step in and try to build a bridge, to clear up what I view as misunderstandings between parties. But I also know that it's not, actually, my responsibility to do so.
But what I've come to believe dovetails with what you [Tonika, of Visceral Adventure] said at the end of your comment: "To move on, we need to agree that harming anyone is not the path forward, controlling anything is not the path forward, leaving anyone resentful is not the path forward."
I don't need or want to convince anyone of anything. I used to, but I don't anymore. I want to find common ground. The "path forward" requires a joining of hearts -- even if our minds can't find communion.
We shouldn’t be misled by suggestions that the Palestine issue is problem of Muslims only, since all sorts of people occupy that region, and are even capable of getting along if they are permitted. Suggesting this ancient, land occupancy issue is delineated by religion is disingenuous.
Equating religion and race is another false representation that is used to keep conflicts going.
It’s time for people of conscience to stop playing along with those who fuel interminable war by setting up conflicts, and keeping people mad at each other. I see all of them as useful “tools” of intelligence community and corrupt leaders who are known for throwing away the “tools” when they’re no longer useful.
I'm not suggesting Palestine is a problem of Muslims. I'm saying that it's the front line in the battle of empire vs. sovereignty, the only war there's ever been. If you don't care about Palestine, then you are willing to go along with empire when it suits you. And if you say you believe in your own sovereignty, yet don't object when you're the empire, you are ethically inconsistent--which is redundant, since ethics are consistency.
I explained my system for determining my moral positions in my reply to Mary. I showed why Occupied Palestine, aka Israel, is consistent with my ethical system as the most important issue, since ethics is not what's done to us but what we do to others. You've yet to explain your ethical system and how you determine what positions you take a stand on. Since you started this by claiming those who pay attention to Palestine are morally inconsistent and only virtue signaling, please clarify the system of morality you're consistent with.
You inserted "Muslim is the new Black into this Palestine discussion. Why?
I contest your claim that 'empire vs sovereignty' is 'the only war that's ever been.' War is usually about stealing other people's stuff, and/or enslaving them. In few individual cases does it progress to empire building. That requires a longer attention span than most people have.
Between Israel (which is corrupt) and the corrupt organization that has been running the Palestinians, I see no good side to take. The aid that goes to Palestine falls into the hands of these billionaire corruptocrats. I do see most of the western world funding both sides in some way or the other, and preventing resolution. Currently I see the conflict between Hamas and Israel as the thing that has exacerbated just in time in to take our attention off of extreme criminality and corruption that preceded, and then fed into the Ukraine war. We are also not to see who destroyed the Nordstream pipeline, are not to remember the 20 year debacle of the U.S. in Afghanistan, and are not to pay attention to China's activities in the South Pacific, and plans for Taiwan. Most significantly for the U.S., the people within are not to see that they are ruled by a faceless oligarchy, and that the elected figureheads exercise little to no executive power nor decision making.
My ethical system is 'first of all do no harm'. (So of course I had to leave health care, which no longer allows for ethically practicing within that system. )
Any people should clean up their own house before they start telling others how to clean theirs. The house of the U.S.A. is absolutely filthy, starting at the top, and therefore neither it nor its people have any moral authority to be meddling in the affairs of other countries.
Since Israel first occupied Palestine, the US has given over $300B in foreign aid, most of it military: https://www.cfr.org/article/us-aid-israel-four-charts. The current Pres debates were over which candidate would give the most money to Israel. Netanyahu got 58 standing ovations in Congress. So I agree with you on 'first do no harm.' No one wants the US to 'clean Israel's house.' We want to stop paying for a genocide that couldn't happen if we weren't funding it.
As Mary can attest, I have a pretty good attention span and can hold more than one thing in mind at a time. Here's my article on who destroyed the Nordstream: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/nord-streams-and-the-bagel-of-doom. I have several on Ukraine, here are two: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/the-west-vs-the-rest and https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/zelensky-howls-at-the-nato-moon.
I don't understand how China's activities in the South Pacific and plans for Taiwan fit your ethical system to clean up your own house. Do you live there?
Who do you think the faceless oligarchy are who rule the US? $300B might be a clue. If you think they're faceless, you don't know. I don't think you should be telling other people they're morally inconsistent and virtue signaling when you haven't put in the time to know who's pulling the strings and corrupting the US system, or whose interest 911 and the 20 yr war in Afghanistan has served.
So far, what I have gathered from your posts here is that you favor Palestine over Israel. You wish for Israel to be defunded, but don't mention this with respect to Palestine. I don't favor either one over the other. Both are led by very corrupt groups.
After I merely pointed out that there are other, larger conflicts going on in the world than your focus of interest, you assigned some of the observations of facts to my ethical system. Why?
Why did you initially insert the "Muslims are the new Black" statement into this topic? (I didn't forget).
Why did you, without evidence, accuse me of not putting in the time to understand who is pulling the strings and corrupting the U.S. system?
There has been no debate between the current presidential candidates as of 8-30-2024, therefore no debate between them about how much to fund Israel, (or whether to keep funding Palestine and Hamas and Iran). Therefore your claim about "current presidential debates" is not based upon reality.
That being said, I expect that the "intelligence community" will insist upon keeping money flow to both sides of the conflict, and have all sorts of compromat regarding the pertinent governmental figureheads to ensure that the flow continues.
I appreciate your help in demonstrating how to develop a consistent ethical framework. I've been copying our conversation into an article I'm working on regarding Kennedy. Would you prefer that I include your e-name, if others want to respond, or just link back to here?
What I talk about is systematic debate, starting with defining the question and why it matters, and then defining all the terms within it. I mentioned 'Muslim is the New Black' as the title of a radio episode I did 12 yrs ago, during the Israeli Operation Cast Lead, to show Mary that this wasn't a new concern for me. But it's not the topic we're debating.
You stated that those to whom Palestine is an issue are morally inconsistent and virtue signaling. 'The Palestine issue' means ending US military support for Israel. You stated your ethical framework as 'First, do no harm.' So the question is whether NOT ending US military support for Israel is morally inconsistent with 'First do no harm.'
Defining terms, 'First' would mean that this would be your priority for actions, donations or endorsements that you take. 'Do', to me, means not only direct actions to physically harm someone but those you pay for through your taxes and support with your voice and your votes. 'No' seems self-explanatory. And 'Harm' is something I quantified in my first response to Mary by what I would least want to have happen to my daughters, starting with torture, being buried alive under rubble, being starved to death, or anally gang-raped.
I showed you irrefutable proof that the US supports Israel causing these harms militarily with $300B and escalating, and politically with 58 standing ovations in Congress. You've said the 'intelligence community' is sending money to Palestine but have given no evidence for that. Even if it was covertly true, what we as taxpayers and voters endorse is what candidates campaign on. Bobby Kennedy has said that he'd do whatever it takes to help Israel and Trump is assembling his 'Zionist Dream Team,' which I'll be writing about in my article. You're splitting hairs to say that Kamala and Trump haven't debated, so you don't know how much money she'd give to Israel. Mary's post is on whether we should endorse Bobby and therefore Trump, and we know his views from the debate with Biden.
What I said: “Palestinians have become the current vehicle for morally inconsistent people to virtue signal. “
What you say I said: “You stated that those to whom Palestine is an issue are morally inconsistent and virtue signaling.”
These statements are not the same.
Therefore you lied about what I said.
You also imposed your definition of the Palestinian issue limited to “ending US military support for Israel”, on my statement. My definition of the Palestinian issue encompasses the entire history of the region.
Since you are not accurate in quoting nor paraphrasing what I say, you do not have my permission to carry my content elsewhere. I find your misstatements of what I say to be prohibitive to the so called effort to construct consistent ethical frameworks, and do not wish to collaborate or associate with you, nor engage what is at best, word salad, and at worst willful dissembling.
I didn't ask your permission, weedom. You posted in a public venue. But I will extend the courtesy of changing your name to a different pseudonym, if you don't want to be associated with what you've said. I've copy-and-pasted your comments so they are accurate quotes. Readers or listeners can decide for themselves if my paraphrase is dissembling or word salad.
When you wrote, "Palestinians have become the current vehicle for morally inconsistent people to virtue signal" it was in response to my comment talking about: "the sacrifice of Palestinian children," that Bobby "could have stood up for Palestine," "no candidate is anti-war when they say they'll do whatever it takes to defend Israel" and "Israel is engaged in genocide."
You weren't making a generic comment, you were telling me I was morally inconsistent in a third-person roundabout way. And I certainly wasn't talking about the history of the region, I was talking about US military support for genocide.
You're insulting, not just me, but all the people who oppose US support for Israel. Some of these have been expelled from college without the degrees they paid for. Some have lost jobs. Some have been beaten and injured. Some journalists have been imprisoned. They've lost the freedom to travel, homes have been raided, and criminal charges filed against them ... for journalism.
And you have the nerve to smugly call this virtue signaling. And to have compete confidence that you're right until you realize other people won't see it that way. I publish my comments under my own name and I stand behind them. If you don't want to defend your position, that's your prerogative. But to insult me and others and then forbid me to quote you is not a choice you have.
Here's what I posted as a comment in Tereza's most recent piece: "I've been struggling with how to respond to the back-and-forth that I "hosted" in my comment section. My instinct is to step in and try to build a bridge, to clear up what I view as misunderstandings between parties. But I also know that it's not, actually, my responsibility to do so.
But what I've come to believe dovetails with what you [Tonika, of Visceral Adventure] said at the end of your comment: "To move on, we need to agree that harming anyone is not the path forward, controlling anything is not the path forward, leaving anyone resentful is not the path forward."
I don't need or want to convince anyone of anything. I used to, but I don't anymore. I want to find common ground. The "path forward" requires a joining of hearts -- even if our minds can't find communion.