Huh? I never said that they were homogeneous entities. It was a deliberate simplification. In fact I quite agree with what you have stated above. What I really should have written is that all factors will have to come together in compromise in order to reach a viable solution.
Sorry if I didn't pick up that your simplification was intentional. I guess your intention was a bit too subtle for me to pick up on.
Given that you keep on banging on about being realistic, then to form realistic solutions requires taking a real look at the problem without any simplifications.
And given that you believe realism rules, then in bringing all factors together, are you suggesting bringing "Al-Qaeda in Palestine" (or whatever they want to be called), Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah, and all the other supposed representations of Palestinians with the Israeli Labour Party, Meretz, Kadima, Yisrael Beiteinu, Likud, Agudat Yisrael, HaTorah, Shas, Taal, Balad and leaders of the settler movement along with all the other supposed representations of Israelis? Given your championing of being realistic, this is quite an achievement you're envisaging.
Its exactly what you're saying. You're saying that in 1967, Palestinians should have be smart and compromised and accepted that everything stolen from 1948 should be kept by the thief.
Double negative in my statement means ...
Means what?
Because as you say, Palestinians in 1967 should have let the thief keep everything from 1948. You are saying it is Palestinains fault that they have lost so much. It's an argument devoid of justice. Israel steals something. Palestinians refuse to compromise and say they want it back, Israel steals more, and somehow it's all Palestinians' fault.
If a woman is captured by a rapist, who demands vaginal sex, should she compromise and offer oral sex, or if she refuses, should she then be blamed that she then ends up being anally raped?
Wow!
We are talking states here not people.
And states are made up of people, who are themselves responsible (and presumably accountable) for the actions of the state. How does the morality differ?
The theft of individuals' property was performed by individuals under the guise of a state. The same rules of justice apply I'm afraid to say. Just because the injustice has been collectivised does not change the principles of justice in analysing the situation.
So here it is again for you: If a woman is captured by a rapist, who demands vaginal sex, should she compromise and offer oral sex, or if she refuses, should she then be blamed that she then ends up being anally raped? Yes or No?
There isn't going to be justice in this case - only various degrees of injustice.
And why is that?
Hopefully the bodycount is going to be kept low by the time a solution is agreed upon. But I'm not holding mu breath.
Bodycount is one measure of injustice. It is not the only one.
Again, not addressing the issue (even less this time than the last time you tried to pull that one)
Is justice relative
Absolutely!
So you don't believe in any sort of absolute notion of "human rights"?
Court of law?
I was thinking more along the lines of a really good psychiatrist or at least somebody who understands the symbolic nature of the problem.
Right, so when a woman is anally raped for refusing to compromise in the demand for vaginal sex with oral sex, you think the sole solution is for the woman and the rapist is to each see a good psychiatrist, so that the can understand the symbolic nature of the event?
So if theft of land is a symbolic problem, can you please give an example of a material or tangible problem.
Topic: Isrealis attack Aid Convoy ships