Thomas Riggins
Some philosophical reflections: 1) " Mr. Goodman argues, both remaining in the West Bank and leaving it could spell the end of the Zionist project." This is a paradox he has discovered as a result of trying to maintain a mono-ethnic or religious state when there are two ethnic/religious groups involved. It is a function of philosophy to resolve paradoxes so it appears the conclusion is to abandon the Zionist project.
2) "Mr. Goodman lives in the settlement of Kfar Adumim, but “I would rather not be called a settler,” he said. “It’s where I live, not who I am.”" This appears to be an example of what Sartre called "mauvaise foi" (bad faith). He is certainly not just a settler but he is choosing to live on other people's land taken by conquest and colonized by his group and he is a "settler" despite his druthers.
3) "The occupation does not lead to a lack of morality,” he wrote. “The occupation itself is immoral." The occupation is the logical result of trying to maintain the paradox discussed in 1) and the logical implication is that Zionism itself is immoral (as is, perhaps, any philosophy based on religious or ethnic exclusivity).
4) He seeks to “shrink the amount of occupation without dramatically shrinking the amount of security for Israelis.” If the occupation qua occupation is immoral this solution amounts to shrinking the amount of immorality. But it is a goal of philosophy (ethics) to eliminate immorality not justify its perpetuation.
5) Conclusion: The present security of Israel has resulted in an immoral occupation of another people's land and must be ended. The security of Israel can be assured by a guarantee of a condominium of the Great Powers and the UN to protect the existence of the Israeli state in an analogous way as Kuwait was protected from an invasion by Iraq. Hypothesis: A deeper study would reveal all attempts to justify Israeli behavior on the grounds of "security" are bogus and are really motivated by racism and a desire to dispossess a militarily weaker people of their land and liberty; this behavior is analogous to the treatment of native Americans by the US government.
Some philosophical reflections: 1) " Mr. Goodman argues, both remaining in the West Bank and leaving it could spell the end of the Zionist project." This is a paradox he has discovered as a result of trying to maintain a mono-ethnic or religious state when there are two ethnic/religious groups involved. It is a function of philosophy to resolve paradoxes so it appears the conclusion is to abandon the Zionist project.
2) "Mr. Goodman lives in the settlement of Kfar Adumim, but “I would rather not be called a settler,” he said. “It’s where I live, not who I am.”" This appears to be an example of what Sartre called "mauvaise foi" (bad faith). He is certainly not just a settler but he is choosing to live on other people's land taken by conquest and colonized by his group and he is a "settler" despite his druthers.
3) "The occupation does not lead to a lack of morality,” he wrote. “The occupation itself is immoral." The occupation is the logical result of trying to maintain the paradox discussed in 1) and the logical implication is that Zionism itself is immoral (as is, perhaps, any philosophy based on religious or ethnic exclusivity).
4) He seeks to “shrink the amount of occupation without dramatically shrinking the amount of security for Israelis.” If the occupation qua occupation is immoral this solution amounts to shrinking the amount of immorality. But it is a goal of philosophy (ethics) to eliminate immorality not justify its perpetuation.
5) Conclusion: The present security of Israel has resulted in an immoral occupation of another people's land and must be ended. The security of Israel can be assured by a guarantee of a condominium of the Great Powers and the UN to protect the existence of the Israeli state in an analogous way as Kuwait was protected from an invasion by Iraq. Hypothesis: A deeper study would reveal all attempts to justify Israeli behavior on the grounds of "security" are bogus and are really motivated by racism and a desire to dispossess a militarily weaker people of their land and liberty; this behavior is analogous to the treatment of native Americans by the US government.
No comments:
Post a Comment