G,
Sorry to hear about your health and family trouble. I hope everything is
fine now. I agree to your reading; though I can hardly see myself as an
advocate I'll try my best.
A
--- On Tue, 7/29/08, Alex P. Real <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I eagerly await further comments on the Jewish side.
===============
Upon entering a town Napoleon was supposed to be greeted
by cannon salvos. Once none was fired to greet him and,
furious, he summoned the mayor who pleaded:
-For not having fired cannon salvos we had, Sire, forty
reasons:
1.we have no cannons ... -
-Enough.- said l'Empereur.
For leaving you such a long time without answer I had
several reasons:
1.I did not know what to say.
-Enough.- would have said Napoleon, but not being him I'll
give one or two more.
I had health and family problems which thwarted my
aptitude to concentrate.
I was additionally distracted by a dissonant uproar on
the list. Periodically a newbie or an old-timer suffering
a crisis of soul awakening erupts in a fierce tale told
by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
We are now amidst such particularly violent eruption
of a rabid newbie seconded by a bandwagon of impressed
sheep. Those eruptions usually whirl idly for a few weeks
and vanish without a trace, passing by me as the idle
wind, which I respect not.I preferred to wait till this
whirlwind ebbs before resuming our discussion.
Back to my 1. It's not that I had nothing to say, but
rather so much, that I did not know what to chose. And I
have reservations to the "Jewish side". First, I'd prefer
to call it subsequently the "Israeli side".
Then, as we talk about
the conflict, we must always keep both sides in view.
So, maybe a "Israeli-" and "Palestinian view of the
conflict"? Yet, it would be a static, unrelated
juxtaposition, not compared, nor evaluated.
On the other hand there would be several views on both
sides, again juxtaposed without comparison and evaluation.
Who would evaluate them within and between the sides?
We have no mandate and would probably disagree on some
points.
The only constructuve way I can see, would be to grant
ourselves the mandate of advocates of one and the other
side and argue the respective causes between ourselves.
I would of course argue for Israel, but, having more
direct experience with Palestine than you, I'd play
occasionally advocatus diaboli, assisting you in less
clear cases.
What about it?
Georges.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
