The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict . . . What Is the Solution? by Yaron Brook
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- Central to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the question of whether the state of Israel has a moral right to exist. In this talk Dr. Yaron Brook argues that Israel deserves - but is not receiving - America’s moral and political support; that by sacrificing its loyal ally for the sake of appeasing our common enemies, America is undermining its own war on terrorism.
Recorded December 12, 2002
---
Subscribe to our channel: / subscription_c. .
Headquartered in Irvine, California, ARI offers educational experiences, based on Ayn Rand's books and ideas, to a variety of audiences, including students, educators, policymakers and lifelong learners. ARI also engages in research and advocacy efforts, applying Rand's ideas to current issues and seeking to promote her philosophical principles of reason, rational self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism.
ARI is composed of a dedicated board of directors and an energetic staff of more than 45 people. We invite you to explore how Ayn Rand viewed the world - and to consider the distinctive insights offered by ARI's experts today.
Explore ARI: www.AynRand.org
Follow ARI on Twitter: / aynrandinst
Like ARI on Facebook: / aynrandinstitute
The Palestinians have had countless opportunities for peace as well as to get what they claim they want. The truth is, nothing short of Israel being destroyed will be good enough for them and they have said so publically several times.
Pfft. Not true. They want (along with the UN) a separate state based on the pre 1967 borders. Israel won’t do it. So your statement is blatantly false.
And then Death to America. (They say Israel is the Little Devil, and America, the Big.)
That's racist ... I mean true.
This unfortunately held its validity over 12 years later
This was recorded in 2002.
Loved this talk.
States his case with admirable moral clarity, unapologetic and is not so partial as to call out faults with Israel as well.
Amazing lecture Yaron, thank you. It’s terribly sad that after recent events the world still has yet to learn what needs to be done for peace to be achieved in the Middle East.
Unfortunately you haven’t learnt this isn’t limited to the ME. This is a clash of civilisations, from Chechnya to Kashmir, to Nigeria, to Ireland, Spain, France, Germany, Scotland, Holland, the USA… Find the common thread.
Completely agree with him. I always look at things from both sides in an effort to be objectively fair, but in this case we literally have "good" vs "evil".
Given events of 7 October 2023 and subsequent protests in Western cities, 5 questions:
1. How many Jews live in Palestine or elsewhere in the Arab world?
2. What rights are those Jews afforded in the Arab world?
3. How many Arabs or other minorities live in Israel and of these, how many have held prominent positions in business, finance, politics, sports? Is there an equivalent that exists for minorities in the Arab world?
4. Can a Jew in Israel convert to Islam and continue to have legal right as an Israeli citizen?
5. Is the same 'freedom of religion' available to Palestinians in Gaza or Arabs in the Arab world?
And when you compare the quality of society and its accomplishments in Israel vs all other Islamic countries, what do youbsee?
young Yaron, wow.
Jesse Brennan How dishonest do you have to be to hold your position?
@Jesse Brennan Don't run away from your first comment. Yaron says explicitly that the US shouldn't financially or militarily support Israel, but that instead we should get out of their way. How would that be "allowing American's to die for Israel"?
As for your second comment, who had a legitimate claim to the land before? The arabs didn't.
As for the war in Iraq, Yaron holds the same position I do. It was stupid, but we were every bit morally justified in doing it. Iraq wasn't the real enemy. The war in Iraq was like attacking a footsoldier instead of the general. We should have annihilated Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Jesse Brennan Defend your other comments or were you speaking from ignorance. But I have heard him explicitly say that about the Iraq war.
Jesse Brennan Watch this video. He talks about neoconservatives and Iraq in answer to this question. This question starts around 1:34:50 ruclips.net/video/XBCSi4ERVq0/видео.html
Jesse Brennan It doesn’t matter whether Saddam was a dictator. How is that relevant?
" They do not want your fortune they want you to lose it, They do not want to succeed they want you to fail, They do not want to live, they want you to die"
If that does not sum up the Muslim faith i don't know what does.
Probably the quran or smth, idk
Let's pretend for one second that the wishes of the Palestinian doctrine came to fruition and the Jews and Israel seised to exist.... what becomes of the "Palestinian" people after the formerly Israeli land becomes rationed up between Jordan, Syria, Egypt?
Fantastic talk. I'd like to contribute to the spreading of these ideas
professionally research and delivered, an eye opener to all people who do not know what is going on in this long standing conflict.
Blame the media if you don't know....look to other sources than Yaron Brook
Amazing presentation. Funny. I see yaron I hear yaron but the delivery, structure and cadence sounds like peikoff.
Yaron has never ignored the fact that Peikoff was his intellectual hero and inspired him a lot.
Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel. :)
This has been very educational, and a uniquely different perspective on the conflict, including past history that makes the argument of israel apartheidism both ridiculous and dishonest.
Take you blinders off and read history.
Jesse Brennan Are you a mind-reader?
I NEVER UNDERSTOOD THE WHOLE MIDDLE EAST SITUATION AND NOW I DO
THANK YOU SOOO MUCH
Thanks for all these uploads recently!
02:08:43 predicting 7th of october 23
The source of the problem is the religion which is much more than simply a religion. It’s militaristic, judicial, financial and built for conquest. It cannot exist peacefully alongside other civilisations. Just as we no longer allow nazism in some countries, we shouldn’t allow this Islamist ideology.
Why does the Left always favor EVIL over GOOD / WRONG over RIGHT ? ---> 2:01:42
Evan Sayet also talks about this in many videos here on YT.
You're just silly......I can't control myself! Did GB conspire to attack Iraq? Ummmm yes he did, there goes your argument.
The left are Evil.
Very hard to argue with this perspective.
I feel like he's talking to millions of people, and there's maybe 200 in that whole room...
USS Liberty
which Israel apologized for and paid tens of millions in compensation to the families. You idiots never stop mentioning it. For fuck's sake.
the speaker analogy and explanation was so logical!
Man some of these questioners were rude...
1:05:30 Yes!
Until they remove Islamic fundamentalism, there will be no peace in any part of the world, because Islam claims the entire world as being forever Islam.
If Israel ever becomes secular, not Jewish state, what will happen to the law of return?
So the law of return isn’t based on solely on religion. People with Jewish heritage stemming from at least 1 grandparent are eligible. Jews are an ethno-religion. You can be an atheist and still be considered a Jew. The state of Israel was founded as a safe haven for Jews and as such the law was designed to accommodate for anyone who who would have been prosecuted for their Jewish identity. In Nazi Germany for example, it didn’t matter if you were practicing the religion or not, you would still be condemned. As a side note Jews, israeli culture and the Zionist movement are fairly secular.
7:05 - absolutely love the lady knitting :) what a boss! ;)
Judging by the large reaction of comments saying that there were some things left unsaid about the Islamic regions of the middle east, I do feel as though Yaron's arguments through the first hour were in support of his reasoning for how the needs of Israel ultimately outweigh the needs of their opposition, because they have moral superiority in their goals and actions.
I respect that he does NOT define Israel's aspirations as more important BECAUSE they are anti-Islam, instead that they should be promulgated BECAUSE they are more in sync with the ideals of freedom, liberty and individualism. I do find it to be a bit frustrating that the Israeli fiscal and monetary policies have been progressively socialized for years - they're no better than some of the EU nations that have sacrificed freedom for big governments. Yaron does point out however these issues with Israel (more so in other lectures rather than here), but it sort of diminishes the argument that they should be allowed to expand their reaches as far as they want, so long as the people of the middle east want democracy and western government (that is obviously a totally new issue on it's own...).
For me...I don't know...If there was more evidence of Israel embracing free market reforms and shrinking government control over the economy (if they were like a Bulgaria or Panama kind of) then maybe a lot of non-jewish people would be in support of this cause and sanction those who don't want such a thing to exist in this part of the world. As Yaron describes, the dramatic change in productive output in the former Palestinian lands was clearly a result of better human capital, better utilization of resources. This is something everybody should enjoy and promote, so I am very much inclined to want Israel to continue that. Ultimately it's hard to understand these differing sides, I tend to side with neither as I have no stake in the game and I'm open to different interpretations. I love Yaron Brook's long speeches, I feel like I'm at a 19th century conference listening to some foreign intellectual chanting Hobbesian theory and free market economics, it gets me pumped up in a very strange way.
+Sean Ellis
Your phraseology in the first paragraph is weird. Yaron wouldn't say "Israel's needs outweigh the needs of the Arabs". Need is not a standard in any context for an Objectivist. Israel has a moral claim to exist given that it is a relatively free country. The end. Need doesn't enter into the equation.
1:33:00 - close your mouth when you chew and don't ask questions with your mouth full.
A large part of the blame for the current conflict between Israel and Palestine is attributable to the UN’s failure to establish and maintain clear, immutable, fortified, well-defended borders between Israel and Palestine. It was positively ‘reckless and irresponsible’ for the UN to ‘exit’ the way they did in 1948, thereby leaving the Israelis and Palestinians to fight among themselves.
what could the UN do? The put up a proposal with clear borders. The Jews accepted, the Arabs rejected and started the war that they lost. This resulted in 1948 armistice lines. The Arabs attacked again in 1967 and I guess you know what happened next.
The UN exited as they knew the surrounding Arab countries would push the Jews in the sea. The UN underestimated Israel
Oh really. And why all the persecution of the Jews for the hundreds of years while the UK didn’t even exist, and Britons were living in the dark ages ?
Palestine exists. It was rebadged as Trans-Jordan and then Jordan. Anyone remotely interested in peace would have relocated there. The Jews have a right to at least to the one land that they have had for thousands of years. The Arabs want dozens of countries and yet are happy in none of them. They invaded India, killed enslaved and converted millions, got a piece of India, and still want war for more.
Same in several countries around the world. Insane to think it would stop with the genocide of the Jews. Next are the rest of us. Wake up idiots.
@@lightworker4512 agreed. The UN is immoral.
Damn, Yaron wrecks some of these questioners. Just embarrassing.
excellent talk
Were Owen Jones to see this, his head would explode. Metaphorically of course.
Roughest Q&A i have ever witnessed. Lots of emotions. Not going to say it was handled well.
This fellow is basically a colonialist , right makes right ....
Mr Brook, Are you saying you are for a one state non jewish state solution? If so what should the state be called?
+backroadjunkie USA
he wouldn't care - just that it is free
Freedomlamd would work.
How does this man get younger? Is this what reason does to you?
fabulous speaker :D
Yes if you like the Devil
+Andrea Pennestri you mean God
1:57:00
Facts don't care about your feelings!
Ur comment is not needee😂😂
Great speech
I'm not an objectivist, but I think this conflict is one case where some Randian thinking might be good: Individuals, not "peoples" should have rights, including the right to remain on a house they built or maintained or on land that they have cultivated for generations, the right not to live under a state the favors one ethnic group or another. And individuals, not "peoples" carry blame for their actions. Most people understand that ethnic and religious allegiances and prejudices are the original problems in the conflict, together with the arbitrary power of states (some of which are not even local).
Unfortunately, that's not what I'm hearing from the speaker. Sounds more like neoconservatism
'The individual is the smallest minority.' - Ayn Rand
You gotta look at the conflict onboth sides. It is a complicated issue
Nope
@@johnathanvale8634 nope to looking at it frrom one side. Look man I disagree with what this professor said about Israel occupying the West bank out of self defense for today in 2021 because at this point, the conflict could be solved overnight if Israel stops expanding into the West Bank because its supposed to be Palestine.
@@anthonyjat1964 It was never supposed to be Palestine. Maybe some Palestinian leader should have accepted a treaty. I don't want to hear about how the Palestinians wanted peace, because that has NEVER been the case. Don't give me that nonsense
By complicated do you mean death destruction and decay?
@@jacksonstone246 bruh, I do not wanna have a political dialogue right now, I need to buy cough drops. But I love the Jewish people and the Arab people. I love all humans
The solution is that as a species we individually and collectively come to the
Simple realization that we are all human beings and have far more in common
as such in developing our mutual self interest for our mutual survival and well being ! As a species we need to ultimately abandon
our alienating divisive tribal and nationalistic ideas about ourselves that throughout history have brought about countless
Wars, conflicts, acts of
Terrorism and human strife!
We are all human beings and occupy the same planet we call earth along with millions of other kindred life forms ! We need to grow up and out of our
Superficial idiosyncratic
egos which have contributed to our human alienating condition and realize our vast potential
In harnessing our mutual
Interests for the benefit of all in evolving toward the principals of rational coherent human enlightenment !
Ice cream.
Any problem in the desert is solved with ice cream
Next video!?!
You misspelled dessert
😂😂😅😅
Yaron Brook argues that the Jews made Palestine into a civilized region, and so are morally entitled to the region being recognized as the State of Israel. But the Palestinians could then argue that by making a region of Israel more civilized, they're entitled to call that region the state of Palestine... and so on... leading to further fragmentation and possible conflict in the region if religious/political demands aren't met
Nation building needs to be left in the hands of professional politicians. If you want a nation of your own, then make an application to the UN; if it gets rejected then either move on, or modify your original application and reapply. Israel exists because it went through this process, and hence has a "right" to exist.
+Barrios Groupie
No. A free countries right to exist and self govern does not rely upon the approval of some outside organization, especially the corrupt, morally bankrupt U.N. Stop using the word right (which I see you put in quotes), when what you really mean is permission. If the government (analogous to the U.N) gives you the permission to take my wallet, that does not mean you have the right to.
We don't want our sons and daughters fighting ANYONE elses Wars.
Holy shit, remember Arafat?
Q: Do you support any form of foreign aid from the United States to Israel?
A: No! (Today, in practice, in this political reality: yes.) I do not!
That isn't actually his position. You know that right?
45:00
One State is Israel.
There is already a Palestinian state, it is huge, and it is called Jordan.
Maybe the pre Israel population were partly nomadic? Or cultivating the land in such a way that big part of it lay idle at any given moment? As is often the case, I would assume there were indeed situations that form the basis for the grievances of a particular group (real or imagined) of people. That is basically what an ethnic minority is. A group that shares a narrative, a common interpretation of historic events. Also I think it is easy to sympathize with the modernization project that was set in motion in Israel. Yet we all know that developments that do not have the support and participation of the population or part of it, are often resisted in a big way and those who seem to actually benefit from them instead blame those powers that took the lead for some or all of their problems. Subjectively it sure makes sense to oppose an authority who took your house, no matter how poor that house was, or is said to have done so before you were born.
Intellectuals hate reason XD
Have you read about postmodernism? Many intellectuals today are leftist postmodernism which reject rationalism and objectivity
Israel need to respect private property rights.
it does
I'm interested in the topic, but not in Ayn Rand
Too bad, you’re missing out
Can anyone cite a single compromise made by Israel towards peace in the holy land? A single compromise?
Its really nauseating to read most jews explaining who the palestinians are or are'nt....The arguments are always based on twisted or omitted facts and tons of bias.
It's really nauseating to read most Arabs and other non Jews explaining and lecturing Jews on who they are and where they came from, as well as who the "real Jews" are and who are not.The arguments are always based on twisted or omitted facts, outright fabrications and tons of bias.
They would know better
Considering they are ancient
The most ancient group in that land
With continuous presence too
They don’t need to twist or omit anything
What if we made an embassy in Jerusalem and Palestine? So in that way we are politically neutral?
Michael Cozzi Why would we do that? We shouldn’t be politically neutral.
@MrOverCritical1989 It is our business if they are a regime that funds terrorism or if they fund terrorism against our allies.
If and when there is a State of Palestine, you can make you embassy there too, in whatever capital city they will have, Ramallah probably. In the meantime, US embassy to Israel is located in its capital- Jerusalem.
1:58:00 That gentleman's point is a good one. Back then he couldn't foresee Syria's totalitarian govt collapsing. But today we have that benefit. Slowly but surely the 22 countries he was talking about are moving to be free. Thank God.
They'll never be "Free" time will tell.
Still not free
Andrea Pennestri
Add a public comment...
UN Resolution 2334(2106)
...Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace;...
It's hard to negotiate with people who don't think your nation should exist, don't you think.
not binding and does not constitutes the international law. Besides, it's a dubious argument that the settlements violate the international law. Which law exactly? I'd concede that some settlements are not helpful, but illegal? Not really.
2:06 1:41 1:30
Yah power to the one that can buy land. Strange that this guy is a professor
Why not? Money is power.
Money is consensual power not coercive power. The one that offers money cannot force you to accept it. People wanted to sell their land to the Jewish sellers just as much as they wanted to buy it.
very preachy
Rothschilds??? Socialist?
22 hours ago a debate in another video turned slightly nasty when secular Bjerknes debated with Roman Catholic doctor Jones about religious history with the moderator of Know More News Green.
The debate had to do with HOW Judaism and Christianity have interacted with one another and what were the implications, whose beliefs were right, etc?
Bjerknes tried to make debate rhetoric with arguments about what the leading Gnosticism proponents had documented in their writings. Name calling and astonishment over claims that were made by Bjerknes happened by Jones, and Bjerknes became emotional and insulted Jones back.
Bjerknes argued about Yahweh and Satan and how Christians were being misled by what they have been told in more recent times that shall have them all being abused and ending up being blood sacrifices to wipe them from the planet. Jones said that Bjerknes had cited authors who were too obscure and non-mainstream to be trusted or benefit the argument.
Bjerknes claimed that at one time these cited authors were famous for their time many hundreds of years ago. The gist of Bjerknes' argument was that one group was following Satan and the other group were naively going to suffer from being misinformed and victimized because of it.
The story of two goats was told. One was sacrificed, and the other was set loose in a hostile forest with a red ribbon around its neck. The sin of one people was absorbed by the forest goat.
It seemed pretty much surrounding blood sacrifice religious teachings for my tastes--mostly animal cruelty if you ask me.
Supposedly humanoid forms existed many millions of years ago. Each fought with the other.
According to Area S4 physicist Bob Lazar he was told to read through a stack of secret briefing documents that detailed what was known of alien historical interactions with mankind.
Documents of a secret space alien program to reverse engineer propulsion systems of their space crafts indicated that one race of aliens subjected some existing life on earth to genetic experimentation to create a slave race to mine earth of some of its vital mineral resources. These aliens were thought of by the primitives of the time to be their creator gods.
Other lore concerns the power source known a Vril that was used to power both black and white forms of magical powers in the lost city of Atlantis many thousands of years ago prior to the last ICE age.
However it happened, some pre-ICE age race of beings had mapped the entire planet because copies of these maps were publicized circa the late 1400s and early 1500s that had shown the coastlines of all continents of the planet including Antarctica that would not be discovered until hundreds of years later by civilized people.
Radioactive skeletons were found in India in places where the sand had turned to glass due to some high temperature explosions. The skeletons were carbon dated to between 8,000 to more than 12,000 years old and the radiation had originated from nuclear or atomic weapons detonated in some ancient wars.
Who can know what is really true without having some form of clairvoyance or flawless lie detection system or whatever?
ruclips.net/video/mR5i0lI3xrw/видео.html A Race of Giants
Movie claims that scientists have covered up evidence that does not fit the mainstream narratives of various groups of people. Some artifacts have been found and displayed like things that prove that humanoids existed many hundreds of millions of years ago with technology that cannot be explained. If true, all the religions that we have had are all bunk fairy tales and deception to control how people think and behave. According to theorists, religions were created to control how people thought in order to control them so that they would survive better as a group, etc.
Wtf are you talking about
@@clydefrog6313 I was talking about Middle Eastern conflicts arising from religious beliefs that likely are deliberately out of kilter with one another due to various deceptions all throughout history, etc.
You can Google search using alternative phrasings to find the sources about what I'm talking to see what they say.
If I am too specific here, then my comments have been severely censored INSTANTLY by the Google / ALPHABET / RUclips deep learning AI that has been deliberately provided with biased data to silence certain groups who have been placed low on the victimhood Olympics hierarchy. Some of my references include "banned" sources including non-woke web sites.
Some input data to the AI specify that certain banned titles are promoting "tense or passionate dislike" toward the subjects within said videos, etc.
But, if fact checked by individuals free to do so as being accurate history retelling, how would this "promote" anything biased?
This would be similar to liable cases of innocent accused where the publicly revealed information is provable, accurate, on the record if one looks carefully for it.
However, in human rights tribunals, extra judicial courts go mostly by "inflicted injury to feelings" rather than how liable law cases are adjudicated.
Many people know well that some of their own group have done reprehensible things and that any independent person mentioning these uncomfortable details can be brought to human rights tribunals and fined for having caused hurt feelings, embarrassment, and similar, and qualify as promoting "tense or passionate dislike" toward the known criminals of the given group--minority or otherwise. In such tribunals, the truth is no defense for having made anyone's feelings hurt, etc.
The censorship AI operation is in effect protecting the guilty by punishing the innocent in a good number of situations to prevent guilty individuals (or groups) any embarrassment over their immoral past behaviors.
wow a complete disregard of facts and history, I would love to see Yaron Brook debate Norman Finkelstein
Me too, a battle of Good vs Evil.
on the contrary, Mr. Brook shows a great mastery of facts and history, unless of course you get your "facts" from pallywood.
Elmer Fudd on Israel Palestine conflict,very interesting
Simon Heaney Is that your very intelligent comment?
This BS only flies if you are talking to 3rd graders.
You must know
I dont know what this guy is talking about 1/3 of rhe original palestinians were removed by force when the brits gave away their land
what are you talking about?
Please listen to Noam Chomsky to hear the truth about Israel from an honest Jew.
Adam David -- Noam Chomsky is honest? Lmaooooo
Leftism doesn't have Truth as a value.
I grew up with Leftist Dad. It's just a personality disorder.
The Left ruin everything they touch.
Chomsky is neither honest nor he is objective. Besides, he is no expert. He is a linguist, not even historian.
What is the solution? The end of the world.
WTF is this cheap propaganda. What a pure colonial mindset
Any counter argument? Or naming is all you got?
One simple example of his many lies. He said in 1956 Israel was under attack from hundreds of millions of Arabs whereas it was Israel along France and England who attacked Egypt.
@@hadihasan1903in 1967
Holy shit, remember Saddam Hussein?
Ayn Rand would be ashamed of the propaganda in this video this isn't even a debate this is propaganda pure and simple.
Sescopian No she wouldn’t. She would agree with everything said here.
Sescopian If you have a problem with what Yaron says here (he doesn’t always get it right, but here he does), then you don’t agree with Ayn Rand either.
@@damonhage7451 Let me rephrase, were she alive Ayn Rand should be ashamed of the propaganda in this video, and if she'd agree with it you've got it right I'd disagree with her in the extreme. This is propaganda steeped in more propaganda steeped in yet more propaganda, a for instance to demonstrate the insidiousness of the pro-Israeli arguments brought to bear in this video, Israeli's sling the term anti-Semitic around like it's a wholesome bowl of oatmeal that only they have access to, like they're the only Semites on the planet, most people don't actually know what makes someone a samite, and in case you didn't know, it's language, the Israelis are far from the only people on this planet which speak a Semitic language, but to hear them tell it the Israelis are the only Semites on the planet, that is a case in point to demonstrate the insidiousness of the pro-Israeli position without getting bogged down in the quagmire of this particular regional conflict. I just wanted to disabuse you of the idea that somehow I misunderstood Ayn Rand I was really just riffing on the name of her Philosophy which if I'm not mistaken is Objectivism, and if I'm not further mistaken she was born to a Russian-Jewish bourgeois family living in Saint Petersburg which in fact means there's no way she would be objective where are the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is concerned.
@@sescopian9118 What part of this lecture is propaganda? That Palestine was a backward inhospitable place before the Jews went there? That there was an influx of arabs to the land that would become Israel before 1948? That Israel was/is essentially a free, western country? That the arabs started the conflict? That the Palestinians have no legitimate claim to the land, since land ownership is only a legitimate concept within the context of liberty? I'm not exactly seeing what the "propaganda" is here. These all seem to be true.
"Israeli's sling the term anti-Semitic around like it's a wholesome bowl of oatmeal that only they have access to, like they're the only Semites on the planet,"
I don't really care about this comment either way. If you want to think Jews are too quick to blame things on antisemitism, that's fine. I don't see what that has to do with which side of the conflict is the morally appropriate one for rational people to side with.
"I just wanted to disabuse you of the idea that somehow I misunderstood Ayn Rand I was really just riffing on the name of her Philosophy which if I'm not mistaken is Objectivism, and if I'm not further mistaken she was born to a Russian-Jewish bourgeois family living in Saint Petersburg which in fact means there's no way she would be objective where are the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is concerned."
I don't think you know what the word objective means. Objective doesn't mean you don't have a perspective. Objective means "independent of consciousness" metaphysically, but epistemological, it means a willful adherence to reality using the proper method of knowledge (reason). Objective doesn't mean you have no perspective or no interest in what you are talking about. It means you are forming your mental content by looking at reality, as opposed to rationalizing your ideas on reality or using faith to come to willful conclusions.
Here are a few examples. If I get attacked in the street by a mugger, am I not being "objective" if i defend myself? After all, I have a particular perspective on what is going on. If you come and ask me what happened, and I say "I was attacked", is that not an objective statement, even though I have a perspective, a context (I'm a person who doesn't want to be attacked say, the equivalent of Ayn Rand being a jew)?
If a physicist drops an feather and a caveman drops a feather and they both notice it falls, it is only objective if the caveman points it out since he has no previous physics knowledge available to him and the physicist is... invested... in the fact the feather will fall?
Basically your concept of objective is an impossible standard, and therefore illogical. You cannot get closer to an impossible standard. Therefore if Ayn Rand's perspective is invalid because of her context (a jew), then yours is as well, because you are no closer to the impossible standard of objectivity you require than she is.
If Israel was completely destroyed there would be peace in the Middle East!! And pigs might fly🤣🤣🤣🤣
Wow. Just wow. I deeply disagree with his point of view. Very sad.
Sure shakes my belief in the institute, (not Objectivism)
They started the war in 1967... No, you started in 1947!
Objectivism doesn't advocate taking something by force.
Isreal took Palestine by force.
Fire this bigot, regain your principles.
Founding fathers took over us territories by force
@@danielkraus5560 And the subjugation of the displaced peoples in both nations were akin to one another. In other words the US treatment of natives is no less horrible than the Israeli treatment of Palestine. The founding of the US was NOT a demonstration of objectivist principles.
@@xavierclavius208 founding of the greatest and most free country in the history was not an demonstration of objectivist principles (in a sense it of course wasn’t because objectivism didn’t exist back than, but it still was a great and morally good achievement)
@@danielkraus5560 So, the ends justify the means, even when the means involved the murder and subjugation of countless people? Ayn would be proud to have you amongst the ranks of her followers
@@xavierclavius208 please don’t talk about Ayn Rand, you clearly haven’t grasped any of her principles, founding fathers were morally right to seek independence even through force because it was for the purpose of protecting mans rights which the Britain was violating...also it says a lot about you who is more concerned with savages in Palestine and Indians (not all Indians, some actually chose to trade with Europeans and live peacefully and some Indians were definitely treated horibly), you cannot invoke rights if you yourself do not recognise them
Misinformed.
Which bit?
@@michaellamont2605 every bit that doesn't delegitimize Israel ahahahahaha
@@robertleffel3156 which country is more legitimate.
How do you measure legitimate?
Give me an example.
I don't understand what you mean
@@michaellamont2605 it was meant as a sarcasm for the MN's comment "misinformed". ;) For some people hearing anything remotely positive about Israel immediately triggers "misinformed" comments. And that's the best case scenario.
@@michaellamont2605 as for your question which country is more legitimate and how do you measure, it's good question. I don't know. I don't think there is really such a thing as more or less legitimate, fully legitimate or half legitimate, and a good measurement standard to apply. I think a rule of thumb is perhaps the UN membership/acceptance. But that makes it black and white, and it's not perfect. For example, the Vatican is not the UN member. Does it make it illegitimate? Hardly. The state of palestine is also a non-member
"observer country" but a member of a bunch of UN bodies like UNESCO. At the same time, when it was declared in 1988, it didn't control an square inch of land, but what was effectively a paper or phantom country was immediately recognized by some 130+ countries, but not by most western states and would certainly not pass the security council recognition, at least at this time. It also hardly meets the definition of a sovereign state even with the PA controlling more or less half of the West Bank and Hamas controlling all of Gaza, at this time. But as a 'state", it does not fully control its affairs nor does it have defined borders. But it does not prevent it from issuing palestine passports with a fairly wide acceptance, and from maintaining diplomatic missions in many countries. If I have to assign a label of kind of quasi legitimate, I'd probably use it here. Then you have Kosovo, recognized by about 100 states (less than Palestine), but functioning like any other "proper" state (more than palestine), not a full UN member, but a member of other international bodies like the World bank, IMF, EBRD, IOC etc. Perhaps also quasi? Or quasi plus? Then you have a bunch of far less recognized statelets, like South Ossetia or Abkhazia that are recognized by a handful of countries (5 or 6) but not by most. Ditto Northern (Turkish) Cyprus, recognized only by Turkey. Definitely quasi minus minus. I.e. not really legitimate unless you're drunk with Russian vodka or high on Turkish hashish. ;) And what about Taiwan- is it legitimate? China certainly doesn't think so, nor do most countries at least officially (because they are afraid to piss off China) while they quietly maintain relations with it and treat it as a sovereign in many if not most respects at least. I think if you put all of this into context, Israel legitimacy is in excellent shape, bullet proof and unassailable, despite what a bunch of anti-israel internet warriors say. I hope this helps ;)
I just cannot stand this man's speech disowdew.
I don't think it's a disorder. He speaks normally in Hebrew, and said at one point it's just an extreme Boston accent.
@@o11k Substituting the English r by w is generally considered a speech disorder called rhotacism. Hebrew has no English r.
1:30:00
Another Leftist or liberal moron who doesn’t respect anyone, but she loves terrorists’ raw abuse of power. It makes people like her weak at the knees. Similar to women who fall in love with, by writing to imprisoned murderers.