whYNOT

Caring so deeply, that never does one hear outrage by them directed at Hamas for not laying down their weapons, not humanely releasing all hostages without equivocation - nor in fact, for starting proceedings in the first place by Hamas' de facto declaration of war on a far more powerful nation - so consequently bringing the deaths to an end earlier. Oh yes, they care.

Master *methodology* as distinct from "philosophical master-framework". WHAT is discovered by the sciences will come from the domain of science, to be assimilated without contradiction into a body of knowledge, HOW it is discovered will be by objective method.

Fewer dead civilians is great news for all non-malevolent actors, right? Too, the ICC will revise its estimate of potential 'genocide', foreign governments will relax sanctions on Israel, the stinking SA government issue a formal apology for its unjust charge and the screaming pro-Palestinians who care deeply for Gazan lives, will be happier, will quieten down, and disband. Right? Don't mind me. Dreaming again.

"This comes after months of accusations [by] leading statisticians that the numbers produced by the Gazan authorities cannot possibly be accurate". "Washington Institute for Near East Policy released a report in January that showed major discrepancies in the fatality reports. They concluded such discrepancies were most likely caused by manipulation. Professor Abraham Wyner also told Tablet Magazine that the rate of deaths was very unnatural and climbed far too regularly". Too late to overturn "genocide by Israel" assertions in the public consciousness.

Surprise! Not much. (The only surprise it was the UN to bring this up) Keep in mind, out of the "revised" total, +\-15,000 were Hamas combatants. https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-800772

Your first thoughts are right, I'm sure; I have a problem with the last sentence. Validation from concretes to principles and reducing those concept/principles back to concretes, may ~seem~ like "[Rand] evaluating them based on how they aligned with her principles". Then one may conclude Rand was a rationalist. But one is seeing one half of the process. AFTER those principles have been solidly grounded, tried and true, can one (/Rand) evaluate any matters according to appropriate principles.

J_G, I am pretty sure David Kelley has not and would not suggest "revising of axioms and corollaries", nor the "theory of causality". His lectures as I recall, implicitly and explicitly, always contained references to those. You said it, "that will no longer be Objectivism", and he knows this better than anyone. The question is, what new knowledge in the universe (and of man's nature) could challenge let alone, overturn, the philosophy? No, existence-reality is the eternal all-encompassing: come what may. And our minds retain efficacy, from long ago into any future. At another "level", sure I think lesser adjustments - newfound derivatives - of O'ism can and should be added by thinkers and scholars. Where Kelly's criticism had it right in my opinion, was the tendency he viewed to intrinsicism within "Objectivists" (not O'ism, per se). The initial "Revealed knowledge" (as taken from even and especially, Rand--particularly from her powerful romantic fiction) needs to be reexamined - objectively - re-evaluated and gradually replaced by one's thinking, experience, striving and efforts, the essence unchanged, until the philosophy becomes no longer Rand's, but one's own. The 'fault' was not with Rand but with one's own reception of her works. Since the effects of revealed knowledge as one sees at large in the history of general humankind and personally from many individuals, HAS to bring about eventual disillusionment and disappointment when matters of living don't turn out as ideally anticipated, founded upon that "knowledge" and value system. And: The flip-side of intrinsicism necessarily turns to subjectivism/skepticism--as Rand brilliantly saw. In a more tangible way, "life gets in the way", as is said, and one's early (and fine) "enthusiasm" turns to the cynical. Both intrinsicism and skepticism to be strenuously avoided. All the while not letting go of "the passionate search for passionless truth". I remember that Kelly's stress was on one becoming "the complete philosopher" (my words and takeout) - by way, he gives every indication to this day, OF Objectivism.

I fail to see why "implications" are not recognized around here. The slogan ~implies~ murderous intent. A free Palestine implies an UN-free Israel.

Not often I quote Hillary... but, yeah, she's right, Palestine could have maybe turned out well if Arafat implemented that 96% sovereignty deal in the West Bank which Israel offered. 96% was an excellent offer. Israel always looked for peace. The PA/PLO, as "rejectionist" as ever. Apparently they wanted all of Israel then, and they want it all now. Free Palestine!! Right. They wish for the entire territory for "Free". Hillary Clinton slams anti-Israel protests on college campuses, says students have been fed propaganda By Jacob Magid Former US secretary of state Hillary Clinton tears into the pro-Palestinian protest movement that has swept across American colleges, calling them ignorant and lamenting that they’re being misinformed by propaganda on social media and in the classroom. “I have had many conversations with a lot of young people over the last many months. They don’t know very much at all about the history of the Middle East or frankly about history in many areas of the world, including in our own country,” Clinton tells MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “With respect to the Middle East, they don’t know that under the bringing together of the Israelis and the Palestinians by my husband — then-Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, the then-head of the Palestinian Liberation Organization Yasser Arafat — an offer was made to the Palestinians for a state on 96% of the existing territory occupied by the Palestinians with 4% of Israel to be given to reach 100% of the amount of territory that was hoped for.” “This offer was made and if Yasser Arafat had accepted it there would have been a Palestinian state now for about 24 years. It’s one of the great tragedies of history that he was unable to say, ‘yes,'” Clinton laments.

I've noticed your soft opinions on the PA, whose Palestinians I'd inform you have been polled recently to be heavily in favor of Hamas' actions in October. Have you not heard of Abbas' "pay for slay" program? It is not new. Murder civilian Jews or soldiers/policemen and go to prison - or best, be killed while being arrested, and your family receives cash benefits on a sliding scale. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://emetonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Pay4Slay_Fact-Sheet-FINAL.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjCouzm3oGGAxUvRvEDHfo9CYMQFnoECBIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw24sCFxIU0yLh396ZYsTgz7

Of course it is, don't allow them to be in any doubt. "Free Palestine" = "kill Israelis" (Or "Zionists" as such people try to hide behind.) They are either: a. useful idiots or b. complicit in an intended mass murder. And no other option. I am pleased to see you get to the core, however.

From a post I wrote at OL. "Hamas' political arm knows its audience. Capture hostages, commit murderous attacks. The threefold plan: 1. they know the Israelis are guaranteed to come in hard to rescue hostages. Good. The trap is set. 2. the hostages serve as protective shields 3. hostages can be negotiated as leverage for a ceasefire. Objective achieved: Plenty of their own Gazan civilians die and the world turns on Israel and pulls support, and they buy time to reorganize, re-equip and to do it again. I've seen it all before. I could not read much of Mr Unz's sophistry and inversions. Don't misunderstand these folk, they delight in seeing Israelis killed, the country brought low, and even eradicated as Hamas promises".

This quoted sentence confuses, is incomplete and strays into the Objectivist ethics, of objective good and evil: "Life" is the metaphysical given, not a standard. ["Obectivist ethics holds man's life as the standard of value..."] Just having a pulse is no "standard" for man. How would one objectively gauge one's own, and others', moral performance -- or, e.g. - what form of governance/society is to man's good, (or, topically, who holds the moral high ground in Israel's conflicts) - but for that standard to judge by, (proper) man's life?

-- CAV Link to Original Seldom has been the "pro-Palestinian cause" voiced so blatantly. Having coupled to the Islamist/sharia/ethnic cleansing of Israel cause**, this is what the Gazan 'sympathizers' should pay heed to. Be careful what you wish for. They are being manipulated to pick upon the smallest "grouping", one least likely to violently react to targeted racism, the Jews in their midst. I am greatly disturbed for the West. There are Jews (secular, not all religious) I know of in Canada, Britain and the US(!) who are not seeing any future for themselves and their children there. **which may strike some as classic "Attila and the Witch Doctor", brute force and mysticism coupled in mutual dependency.

There is no replying to the grievously unthinking and under-informed (through historical revisionism and indoctrination). The purportedly nasty name and concept "Zionism" actually long-predated "Palestine" and "Palestinian". There were not any countries existing: no Jordan, Lebanon, Syria - nor Palestine (...and Israel...) until the British and French made them up post- WW1 from the vast, defeated, extinct Ottoman empire. More or less successfully according to their indigenous existent 'tribes'; so the Brits believed this mostly empty, underdeveloped, and poor territory was as good a place as any to put the Jews - coming out of an increasingly hostile to Jews, Europe. (Much like now). If Israel was once a "colony" created by an empire, then so were all the other M.E. nations. Since it was Romans who pinned the name on those lands "Palaestina" - derived from biblical-era "Philistine". Where there were mostly Jews living until their expulsion by Rome. "Muslim-Arabs" of course were non-existent. Much later: The Brits picked up the name and called 'from the [Jordan] river) to the sea', "Palestine" (to hence be subdivided, for Arabs and Jews). I could make the revisionist case that modern Jews of Israel are or at least descend from the original "Palestinians".

We will not evacuate. It's interesting how this (I assume) religious presenter - almost - acknowledges by name the worldwide altruism that has crawled out from the rocks. But he understands sacrifice. When one side blatantly worships a death cult and the other life, more should slowly become aware of this. It is their sacrificial guilt that fires up the hatred of vicious "pro-Palestinians". .

It is ~because of~ rational selfishness, that complete understanding that, guided by rationality, one's life is and has to be one's highest value, that one is able to regard and celebrate each/all others' life-value. Which exists generally in their own 'right' for themselves, too - not only those of direct/indirect benefit to oneself: the seed of individual rights. In respect to Rand, one would and realistically does place a specific "other's" happiness alongside one's own, but cannot - morally-practically - enshrine their ultimate, long term happiness higher than one's own. It would come as detrimental to the source and recognition of "self-value" which prompted and found the "other-value" in the first place.

The elegant "hierarchy of values" puts paid to conflicts of self-interest, I think. Not then, a definitive alternative between my happiness and another's, but a deep consideration of how much they mean to me, how much their requirements on my energy/time/etc. matter to them, and the rational and emotional costs of my help. Some are weighty, many frivolous. The pleasures shared of a happy major event for another's benefit, particularly someone close - certainly, life-enhancing - and selfish on her/his behalf!

"...life as the standard of value". Yes, but whose life is *the standard* - the measure of judgment for the supreme value, one's own life? That is "Man's". Not one's own, nor anybody else's, nor 'humanity's'. It is the single animal or plant or microbe's continuing life/existence/survival, which is its OWN "standard" of good - or evil, where it is endangered and perishes (-- in the view of a human observer). In contrast with those, Rand clarified the important distinction. Man requires a higher, abstract, standard, fitting to man's consciousness, so recognizing the individual's ability to concretize from an abstraction - towards his own solid chosen, purposes - in short, he/she to further a proper, quality life lived through and by their objective qualities (one's necessary virtues/values I don't need to list). To possess life and existence, of course, is the metaphysical/biological primary and prerequisite: "life as survival". HOW to live it - qua man - is not "given", however. We haven't instincts, just to start with. If survival/"enjoyment" was all that counts, then every type of irrational-subjective predator on others could claim to be "selfish" and an "egoist". You are not the first to misinterpret this crucial point on rational egoism, me too. That it detracted from your (mind-body) life enjoyment rather than magnified it, I'm sorry to hear.

Fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here? But the "idea" lives on. When you consider what Islamic terrorism is supposed to accomplish, universal Jihad, and the methods they use to press the West into admission (if not submission) and gain sympathy and support - like now - from too many craven Western appeasers and admirers, "the war on terror" appears a misnomer--and contradiction in terms. An idea/ideology won't be defeated any time soon with military might. ( Israelis already know this and what they will be faced with afterwards in Gaza). The conquest of a regime and nation, with all its ramifications and heavy costs for the conquerors cannot be "context-dropped". Since, after a successful invasion and not too many losses (remembering, campaigns never go exactly according to plan), what's next? A large country (pop. 90m), the change of Iran's government an extended occupation and ongoing conflicts to quell splinter terror groups, etc.- all the while, support back home, decreasing - which would all be fruitless if much of the population is reluctant or resistant; just going along, lacking sincere convictions in "liberty, democracy", etc. As I suggested, the countries which sponsor and advance Jihadi groups can be cut off by many means, left alone to fester and slowly implode. Including using selective force: targets (training camps, missile bases, and so on) would be hit in retaliation for any belligerent activities. And, wherever terrorists act in the West, they and their cells and their organizers and backers (often legitimate-looking "NGO"s) should be hunted down, closed down and put away for a long time. Proposing invasion or wholesale destruction of a host terrorist country is impractical therefore, immoral, I think. It amounts to concretism (anti-intellectualism) and altruism, a "cause" separated from the realities. With better ideas: Maybe the moderate majority of Muslims, and other Arab nations would eventually shun the Jihadi fantasy and those who enact it. Perhaps a much-needed Reformation of Islam would follow.

Despicable Finkelstein with Greenwald, both in denial, trying to convince that warmongering Israel wants to "drag in" American/western forces; which Israel has never done nor asked for previously - with 3 major self-defensive wars (and intifadas) - in a war with Iran. When not even a war with Iran is likely--or desirable for Israel. The latest warning round signaled this. Israel will not escalate (unless...) but will certainly continue fighting and ridding its immediate and present threats, Hezbollah and Hamas, the Iranian Islamist regime's terror "tentacles". (Its head will eventually rot, from within and outside, if the West does not soften its stance again). Finkelstein is some sort of mad scholar, consumed with righteous hate. Hamas or Iran are clearly far more moral than Israel to his distorted mentality. I guess Greenwald has a following with the US ultra-isolationists, another one blaming Israel for being assaulted and selfishly protecting its people, come what may. . .

You know what I'm reminded of? "The operation was successful but the patient died". There's what happens when (total) context is dropped, and foreseeable consequences of actions ignored, and reality/real lives shoe-horned into pre-selected and usually inappropriate principles. I do not consider this is "acting on principles"

Subsequent to Rand, authoritarianism/intrinsicism has caused divisiveness among Objectivists. No, I don't take Brooks (or Peikoff) as 'the final word' (specifically, on applications - implementations of O'ism to reality).

Who is "allowing"? I'll first point out that Iran was not consistently, economically, financially, morally and intellectually, diplomatically and militarily isolated by the West -- as was e.g. their treatment of Russia, rightly - during - the Cold War (not after). I trust world leaders have now learned to not try to placate, bargain with and bribe ideologically-evil regimes "to be good". Nukes are out. Ground forces will not fare well invading that mountain terrain against a formidable army. . I've reminded before, that whereas Rand wrote any free nation had the right to invade a country and overturn its dictatorial regime - and also added, in effect, a "right" was not to be taken to be a (self-sacrificial) duty. The last gets forgotten. So leave it to Israel. Better (I think) the gvt. bides their time for now, and later hits a few Iranian military and nuclear installations. Israel has to live there and Israel must decide. The emphasis on ~defense~ by the US presently is the right one, I believe. (While they and their partners will have to face up to and eliminate the seaward provocations in the Gulf, this international initiation of force). For Israel: This is a long-term commitment, not about floating principles and the instant gratification of beating the foe.

The Saudis too https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/saudi-arabia-acknowledges-helping-defend-israel-against-iran-797201 "The best defense is offense", turned on its head. The exemplary manner in which the USN, USAF, the rest of the hasty coalition - and Israel's own defense systems responded, showed that robust defense plays a bigger role in modern war. The attack should have made plain Tehran's motives and methods to the world, how it operates through proxies sowing terror abroad, while playing the big innocent in diplomatic circles - and importantly, it will be less feared now by its neighbors. This stresses how swiftly the Abraham Accords must be revived. A consortium of "moderate" nations will feel more urgently empowered to escape Iran's grasp. The changes will adapt Palestinian minds to the new unity (feared by Iran) and proceed from there to serious negotiations with Israel. . ("Palestine", not the necessary *cause* and condition of M.E. peace, as Islamists and Israel-detractors have always deceitfully insisted - but an *effect* of peaceful national relations -- with Iran permanently cut out . . .