Dear Isolese,
I advise my contacts not to use internet explorer, and so do several
distinguished computer security agencies. I also advise buisnesses to
keep their web sites standard compliant, and not try to enforce a
technological religion on their clients.
By the way, I tried your site with IE, and it didn't work either.
thankfully,
Yishay Mor
organics@abel-cole.co.uk wrote:
>Dear Yishay,
>
>We advise our customers to use internet explorer when visiting our website. W
>
>Kind Regards
>Isolese
>Abel & Cole
>
>
>
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Re: סר×?× ×?ת
Gil asked (and I translated) :
Do you support the right of soldiers to refuse to evacuate settlements? If so, there's thousands considering refusal. If memory serves, you advocated the right of a soldier to refuse an order he morale objects.
Oh, very simple.
I support the right of non-violent resistance, even in the form of civil disobedience, as long as the following conditions are held:
0. The act is non-violent, passive, and clearly defined ("I refuse to do X, under Y circumstances, because of Z).
1. It is an individual act, by which I mean that the resister had taken the time to consider his / her act thoroughly, reflected on its implications, studied the political philosophy involved, and balanced the good achieved by the act with the harm it causes.
2. The resister takes full responsibility for his / her actions, and accepts their consequences.
Yigal Amir, for instance, satisfies conditions 1 and 2, but not 0, which is the most fundamental.
Rabbis Shapira, Tau et al. are violating condition 1, and should be prosecuted for incitement to mutiny. Anyone who follows their call without considering it carefully and taking responsibility should be court-martialed for mutiny.
But then, its also complicated. Comparing anti-occupation refusal to pro-occupation refusal is like comparing self-defence homicide to first-degree murder. I refused because I believed that my act was an extreme measure required to protect the existence of Israel as a just, democratic state. They refuse to help Israel become such a state. Since the discussion here is out of the bounds of the law, it is purely moral. In that sense, I can object to their refusal on moral grounds, on the premise of my fundamental moral objection to the occupation and the settlements.
Do you support the right of soldiers to refuse to evacuate settlements? If so, there's thousands considering refusal. If memory serves, you advocated the right of a soldier to refuse an order he morale objects.
Oh, very simple.
I support the right of non-violent resistance, even in the form of civil disobedience, as long as the following conditions are held:
0. The act is non-violent, passive, and clearly defined ("I refuse to do X, under Y circumstances, because of Z).
1. It is an individual act, by which I mean that the resister had taken the time to consider his / her act thoroughly, reflected on its implications, studied the political philosophy involved, and balanced the good achieved by the act with the harm it causes.
2. The resister takes full responsibility for his / her actions, and accepts their consequences.
Yigal Amir, for instance, satisfies conditions 1 and 2, but not 0, which is the most fundamental.
Rabbis Shapira, Tau et al. are violating condition 1, and should be prosecuted for incitement to mutiny. Anyone who follows their call without considering it carefully and taking responsibility should be court-martialed for mutiny.
But then, its also complicated. Comparing anti-occupation refusal to pro-occupation refusal is like comparing self-defence homicide to first-degree murder. I refused because I believed that my act was an extreme measure required to protect the existence of Israel as a just, democratic state. They refuse to help Israel become such a state. Since the discussion here is out of the bounds of the law, it is purely moral. In that sense, I can object to their refusal on moral grounds, on the premise of my fundamental moral objection to the occupation and the settlements.
Breaking News
Our correspondent M.B.S reports:
A tragic fire on Sunday morning, October 10, 2004, destroyed the
personal library of President George W. Bush.
Both of his books have been lost.
A presidential spokesman said the President is devastated, as he had not
yet finished colouring the second one.
A tragic fire on Sunday morning, October 10, 2004, destroyed the
personal library of President George W. Bush.
Both of his books have been lost.
A presidential spokesman said the President is devastated, as he had not
yet finished colouring the second one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
