In Jerusalem, well, in Jerusalem, do you believe that human are created from a single soul? That religions with a single God, which confirms their anxious and hard tracks for hundreds of years in the city, truly believe that human beings -- who are expected to worship the same Creator -- considered to share complaints about injustice? Indeed, it is rather odd and possibly depressing, that in Jerusalem, even in Jerusalem, we even ask, "Can humans agree to reject arbitrariness? Can we speak of human as "fellow"?
These days, Israel builds settlements to Israeli (Jewish) in East Jerusalem, seizing the Palestinians rights and violates the agreement that is recognized by the world. These days, in Jerusalem does not seem to be valid on any question that makes doubt, and the door closed for a lawsuit from outside the gate. Almost every country in the world -- including the United States -- considers it arbitrary, but it seems to the leaders of Israel, what is arbitrary for others do not apply to them. "We are us. What can I say."
The war seems to have such an impression on such thoughts, a war that requires others destroyed or mute. Israel -- which always feel besieged and threatened since it was born -- invades and occupy the region since the beginning, and strongly believes that the peace must be achieved with the position of victory -- has become something that is not just a country. Israel is combat troops. It constantly alerts and generally never lost.
But for such an attitude, antagonism and the difference is the beginning and end of life. Humans are not considered to be a single, never and never will be "fellow". If there is a conversation, then what happens is alternated or collide monologue. The agreement is not necessary, because no values which are internalized together. What it requires is approval only and it is obtained by force and to silence others. So, the pattern of international relations as this will determine forever? Tsk.
The 20th century was formed by eternal divisions (as if), after two major wars erupted and the third world war (which more terrible) threatening. But the 20th century also witnessed the great peace, especially after the "Cold War" ended without announced. Thinkers think life is a difference, but they begin to assume that Hegel's optimism is correct.
In this optimism, the buds will be replaced by flowers, the flowers will be replaced by the fruits, as if the first will be rejected by the latter, and as if the second (flowers and then fruit) appear as the truest representative of the crop. However, Hegel said in a famous phrase, their liquid nature will make them just moments of "an organic unity". They are in conflict, but the one is a necessity for the other, and both together form a whole life.
Thus Hegel speaks about the dialectic: buds as thesis will get a flower as the antithesis, and from the opposition will bear the fruit as a result of the reins and uphold (Aufhebung).
In other words, in history, there are moments in the dispute, but then there will be a reconciliation. Even among the Majesty who conquers and the submission who is defeated, no breaking in their relationship. In the end only when the defeated stating of their consciousness, then the Majesty will get recognition. Liberation occurs when the liberation is not only for itself.
But Hegel lived in the 19th century, before Marx, and long before the Middle East conflict continues for decades without anything positive followed. In the 21st century, Hegelian optimism stops. Precisely in Jerusalem.
Maybe we should not believe in the way of looking at history, as if reading the biography of plants. History consists of things can not be taken into account. Dialectics is too simple to interpret it.
So in the days of post-Hegelian, a conviction about conflict -- which later gives birth to something more respected -- has been replaced with another perspective: that in life, the difference will not stop. But with such a doctrine, people then can justify war, oppression, and tyranny by saying: "We are us. What can I say."
As a result, there is no Archimedean point which can be used as a starting point to assess. The Palestinian people screaming, sick and humiliated. Violence is always going to erupt, but those who choose it do not know anymore how to explain their choice to others, to those who are different.
I remember when Hitler invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, WH Auden wrote a poem that recorded his anxiety: there's no hope in the days when what is fair and unfair only be solved by a lie or war.
I feel the world is experiencing similar anxiety. Precisely because of Jerusalem:
(CZ-lacalifusa111614)
These days, Israel builds settlements to Israeli (Jewish) in East Jerusalem, seizing the Palestinians rights and violates the agreement that is recognized by the world. These days, in Jerusalem does not seem to be valid on any question that makes doubt, and the door closed for a lawsuit from outside the gate. Almost every country in the world -- including the United States -- considers it arbitrary, but it seems to the leaders of Israel, what is arbitrary for others do not apply to them. "We are us. What can I say."
The war seems to have such an impression on such thoughts, a war that requires others destroyed or mute. Israel -- which always feel besieged and threatened since it was born -- invades and occupy the region since the beginning, and strongly believes that the peace must be achieved with the position of victory -- has become something that is not just a country. Israel is combat troops. It constantly alerts and generally never lost.
But for such an attitude, antagonism and the difference is the beginning and end of life. Humans are not considered to be a single, never and never will be "fellow". If there is a conversation, then what happens is alternated or collide monologue. The agreement is not necessary, because no values which are internalized together. What it requires is approval only and it is obtained by force and to silence others. So, the pattern of international relations as this will determine forever? Tsk.
The 20th century was formed by eternal divisions (as if), after two major wars erupted and the third world war (which more terrible) threatening. But the 20th century also witnessed the great peace, especially after the "Cold War" ended without announced. Thinkers think life is a difference, but they begin to assume that Hegel's optimism is correct.
In this optimism, the buds will be replaced by flowers, the flowers will be replaced by the fruits, as if the first will be rejected by the latter, and as if the second (flowers and then fruit) appear as the truest representative of the crop. However, Hegel said in a famous phrase, their liquid nature will make them just moments of "an organic unity". They are in conflict, but the one is a necessity for the other, and both together form a whole life.
Thus Hegel speaks about the dialectic: buds as thesis will get a flower as the antithesis, and from the opposition will bear the fruit as a result of the reins and uphold (Aufhebung).
In other words, in history, there are moments in the dispute, but then there will be a reconciliation. Even among the Majesty who conquers and the submission who is defeated, no breaking in their relationship. In the end only when the defeated stating of their consciousness, then the Majesty will get recognition. Liberation occurs when the liberation is not only for itself.
But Hegel lived in the 19th century, before Marx, and long before the Middle East conflict continues for decades without anything positive followed. In the 21st century, Hegelian optimism stops. Precisely in Jerusalem.
Maybe we should not believe in the way of looking at history, as if reading the biography of plants. History consists of things can not be taken into account. Dialectics is too simple to interpret it.
So in the days of post-Hegelian, a conviction about conflict -- which later gives birth to something more respected -- has been replaced with another perspective: that in life, the difference will not stop. But with such a doctrine, people then can justify war, oppression, and tyranny by saying: "We are us. What can I say."
As a result, there is no Archimedean point which can be used as a starting point to assess. The Palestinian people screaming, sick and humiliated. Violence is always going to erupt, but those who choose it do not know anymore how to explain their choice to others, to those who are different.
I remember when Hitler invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, WH Auden wrote a poem that recorded his anxiety: there's no hope in the days when what is fair and unfair only be solved by a lie or war.
I feel the world is experiencing similar anxiety. Precisely because of Jerusalem:
As the clever hopes expire
Of a low dishonest decade
Waves of anger and fear
Circulate over the bright
And darkened lands of the earth,
...
(CZ-lacalifusa111614)
... I still fall in love with a French man, you know? You look very handsome in your youth. Really. But unfortunately I can't seriously think forever, eehhehee .... 
