Grendelyn,
et al,
In direct response to the Bertrand Russell presentation.
But first, we must remember just who Russell was:
- An Aristocrat: 3rd Earl of Kingston Russell --- Viscount Amberley (Horsham District of West Sussex) and Viscount of Ardsalla (County Tipperary); Grandson of The Right Honorable The First Earl of Russell --- (Jack) Russell KG GCMG PC, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (1865-1866)
- Philosopher (Trinity College, Cambridge), Mathematician,
- Short stint as a Diplomatic Attaché at the British embassy in Paris (1894).
- Additionally studied Social Democracy, Berlin ---
- Additionally Studied Bolshevism in Russia (1920)
- Anti-War Activist (Conscientious Objector WWI),
- Sentenced (1919) for six months imprisonment for a pacifistic article he had written in the "Tribunal." While in prison, Russell wrote Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy..
- "No Conscription fellowship and was fined ÂŁ 100 (1918) as the author of a leaflet criticizing a sentence of two years on a conscientious objector."
- British Order of Merit
- Fellow of the Royal Society
- Awarded the Sylvester Medal “for the encouragement of mathematical research.”
- Awarded de Morgan medal of the London Mathematical Society
- Nobel Prize in Literature (1950) for the Paper: "Logical Atomism" (Contemporary British Philosophy. Personal Statements, First series. Lond. 1924)
- And above all else: He lived and died a Welshman in the stanch Gilbert and Sullivan Victorian-era fashion (1836–1911) - He is Englishman. (Not American.)
My thumbnail, on the life of Bertrand Russell
(one of the most brilliant men of the 20th Century) is really simplistic and does not do justice to all the honors and recognition he received from among his peers. But it does have a direct being on my comment. I have a couple of his products on my bookshelves; very hard reads. Few would reach to challenge him.
Anyone with half a brain recognizes the fact that Israel is nothing but a troublemaking land thief; consequently, it should come as no surprise to practically everyone, that a person with a full brain, like Bertrand Russell's, saw it in the same manner. Israel is no friend to America . . . our continued association with her, in my opinion, brings dire consequences for all of us in the form of a poor image to others abroad, and that, too, of having to go to war for her protection yet once again.
(COMMENT) --- An Opposing Point of View ---
Russell, like many academicians of his era, learned how things are suppose to work in an ideal environment where, ---
ceterus paribus --- given all other variable (all else being equal) --- justice and equality were constant. In particular, Russell's claim to fame was in Philosophy, were he used mathematics to substantiate various philosophical conditions. And as I need not remind anyone here, the math behind logical and critical thinking is impervious to emotional driven arguments. This strain run through all his great arguments. The reason Russell is not a Christian was because he essentially ran through all the arguments deductively (for the existence of a Supreme Being) and determined that none of them seemed to be logically "valid." He used this very same process in evaluating the conflict between the Israel and Palestinian Conflict.
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.
A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound.
Thus, what is absent from the Russell argument is the accumulated emotion that orbits the central disputes and the impact of the accumulated consequences that impact both sides of the dispute.
In 1970, when Bertrand Russell made the address
(more than four decades ago), his general position was:
- That there was an miscalculation made.
- That the use of air power on Egypt would not be sufficient to induce surrender.
- The use of Israeli air power will fail its "essential purpose."
- That the use of Israeli air power would be "condemned" by the world.
- That it was a tragedy that a "foreign power" gave Palestine to another people to "create a new state."
- That this tragic action was the cause of refugee and displaced persons.
- That with every new conflict, the numbers of refugees and displaced persons increases.
- That the refugees and displaced have a "right of return."
- That the "right of return" is a central issue to the continuing conflict.
- That a "permanent and just settlement" on the issue of the "right of return" is essential to peace.
- Justice requires that Israel withdrawal from the territory occupied in 1967.
I believe that Russell actually believed what he wrote. But I would challenge his oratory on the following basis:
I do not believe that either the US or Israel thought that "Air Power" alone can achieve peace; not then and not now. It is just one tool in the overall toolbox. This was made clear during WWII and is just as valid today as it was then. There is a limit to what "Air Power" can achieve; but it is an essential component to any comprehensive military action. Thus, while the conclusion that "The bombing raids deep into Egyptian territory will not persuade the civilian population to surrender," is not accurate in that it was only one aspect of the conflict. The overall conduct of the conflicts must be evaluated in determining the essential reason for the establishment of the
Treaty of Peace between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel, 26 March 1979. And that the Treaty itself, at least in part, suggests that the use of Israeli Air Power played a role in the subsequent conflicts that ultimately resulted in peace between Israel and Egypt.
The perspective that "their
(Arab Palestinians) country was “given” by a foreign Power to another people for the creation of a new State" is incorrect. The territory was not "given" to anyone by a "foreign power." It was NO Palestinian territory, but rather --- a territory under the Mandate of the Allied Powers to establish a Jewish National Home. And the UN, having the trustee management of the territory in 1948, presented a plan by which the remainder of the Mandate Territory was partitioned and a faction of residents were allowed to exercise their
(Jewish People) "right to self-determination."
Relative to the refugees and displaced persons; Russell said: "It is abundantly clear that the refugees have every right to the homeland from which they were driven, and the denial of this right is at the heart of the continuing conflict." He did not include that millions that claim the "right;" but those that were displaced. The Palestinians claim that more than 5 million people
(plus) have a
right to return; when, in fact there are less than 60,000 people
(as of 2012) that were refugees and displaced.
While Bertrand Russell, in 1970, could afford to look at the scope and nature of the problem, --- he failed to count for:
- The magnitude of the Problem.
- The fact that the Arab Palestinian has openly rejected to engage in good faith negotiations; time and time again.
- That the Jewish People acted in good faith, completed the "Steps Preparatory to Independence," in accordance with the Trusteeship.
- That the Jewish People have unreconcilable differences that cannot be evaluated mathematically.
As wonderfully produced and emotionally moving the presentation was, Bertrand Russell's oratory and logic failed to address the essential that truly describe the 21st Century dispute we face today.
Most Respectfully,
R
