>> Brad DeLong wrote:
>>
>>> We're not talking about "justice" here. Justice requires that
>>> Palestinians be able to return to Jaffa. Justice requires that Iraqi
>>> Jews be able to return to Baghdad. Justice requires that the
>>> Palestinian Authority, the Saudi Kingdom, and the Egyptian state
>>> transform themselves into democracies. Justice requires that
>>> non-Jewish Russians cease to be anti-semitic, and that dry bones of
>>> the six million Jews killed by Europeans half a century ago come to
>>> life again.
>>>
>>> We're talking about peace--a very different thing than justice. And
>>> to shut out peace on the grounds that it isn't justice is to
>>> guarantee that you will get neither.
>>
brad, a question: your definition of justice seems to tend to complete reversal, but does that agree with what most people might call justice? a few billion dollars are now being paid out as reparations, by the german govt and corporations, to jewish survivors (and family of those that died?) of the holocaust. some might call that justice. recently, tim mcveigh, the person who bombed a federal building in oklahoma city USA, was put to death, and commentators and victims were heard to say "justice was served" (this example is a bit more ambiguous, since it gets into what nietzche called the confusion of justice with revenge). in these debates, such an understanding of justice might be intended, when calling out "no justice, no peace". certain events or actions (such as the sad death of the gypsies, jews, russians, and others in WW2) and their effects cannot be undone, but justice might be partly served in undoing those effects that can be undone, dont you think?
--ravi