>
>> 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?
>
> Yes--which is why Arafat should have accepted Barak's half-a-loaf offer
>
good, so we do agree that justice can be achieved. the difference on what constitutes "justice" remains. 1/2 ;-)
--ravi