zionism

[Michael McIntyre]

It seems to me that framing this discussion as "what do we want, peace or justice?" misses the point.  If an injustice has been done to me, it may be wise for me to settle for a limited remedy of the injustice simply because the costs of extending a conflict (through the courts, for example) to remedy the injustice can come to exceed the harm done me by the initial injustice.  On the other hand, since the costs of pursuing a conflict of this sort are usually irretrievable, it may be rational for me to continue to pursue the conflict even if my costs have already exceeded any possible gain.  BUT:  I am the one who gets to decide when it is in my interest to forego the conflict, and to settle for peace instead of justice.  Least of all does someone who has been bankrolling the party who has done me the injustice get to lecture me about my irrationality in refusing "half a loaf".

Michael McIntyre


>>> Archer.Todd at ic.gc.ca 07/13/01 07:39AM >>>
Brad wrote:


>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.

and Seth wrote:


>I agree with all of this. Pragmatism and reasonable compromise are the only
>ways to bring peace and prevent the loss of innocent lives

Jesus, guys!  I realize that peace isn't a bad thing in and of itself, but
this "peace, pragmatism, and reasonable compromise" sounds like the same
horse-shit the capitalists spoon-feed the unions!  Might as well hoist the
white flag and get back to work!

Todd :{(>