History in the making, Part 2, V.2 - Israel/Palestine - NO RELIGION

QuasiMofo (John Brown) said:

02Pilot said:

In the interests of thinking more deeply about this, let's play a game. Assume you are able to go back in time to a moment between the issuance of the 1917 Balfour Declaration and today, and once there can alter history. Within that timeframe, what single change - different policy, different decision - would you make that you believe would materially improve the situation and why?

This IS the materially improved situation. The alternative involved systematic annihilation of the Jewish inhabitants of Earth. 

The problem is the world is a small sedan and the children are yet to have figured out how to ride comfortably in the same seat. 

See my post a couple of pages ago.  Let's say for the sake of stretching the analogy just a bit that instead of a small sedan the world was a school bus.  If you have two kids who ALWAYS fight, you don't let them sit together.  Move one to the front seat and one to the back and you have a much more peaceful trip.

And yeah, people would be displaced, so what, it's better than dead.  The cost of packing folks up and moving them to another part of the globe is a helluva lot less than the amount we're spending on warfighting now.

And I give zero berkeleys about "particular land".   Bring some of your magic rocks with you if it makes you feel better.  I won't go further into that for forum purposes.

Honestly, both sides should be removed from the entire region for a few decades to let them calm down.  Call it a  global "time-out" where they are sent to their respective corners.  One group can have a chunk of New Mexico/Utah/Nevada, the other can go to the Australian Outback for a couple of generations.  The land is out there. 

KyAllroad said:

And yeah, people would be displaced, so what, it's better than dead.

Several millennia of history across numerous cultures suggest that your view is not universally shared.

02Pilot said:

KyAllroad said:

And yeah, people would be displaced, so what, it's better than dead.

Several millennia of history across numerous cultures suggest that your view is not universally shared.

To quote myself:

Humans are stupid, angry, violent creatures that never seem to learn from their history. 

In reply to docwyte :

There is literally an entire (massive) field of study founded in direct opposition to your assertions.

You're (justifiably) too emotionally invested in the definition of understanding that allowed past genocides to occur, to realize when others are using the definition that is essential to the prevention of future genocides. The latter is one of the main reasons for these threads' existence in the first place.

Yes, lets poke the person on the board with an actual vested interest in the topic with family and tell them they're wrong to feel upset. Good job. 

In reply to Driven5 :

n reply to Boost_Crazy :

Comparing Israel (as a government and military) to domestic and sexual assault survivors is exceedingly disingenuous and distasteful. The Israeli and Palestinian civilians are both the real victims there. This situation is much more akin to two feuding hot-heads that started a drunken bar brawl, which has done (and continues to do) more to injure the other patrons than each other... Israel (as a government and military) may not be the scumbag who just sucker punched one of the other patrons, but they are certainly not merely a 'victim' of the fight either. 
 

Since we are still doing analogies, I think yours is still off. Let's see if I can fix it. 
 

Two guys are having an argurmnent in a bar. Since one of them is much bigger, stronger, and a trained fighter, the other one wisely realizes that he can't take him and leaves. Rather than let it go, he goes to the guys home and severely beats his family with a bat. Some people tell him he should let it go, if he hadn't gotten into the arguement in the first place, his family would be fine. 

Being on the GRM forum is like riding in the back of a bus and somebody's got a baseball bat and where's Frenchy and something something about a sexual assault for millennia.

In reply to Recon1342 :

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to tuna55 :

Yeah I have to disagree with everyone. The analogy was assuming no police, and it still shows how your point that I have no claim is absurd. I cannot express how much I disagree.
 

I think the point was that you can claim all you want, but it will do you no good if you can't enforce that claim. You would have a claim, but you would have no truck. 

This right here.  "Civilized" countries are, at their base, a contract between the citizen and the government. The citizen agrees to allow the government a monopoly on force in return for protection, justice under the law, and sundry other things involved with being a "peaceful" country. In tuna55's example, he holds Title to his truck, a legally-binding document that allows him to appeal to his government for redress in the case of theft. The government, in return, will utilize the monopoly of force they have to retrieve his truck, either with the threat of violence, or with naked violence itself, depending on the willingness of the thief to fight for what he has stolen. 

If no such government exists, Tuna's right to keep his truck extends only so far as he is willing to use force or the threat of it to maintain his ownership. 

Scale it up to the size of opposing politys, and bam! whoever can project the most force wins.

Yes, and to take it a step further, citizens being responsible for their own force is very inefficient. If the general populous has to spend their time defending themselves and attacking people, they have little time or ability to grow their economy. It takes security to grow a nation. From the local level, not having to guard your truck 24/7 to keep your neighbors from just taking it, to the national level protecting the government. That also appears why some countries fall into a feedback loop of not being able to develope because they are always fighting, yet not able to form meaningful security because their economy will not support it. 

Israel per capita GDP- $53k

Gaza per capita GDP- $3.5k-$5.5k 

To an outsider, Gaza needlessly wastes precious resources on "defense," much of which is used offensively. They don't need to worry about defense, Israel would protect them from any outside threats. Sure they consider Israel a threat, but if they were, they could do little to stop them. They are throwing good money after bad. Now, this is assuming that they are just looking after their people's best interest. They aren't, so all the above is moot. Death to Israel takes precedent over their own well being. To complicate matters worse, others in the region are taking advantage of their position. 

docwyte said:

In reply to Driven5 :

There is no "understanding" of the Hamas attack, in any sort of context.  There is no "explanation of something (IE, what Hamas did)" here.  By saying that, it gives their action credence and therefore acceptance.

That.  Is.  Not.  Ok. 

It's attitudes like that, that led to genocide, while the world sat on their hands, doing nothing. Multiple times!

Obviously I have a dog in this fight that statistically, the rest of you don't have.  That drives my actions and makes me furious to read people equivocating here.

I really don't get this. A position this inflexible seems like a bad idea. Being able to understand somebody's reasons for doing something doesn't make it right, and I really don't know why you'd think that. I don't think that understanding and being able to explain the "why" of something, or wanting to be able to understand and explain it, lends any credence or acceptance to these people's actions. Sure, the easy answer is that these are evil people doing evil things... But people aren't just inherently evil. So what happened that has inspired them to conduct these evil attacks? What is their understanding of it?

For instance, I can understand why somebody would hit a child. They've been taught and brought up to believe that it is an effective form of discipline. Or they're stressed, nothing they're attempting is working to alleviate their child's misbehavior and they can't think of a better response. I don't condone hitting children. It is not something that is an acceptable practice. In fact, I think it should be illegal on a national level... But I can understand why people still hit their children today.

Being able to understand both sides of a conflict doesn't mean that you agree with both, or any sides. It does mean that there will be a better chance of reaching an end to the conflict. 

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

Except that these aren't two strangers having an isolated argument. Their families have been feuding for as long as anybody can remember. Nobody is blaming the big guy for his family being attacked. Nobody is even saying that the big guy engaging in years of abuse of the little guys family justifies the years repeated (especially the latest and most savage) attacks on the big guys family. Again, the the little guy is a scumbag who deserves everything he personally gets from the big guy.

What is being said though, is that the little guys unjustifiable and savage attack on the big guys family also doesn't simply absolve the big guy of his abuses of the little guys family, nor would it inherently justify extending his retaliation to to even more severely beating the little guys family as well.

In reply to mtn :

I'm sorry, there is no excusing or explaining away those actions. Sometimes there is just evil. Not because someone did or said something bad. Just because. Those acts are just that. Evil for the sake of being evil. You can try all you want to explain it, but it comes down to pure and unadulterated evil. 

In reply to bobzilla :

Nobody is 'excusing' or 'explaining away' those actions. However, if we don't understand the sequence of events that created the conditions for them to occur, there will be nothing we can do to prevent them from happening again elsewhere in the future.

Is it better for us to restrict our analysis and teachings of WWII to simply 'Hitler was evil', or to figure out how and why he was able to rise to power and carry out the atrocities that he committed? Is it good or bad for us to be able to identify that which causes good people to to bad things?

In reply to mtn :

Any flexible position that is understanding of rape, murder, and torture as worthy is an anathema to me. There are no acceptable reasons. In this, I am completely inflexible. Full stop. If that is an acceptable stance then this conversation is a waste of time. We will never come to an agreement because we are polar opposites much like Israelis and the Arabs that want to exterminate them.

Israel has offered concessions to the Palestinians from the beginning. They have tried time and again to incorporate the Palestinian people into the country of Israel. Offered them seats in government. In return, the Palestinians bomb, fire rockets, murder and rape. Israel kicks the E36 M3 out of them and takes more territory. Then again offer concessions which are always followed by rockets, bombs, rape, and murder. Offering them self-government, Isreal turns the entire Gaza over to the Palestinians, and again it is given bombs, rockets, murder, and rape in return. As I stated in the other thread, the Palestinians have proven time and again that they have no honor. Without that, there can be no negotiation. 

The fact of the matter is that Israel is a country. The entire modern world decided that was a good idea and made it happen. With that Israel has the ability and responsibility to protect itself and its citizens. Personally, I'm OK with anything the country of Israel has to do to secure its borders and protect its citizens. If I was in charge, I'd just level Gaza and start from scratch. If the West Bank is incapable of learning, then they would be next. 

At some point, a rabid dog must be put down. Now is as good a time as any, otherwise, Israel will be right back where it is now in another 10 years or so. 

In reply to Toyman! :

[ Everyone who insists we're condoning terrorism ] are the ones adding "as worthy" and "justifiable" to the understanding part.

Not us.

bobzilla said:

Yes lets argue semantics over beheaded children, raped women, murdered elderly. That helps. 

I don't think it's arguing semantics. You don't have any inclination to know if there are underlying causes or reasons why someone might be, in your words, evil? It's not giving absolution for the actions, but maybe it'll help prevent others from becoming evil?

In reply to Duke :

"YOU ALL" is a phrase that almost always makes people defensive, and a never accurate. 

SV reX said:

In reply to Duke :

"YOU ALL" is a phrase that almost always makes people defensive, and a never accurate. 

Edited.  Better now?

The point stands.

Some people in this discussion think "understanding" means acceptable, tolerable, and justifiable.

Some people think it means "I can see how that may have happened"

Both are right. 

SV reX said:

Some people in this discussion think "understanding" means acceptable, tolerable, and justifiable.

Some people think it means "I can see how that may have happened"

Both are right. 

Not when they are misinterpreting the specific use of the word.

The point still stands.

"I see you are angry, and understand and accept your perspective."

VS:

"Wow. That went badly. I understand how it got berkeleyed up, but it's not OK".

Its a semantics argument, and folks need to see the other side, instead of trying to defend their side. 
 

It ain't working. Just like everything in the entire Middle East region. 

In reply to Duke :

Yes, your point stands. But they are not wrong. They are not understanding your perspective. That's different. 

In reply to Duke :

You understand rape, murder, and torture? 

Just so we are clear on this subject.

Here is my understanding of rape. Rape one of mine. You should pray that the cops do their jobs to my satisfaction, or I'll berkeleying kill you. 

Here is my understanding of murder. Murder one of mine. You should pray the cops do their jobs to my satisfaction, or I'll berkeleying kill you. 

Here is my understanding of torture. Torture even my dog. You should pray the cops do their jobs to my satisfaction, or I'll berkeleying kill you. 

Here is my understanding of terror. Commit terrorist attacks in my presence. You better get me first because I'll berkeleying kill you or die trying. 

At the national level, there are no cops. So kill them. 

To do any less is to be accepting of it. 

In reply to Driven5 :

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

Except that these aren't two strangers having an isolated argument. Their families have been feuding for as long as anybody can remember. Nobody is blaming the big guy for his family being attacked. Nobody is even saying that the big guy engaging in years of abuse of the little guys family justifies the years repeated (especially the latest and most savage) attacks on the big guys family. Again, the the little guy is a scumbag who deserves everything he personally gets from the big guy.

What is being said though, is that the little guys unjustifiable and savage attack on the big guys family also doesn't simply absolve the big guy of his abuses of the little guys family, nor would it inherently justify extending his retaliation to to even more severely beating the little guys family as well.
 

I mostly agree, but having a disagreement and escalating are two different things in my opinion. If we want to parallel the above bar room interaction to the the real situation, the big guy invited the little guy to the bar to work things out. He bought him a beer, and they talked about making compromises to resolve their conflict. But the little guy had no intention of resolving the conflict. He just wanted to get the big guy out of his house so that he could harm his family. At that point, do you really expect the big guy to care about the initial conflict anymore? Would you not blame the big guy for doing everything is his power to protect his family? Sure, going after the other guy's family for retaliation is wrong. But he calls the guy, says "I'm coming for you, tell your family to leave." The coward hides behind his family instead. Who is the bad guy here?