Israel and Gaza

I nearly weighed in on this myself.. multi-culturalism / tolerance (I will use the latter but talking about both) depends on a core value of not tolerating intolerance (there was an article a few days ago Indie/Guardian with that in the title but I didn't read it & can't immediately find it). This is not a contradiction; I call it a meta-value.

There's an awful paradox that everyone shy's away from. 50% if not 75% or arguably close to 100% of the World's population does not have the benefit of tolerance. They are stuck in pretty horrible local cultures that control their thinking as they grow up (programming) combined with force and with economic power to control their behaviour. The worst of these cases are deemed worthy of asylum (but only if by some miracle they land on these shores).

If you truly believe in human rights then you'd need to invade every country that doesn't live up to the standard of tolerance and sort it out. This is well nigh impossible anyway, but to portray it as a 'wrong' thing to do ridicules the notion of tolerance.

And if you fail to invade those countries, instead just washing your hands of it all (or nonsense like Think Global Act Local) then you are just abandoning billions of people's lives to be worthless, short, and to not have what we consider 'Universal Human Rights'. (Although at another extreme, some philosophers muse that all human thinking is caught in such a trap and there can never be any escape, I think this misses the point when around the planet, women are being coerced/controlled and gay people persecuted, etc. etc.).

Logically (due to land & resource usage) it must be considered a form of warfare when a country/government makes its inhabitants feel compelled to claim asylum elsewhere.

Israel & Gaza ~ what CL said, Israel should have been allowed to sort it out properly decades ago. Over a million Jews were forced out of Arab countries so it's nowhere near as one-sided as people claim, and don't forget that the Arab countries had to wait for Israel to be constituted before they could declare war and try to wipe the place out.

I find it highly anomalous when strands of liberal/progressive thinking ally themselves with groups that are certainly not liberal and certainly not progressive. It's not just the liberals of course; yet again in Iraq, American weapons are in the hands of some not-very-nice people.

Can't speak for anyone else.

But I'm on no ones side. As a species I think we are a bunch of stupid idiots. The "trap" has always been there, and probably always will.

Quote:

---

so it's nowhere near as one-sided as people claim

---

Rarely is, which in itself is usually part of the the problem.

Quote:

---

I find it highly anomalous when strands of liberal/progressive thinking ally themselves with groups that are certainly not liberal and certainly not progressive. It's not just the liberals of course; yet again in Iraq, American weapons are in the hands of some not-very-nice people.

---

At least somebody is making the money out of the continuing cluster****

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CL

To me this is what Lissa Juicy was against in regard to morality - arbitrary rules. Tolerance and acceptance depend on ones code of values. Should we tolerate all actions in the name of tolerance and acceptance or is it right to draw the line? Of course what people really mean by tolerance is 'my way or the high way.'

Highly intolerant in my view!

---

Again, can't speak for anyone else. But as far as moral codes go.

'Go your own way if you wish, just don't force me to follow' (again, more of a least worst option)

Quote:

---

If you look back over the last decade you'll see that the Palestinians can't even get on amongst themselves.

---

Divide and conquer?

One question for you. And bearing in mind our species wonderful capacity for holding grudges and difficulty in accepting change. Who started it and when? And what players are responsible, both presently and historically?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CL

Regards your last paragraph: don't get bogged down in tit for tat. Just ask yourself WHO started the trouble and apportion all blame to them.

---

That's a good idea if you can identify who started it all. Which sources can be trusted and which can't? I know the British media can't be trusted to tell the truth. It didn't take them long to start blaming Putin for MH17, this dispite there being more evidence of it being the Ukranian Army. We've now got sanctions over the Crimea takeover dispite there being no British or US interests at risk; and the media report to us it's necessary, but i don't believe them. I also think HAMAS are nothing more than glorified terrorists, they began as terrorists back in the early 90s and they just happen to have cleaned their act up a bit since.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deadlegs

Blimey CL, do you have an extreme view about everything? You have dismissed one side as more or less all bad (savages) and one as more or less all good. All the blame for all the deaths is apportioned to the Palestinians. Any historic rights or wrongs are dismissed as 'lost through time'. Israel brought only 'reason and technology' into their lives. I believe that your view and solution is a minority view even in Israel.
Surely the reality is that the the situation is so complex and nuanced that a solution is near impossible. Can you think of any other world issue with so many differing opinions?

---

What he said.
CL you have strong, closed views.
Israel / Gaza / Palestine is extremely complex with many factions and states involved over years, including good old Blighty :-) Like other such muddles, say Northern Ireland, the original causes, even if identifiable, are only part of an understanding. Those involved have to find a solution which suits current and future needs so far as possible instead of holding up historical claims as justification for current actions. A solution agreed by those involved is the most lasting solution: history shows violence or impositions from outside don't tend to last.
The best deconstruction on this I've seen recently was Adan Hills' on The Last Leg ... worth YouTubing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deadlegs

Blimey CL, do you have an extreme view about everything? You have dismissed one side as more or less all bad (savages) and one as more or less all good. All the blame for all the deaths is apportioned to the Palestinians. Any historic rights or wrongs are dismissed as 'lost through time'. Israel brought only 'reason and technology' into their lives. I believe that your view and solution is a minority view even in Israel.
Surely the reality is that the the situation is so complex and nuanced that a solution is near impossible. Can you think of any other world issue with so many differing opinions?

---

I like the extremes they have consistency. As to historic rights and wrongs, yes there were some on both sides but whatever happened in the past is not the fault of most of those living today. What you don't do is punish people for the sins of their parents, particularly when you didn't suffer any injustice yourself. If you don't like the way things are get your facts right and change minds with the right ideas. The Palestinians don't do that they just blame the Jews without judging themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LissaJous

I nearly weighed in on this myself.. multi-culturalism / tolerance (I will use the latter but talking about both) depends on a core value of not tolerating intolerance (there was an article a few days ago Indie/Guardian with that in the title but I didn't read it & can't immediately find it). This is not a contradiction; I call it a meta-value.

There's an awful paradox that everyone shy's away from. 50% if not 75% or arguably close to 100% of the World's population does not have the benefit of tolerance. They are stuck in pretty horrible local cultures that control their thinking as they grow up (programming) combined with force and with economic power to control their behaviour. The worst of these cases are deemed worthy of asylum (but only if by some miracle they land on these shores).

If you truly believe in human rights then you'd need to invade every country that doesn't live up to the standard of tolerance and sort it out. This is well nigh impossible anyway, but to portray it as a 'wrong' thing to do ridicules the notion of tolerance.

And if you fail to invade those countries, instead just washing your hands of it all (or nonsense like Think Global Act Local) then you are just abandoning billions of people's lives to be worthless, short, and to not have what we consider 'Universal Human Rights'. (Although at another extreme, some philosophers muse that all human thinking is caught in such a trap and there can never be any escape, I think this misses the point when around the planet, women are being coerced/controlled and gay people persecuted, etc. etc.).

Logically (due to land & resource usage) it must be considered a form of warfare when a country/government makes its inhabitants feel compelled to claim asylum elsewhere.

---

But Lissa Juicy your opponents could be saying exactly the same thing, that they are intolerant of your intolerance towards them or others with whom they agree. They may also claim it is a non-contradictory meta-value!

Really if you uphold tolerance as a virtue - which I don't in one context - then you should also be tolerant of those who disagree with you. Where intolerance is always wrong is when individuals or groups start physical force against others who forced no one but disagreed. This is another point I don't agree with you on. Economic power and political power are not the same thing in a free country. The former can only use the power of persuasion, not force.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr brightside

That's a good idea if you can identify who started it all. Which sources can be trusted and which can't? I know the British media can't be trusted to tell the truth. It didn't take them long to start blaming Putin for MH17, this dispite there being more evidence of it being the Ukranian Army. We've now got sanctions over the Crimea takeover dispite there being no British or US interests at risk; and the media report to us it's necessary, but i don't believe them. I also think HAMAS are nothing more than glorified terrorists, they began as terrorists back in the early 90s and they just happen to have cleaned their act up a bit since.

---

That's because Putin was to blame. He - via his president henchman - invaded Georgia after stirring up trouble for those same people in Ossetia, then he annexed Crimea and finally he stirs up trouble in Ukraine. As for the passenger jet shot down, take it from the rebels own word which he spread on Twitter triumphantly before realising the military plane - wasn't a military plane.

When trying to ascertain who started something, I look at the nature of the people involved and try to find differences in ideology. From that I get a feeling about a situation before looking at other evidence.