Israel and Gaza

[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?

[Knightrunner]

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

[CL]

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.

[Deadlegs]

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!

Only if the rules are arbitrary. There must be a common set of human 'code of values'.

[shaunaneto]

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)

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?

[mr brightside]

Phew, where to start?
Science does not lead to more tolerant, less war-mongering people: evidence - USA, many European countries, any country which has colonised.

I was going to cite the US as an exception and a rule, depending upon which party is in the Whitehouse. GWB is a deep souther and constantly used religious references in his speeches re. Iraq/Afghanistan.

Aye, it's not really fair to blame religion. Religion being used as a justification/motivation is symptomatic of a deeper problem within the human psychological make up, not the cause.

There are enough wars where we have found none-religious reasons for war to know it's not necessary. Religion might be thrown into the mix to help sway the mob, but there's often other reasons too. Did the British throw people into concentration to die by their 10s of thousands in South Africa because of religion, or gold and diamonds? Did the Romans invade Dacia for religion? The proxy conflicts of the Cold War? The list of pathetic justifications for taking someone's life for your own gains is seemingly endless.

For me, I'd suggest root causes are all tied into 'us and them' 'fear and greed' we don't need Religion to make state sanctioned and organised mass murder happen. It comes up a lot as an excuse, but we'd find another reason without it. In the Middle East it'd probably be oil, farm land and water, and spheres of influence.

If as a species we could get it into our thick skulls that there is no us and them, just us, then perhaps we would be a damn sight less violent/tolerant of violence on our (alleged) behalf. Not that I believe the human Ego is really capable of such a thing. We do love to have our own identities.

As for Israel and Gaza, neither side is right. But right now one side is a damn sight more wrong than the other. And it's the one with Fighter jets.

I didn't blame religion entirely, i said it has a lot to do with it- which i reckon it does.

I don't think Israel is more wrong than Hamas, when you say that it is i'm assuming you refer to the massive humanitarian crisis created by Israli air strikes? It's been well noted that geurilla tactics include using human sheilds such as densely populated areas and schools. If Hamas don't like the result of Israeli efforts to neutralise the threat they could always stop firing rockets and digging tunnels; they've been busy little bees, their tunneling skills would probably impress a victorian navvie.

I think aswell that getting the true picture of who did what to who is very difficult, and the media cannot be trusted to be unbiased.

[mr brightside]

Religion is to blame.

I didn't blame religion entirely, i said it has a lot to do with it- which i reckon it does.

I'm not being consistent here, i retract my first comment.

[CL]

I was going to cite the US as an exception and a rule, depending upon which party is in the Whitehouse. GWB is a deep souther and constantly used religious references in his speeches re. Iraq/Afghanistan.



I didn't blame religion entirely, i said it has a lot to do with it- which i reckon it does.

I don't think Israel is more wrong than Hamas, when you say that it is i'm assuming you refer to the massive humanitarian crisis created by Israli air strikes? It's been well noted that geurilla tactics include using human sheilds such as densely populated areas and schools. If Hamas don't like the result of Israeli efforts to neutralise the threat they could always stop firing rockets and digging tunnels; they've been busy little bees, their tunneling skills would probably impress a victorian navvie.

I think aswell that getting the true picture of who did what to who is very difficult, and the media cannot be trusted to be unbiased.

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.

[mr brightside]

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.

[CL]

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.