The two state solution fate

[pjdude1219]

The creation of Israel was sanctioned by the UN. It was the arabs who refused to accept it, a fact which lead directly to their current predicament.

so if independent body makes an offer that lets me take half your land and you refuse and I end up getting all of it I guess that means its your fault you lost all your land because you didn't want to give half of it up.

same logic different situation only this time it is glaring how moronic such logic is.

 

[quadraphonics]

If the disproportionate use of force was being executed by the Palestinians, I would have the same view as I do regarding the Zionists.

It's good that you aim for consistency, but if your views do not contribute to a reduction in the use of force (disproportionate or otherwise), then how can they be justified in the first place? It doesn't matter how objective the criteria you employ for picking sides are: the fact of choosing sides contributes to increased violence, regardless of which side you pick, or why.

500 slaughtered children is too big a price to pay for me to remain neutral.

Nor should you. The rub is that the side you should be taking is that of peace, not that of either party to the conflict. What if "remaining neutral" is the most (or even only) effective way to cut down on the numbers getting slaughtered? I understand the visceral appeal of the violence in the conflict, but emotional reactions to such matters are typically counterproductive to the cause of peace (hence their popularity as propaganda amongst those invested in continued conflict).

Is the priority to punish one side for its misdeeds, or to prevent future suffering? Because those two goals are very often at odds with one another.

You've probably observed children getting into fights, with each side insisting that the other is to blame. And you've probably also seen how little patience adults have for this line of thinking, as they understand quite clearly that indulging those sentiments is a recipe for continued conflict, while the priority must be peace and forgiveness. The absolute worst thing that said adult could do is to endorse the justness of either side's use of force. Even if the adult is convinced that one side really did "start it," the correct course of action is for the adult to mete out an appropriate penalty directly, not to encourage one child to take violent revenge on the "aggressor." Even then, in my experience, both sides end up getting punished for having resorted to force, regardless of who, if anyone, "started it," and said punishment is typically (and rightly) more severe than that corresponding to the "causus belli."

 

[StrawDog]

It's good that you aim for consistency, but if your views do not contribute to a reduction in the use of force (disproportionate or otherwise), then how can they be justified in the first place? It doesn't matter how objective the criteria you employ for picking sides are: the fact of choosing sides contributes to increased violence, regardless of which side you pick, or why.



Nor should you. The rub is that the side you should be taking is that of peace, not that of either party to the conflict. What if "remaining neutral" is the most (or even only) effective way to cut down on the numbers getting slaughtered? I understand the visceral appeal of the violence in the conflict, but emotional reactions to such matters are typically counterproductive to the cause of peace (hence their popularity as propaganda amongst those invested in continued conflict).

Is the priority to punish one side for its misdeeds, or to prevent future suffering? Because those two goals are very often at odds with one another.

You've probably observed children getting into fights, with each side insisting that the other is to blame. And you've probably also seen how little patience adults have for this line of thinking, as they understand quite clearly that indulging those sentiments is a recipe for continued conflict, while the priority must be peace and forgiveness. The absolute worst thing that said adult could do is to endorse the justness of either side's use of force. Even if the adult is convinced that one side really did "start it," the correct course of action is for the adult to mete out an appropriate penalty directly, not to encourage one child to take violent revenge on the "aggressor." Even then, in my experience, both sides end up getting punished for having resorted to force, regardless of who, if anyone, "started it," and said punishment is typically (and rightly) more severe than that corresponding to the "causus belli."

Good post Quad. I would be dishonest not to agree, and you are entirely correct in your appraisal.

Not negating your post, it is important to draw attention to injustice so that eventually enough pressure comes to bear to actually sit down at the table and start the dialogue.

 

[quadraphonics]

Not negating your post, it is important to draw attention to injustice so that eventually enough pressure comes to bear to actually sit down at the table and start the dialogue.

Well, people need to understand what the two sides' grievances are, in order to facilitate a productive dialogue, to be sure. But you have to be very careful when "drawing attention to injustice," or what you create is not pressure to negotiate, but a pretext for one side to portray the other as "evil." Which, as we know, inevitably results in division and conflict.

In order to result in pressure to come to a peaceful solution, any such calls for attention must come firmly couched in an affirmation of the unacceptability of any use of violence and the importance of not empowering the conflict by taking sides. Tragedy's value as a reminder to everyone to work hard to pursue peace can easily be overwhelmed by its value as propaganda in the hands of partisans.

 

[S.A.M.]

So you think the sanctions on South Africa were misguided? The war against the Nazis and the Nuremberg trials? Should we have used a more peace loving approach that did not demonise the oppressors?

 

[StrawDog]

In order to result in pressure to come to a peaceful solution, any such calls for attention must come firmly couched in an affirmation of the unacceptability of any use of violence and the importance of not empowering the conflict by taking sides. Tragedy's value as a reminder to everyone to work hard to pursue peace can easily be overwhelmed by its value as propaganda in the hands of partisans.

What happens when the side that insists on and is non negotiable on the issue of cessation of violence, then hypocritically engages in violence themselves?

Furthermore, what happens when one party insists, before negotiations can begin, on being recognized as a legitimate sovereign state, without the offer of extending the same criteria to the opposite party?

 

[p-brane]

That [dropping the atom bomb on the japanese saved millions of lives} is the official line... There is way more to it than that.

As president of the united states, what would you have done?

 

[spidergoat]

1. You don`t know that for sure.
2. The IDF should have taken that into account in view of the civilian population density.

1. I think there is video somewhere. At the very least, Israel did claim to see secondaries.

2. They dropped leaflets to warn civilians, and sent text messages. If these weapons were so dangerous to Palestinians, they are especially more so to Israelis.

 

[quadraphonics]

So you think the sanctions on South Africa were misguided? The war against the Nazis and the Nuremberg trials? Should we have used a more peace loving approach that did not demonise the oppressors?

I think you are misguided, in the extreme, and probably the single worst example on SciForums of the destructive tendencies I am talking about. The casual disdain with which you refer to "peace-loving" pretty much says it all, although the cheap tactic of portraying me as supporting Apartheid and Nazism is also pretty telling.

I am not a pacifist. There are times when other interests trump those of peace (or any specific peace, anyway), and there are times when peace is not attainable in the first place. But I don't think that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of those cases, nor do I think that you would opt for peace over retribution, given the opportunity to choose.

 

[S.A.M.]

They killed people, including children because they are not Jews and letting them live on their ancestral lands is a demographic threat.

Anyone who supports or justifies this is on the wrong side of history

 

[spidergoat]

It's also a literal physical threat.

 

[StrawDog]

As president of the united states, what would you have done?

That is a very good question. Most likely, a reasonable strategy would be to deploy A Bombs on non populated targets in Japan, followed by a clear and direct communication that the next couple of A Bombs could hit whatever target is chosen.

 

[S.A.M.]

It's also a literal physical threat.

The burden of occupiers everywhere, or the random burglar breaking into your house even. Meanwhile, children are starved, bombed and born and die as prisoners because they don't share your historical sense of victimhood, or accept that they should pay for it. And thats considered justified.

 

[StrawDog]

2. They dropped leaflets to warn civilians, and sent text messages. If these weapons were so dangerous to Palestinians, they are especially more so to Israelis.

Were are these folk supposed to run to? There is a blockade. There is no escape. This forms part of the crime of the IDF.

 

[S.A.M.]

the cheap tactic of portraying me as supporting Apartheid and Nazism is also pretty telling.

Why aren't you? What makes them so special that its acceptable to demonise them? Where is your famous objective, non-partisan even handed approach here?

 

[pjdude1219]

That is a very good question. Most likely, a reasonable strategy would be to deploy A Bombs on non populated targets in Japan, followed by a clear and direct communication that the next couple of A Bombs could hit whatever target is chosen.

A weapon is meaningless if you won't use it.

 

[StrawDog]

A weapon is meaningless if you won't use it.

So the nukes of the Cold War that created a military stand off (but no war) were meaningless?

 

[quadraphonics]

What happens when the side that insists on and is non negotiable on the issue of cessation of violence, then hypocritically engages in violence themselves?

Both sides will typically do that, if history is any guide. Placing unrealistic preconditions on negotiation is the classic method of refusing to negotiate (outright refusal is not an option, at least for smaller states that value their relationships with bigger states who favor a negotiated solution).

You can't want peace more than they do, as they say. The goal is to get each side into a position where they'd rather make peace than pursue victory. At that point, they will stop issuing prejudicial preconditions, and actually start negotiating for real. There is nothing inherent in the character of either side, or the substance of their positions, that prevents a settlement. But as long as either side believes that they can draw decisive support from outside by presenting their case loudly enough, the result will be the pursuit of divisive tactics and a refusal to negotiate substantiatively.

There are plenty of voices, on both sides, that feed off of the conflict. The goal is to stop empowering these actors by perpetuating the "us vs. them" thinking that sustains them. I know that the idea that you're actually harming people by showing solidarity with them can be counterintuitive, but that's how it works out in this case: your solidarity is cynically exploited by bad actors as cover for atrocities against the other side, which perpetuate the conflict. Better to retain your integrity, I say.

 

[pjdude1219]

So the nukes of the Cold War that created a military stand off (but no war) were meaningless?

we would have used them. it just thankfully never came to that. for a weapon to have meaning you must be willing to use it.

 

[StrawDog]

Both sides will typically do that, if history is any guide. Placing unrealistic preconditions on negotiation is the classic method of refusing to negotiate (outright refusal is not an option, at least for smaller states that value their relationships with bigger states who favor a negotiated solution).

You can't want peace more than they do, as they say. The goal is to get each side into a position where they'd rather make peace than pursue victory. At that point, they will stop issuing prejudicial preconditions, and actually start negotiating for real. There is nothing inherent in the character of either side, or the substance of their positions, that prevents a settlement. But as long as either side believes that they can draw decisive support from outside by presenting their case loudly enough, the result will be the pursuit of divisive tactics and a refusal to negotiate substantiatively.

There are plenty of voices, on both sides, that feed off of the conflict. The goal is to stop empowering these actors by perpetuating the "us vs. them" thinking that sustains them. I know that the idea that you're actually harming people by showing solidarity with them can be counterintuitive, but that's how it works out in this case: your solidarity is cynically exploited by bad actors as cover for atrocities against the other side, which perpetuate the conflict. Better to retain your integrity, I say.

Fair enough Quad. If only we lived in a perfect world.