Neither pro-Israel or pro-Palestine

[bebotalk]

I don't get why people reduce it to these angles. It's reductive and childish. And doesn't account for the complexity of the situation. 

IMHO at least, Israel and Palestine both have legitimate gripes on the situation. So who then is more right or wrong? This is why being "pro" on one side over the other is mega-cringe. 

I don't see how a one-state solution can work. I can't see either side wanting to share power. And a scenario like South Africa post-Apartheid - that is one person, one vote - won't work. There is too much bad blood and acrimony, and the ANC and other black South African parties aren't out to kill Afrikaners. 

 

[bebotalk]

Just realised it should be "neither pro-Israel nor pro-Palestine". And I'm a native English speaker loool. for shame.

[Parallax Mind]

On 24/11/2023 at 8:23 AM, bebotalk said:

I don't get why people reduce it to these angles. It's reductive and childish. And doesn't account for the complexity of the situation. 

IMHO at least, Israel and Palestine both have legitimate gripes on the situation. So who then is more right or wrong? This is why being "pro" on one side over the other is mega-cringe. 

Yes you are right that it's childish to blindly choose a side without considering the complexity of a situation. But failing to eventually choose a side is even more childish as it is impractical. As adults we have to make tough decisions.

That being said, I think Isreal is more aligned with higher western values and deserves support. It's a mistake to support a radical religious terrorist group that doesn't recognize Isreal as a legitimate country and has a mandate to kill all Jews. Also Hammas hides behind its women and children. Imagine if Isreal troops did that? While it's important to consider both sides, it's important to come to the realization that they aren't equal. 

Edited November 27, 2023 by Parallax Mind

[bebotalk]

27 minutes ago, Parallax Mind said:

Yes you are right that it's childish to blindly choose a side without considering the complexity of a situation. But failing to eventually choose a side is even more childish as it is impractical. As adults we have to make tough decisions.

That being said, I think Isreal is more aligned with higher western values and deserves support. It's a mistake to support a radical religious terrorist group that doesn't recognize Isreal as a legitimate country and has a mandate to kill all Jews. Also Hammas hides behind its women and children. Imagine if Isreal troops did that? While it's important to consider both sides, it's important to come to the realization that they aren't equal. 

Choosing a side when there is no obvious winner or loser or aggressor or victim is foolhardy, as this can lead to more problems. The "win-win" is arguably a two-state solution, but even this is problematic. Few Israelis or Palestinians right now want to have two separate sovereign states. Hamas isn't the only Palestinian arm, and the PLA is also ruling the West Bank. Hamas did terrible acts, but they would argue that Israel has done similar, which is true. This is why imho, there is no "good or bad" party here. Hamas isn't representative of all Palestinians.

[Parallax Mind]

58 minutes ago, bebotalk said:

Choosing a side when there is no obvious winner or loser or aggressor or victim is foolhardy, as this can lead to more problems. The "win-win" is arguably a two-state solution, but even this is problematic. Few Israelis or Palestinians right now want to have two separate sovereign states. Hamas isn't the only Palestinian arm, and the PLA is also ruling the West Bank. Hamas did terrible acts, but they would argue that Israel has done similar, which is true. This is why imho, there is no "good or bad" party here. Hamas isn't representative of all Palestinians.

So your opinion is that you have no opinion because it is too complex. And you are calling others that do have an opinion childish? Yes in a sense you are right. All wars are childish and if we were smart we would drop our arms and end all wars. 

I also hope one day the whole world can live in peace. 

Edited November 27, 2023 by Parallax Mind

[zazen]

I get it if people are just too busy or don't feel knowledgeable enough to make a judgment and take a stand on issues. Rationality allows for relativity - to understand the other. But it also allows for discernment of what values/actions are more legit than others. We can understand others values but don't have to value their values in the same way or to the same degree. Mature rationality is not just understanding but discerning - one could further say a even higher level of rationality is not to even play the game itself and be lost in moral discussions all together.

 
The enlightened types like to be detached from the disputes and dichotomies of the common man,  looking down at it all from a lofty place of transcendence. As Ram Dass said, part of awakening can be playing the role of form we are in - that is human. To be human, we've got to get down in the muck where the humanness is happening. Moral relativity is about understanding both sides but moral legitimacy is about determining and discerning the rightness of each side. Pluralism doesn't always mean neutralism.

It's possible to see both sides of every contentious issue - that's a sign of intellectual maturity.  But just because we can see both sides doesn’t mean we should live our life as though they both have equal merit. If we don’t further grapple with the rightness of each side we neglect a whole dimension of understanding by simply leaving it at  “well I can see both sides which means both are equally right”. It’s good to understand that all concepts are relative and that none contain absolute truth, but this necessarily means that some concepts are more relatively truthful than others and by extension some actions are more relatively right than others.

None of us live our lives as though all things are the same and all concepts are equally true - men can't have babies and I can't identify as something I'm not. We don’t drink bleach to wake us up, we order a coffee. When we want to go to somewhere we take a specific route, we don’t walk in a random direction and hope for manifestation to do its magic. Our daily choices reflect our reliance on relative truths as a fundamental aspect of our everyday life.

I can understand why a robber had to rob to feed his family but I can still claim it not to be right. I can understand why Hamas did what they did and still claim it not to be right. I can understand why Israel feels entitled to the land of Palestine and still claim it not to be right.

Where a rational society malfunctions compared to a irrational one is that it doesn't mature past the stage of understanding towards discernment. It gets stuck at the subjective level playing the game of moral relativity which is like a windmill able to go in all directions and see all perspectives but which keeps us going round and round, dazed, dizzy and chaotic. As opposed to graduating to also having discernment which implies a hierarchy of values and thus a compass to guide us towards betterment.

Deciding our direction with the windmill of moral relativity and not a compass is what keeps us lost and disillusioned. I feel this is one of the reasons a lot of people in the West are returning to religion or tradition as a way to feel anchored in something with direction. But, religion and tradition can be a shortcut to thinking as can be the liberalism of moral subjectivity - that all perspectives are fine so we don't have to wrestle with the tougher beast that is discerning which perspectives are better or worse.  

Edited November 27, 2023 by zazen

[Nivsch]

@bebotalk This is wrong.

You are invited to visit Tulkarem and if you will be able to stay alive there you can visit the electric poll on which two palestinians were hanged two days ago after been suspected for cooperation with Israel while all the crowd shout and cheer in glee in front of them.

There are NO two equal sides here.

This is NOT "just two sides of the same coin."

Israelis have western values and western culture at the same development level as US and part of Europe (except northern Europe).

Palestinians have mainly red to blue culture and probably on the less healthy side on the spectrum.

Yes Israel has the responsibility to do necessary steps on its side to help promote peace with the Palestinians while the Palestinians have to stop being serial peace refusals.

Edited November 27, 2023 by Nivsch

[Nivsch]

@Parallax Mind Exactly.

Toxic neutrality and toxic extreme relativism eventually serves the less developed side in this case the Palestinians.

The situation is not symmetric at all, but it doesn't release Israel from responsibility to do trust building steps.

Edited November 27, 2023 by Nivsch

[bebotalk]

5 hours ago, Parallax Mind said:

So your opinion is that you have no opinion because it is too complex. And you are calling others that do have an opinion childish? Yes in a sense you are right. All wars are childish and if we were smart we would drop our arms and end all wars. 

I also hope one day the whole world can live in peace. 

My opinion is as stated. I believe that there is no right or wrong party as both sides hold a stake. It makes no sense to be pro either side. The solution is for somehow both sides to share the land and live in peace. Yes, Hamas was evil in its attacks. But it's a manifestation of decades of conflict that rests on the same question - as in who claims the land and who holds a right to be there. Both sides do. By being pro-Israel or pro-Palestine, then it cites one side as right and the other wrong without seeing the rudiments of the conflict. 

 

[bebotalk]

4 hours ago, Nivsch said:

@bebotalk This is wrong.

You are invited to visit Tulkarem and if you will be able to stay alive there you can visit the electric poll on which two palestinians were hanged two days ago after been suspected for cooperation with Israel while all the crowd shout and cheer in glee in front of them.

There are NO two equal sides here.

This is NOT "just two sides of the same coin."

Israelis have western values and western culture at the same development level as US and part of Europe (except northern Europe).

Palestinians have mainly red to blue culture and probably on the less healthy side on the spectrum.

Yes Israel has the responsibility to do necessary steps on its side to help promote peace with the Palestinians while the Palestinians have to stop being serial peace refusals.

I for one see the entire conflict like any other conflict. I see that both sides have legitimate claims. So I don't see it as who is "more right or wrong" despite individual actions on both sides being grave. As for Western values, I believe states hold the right to have non-Western values. The West has no right to push its ideals onto other parts of the world. Even amongst Western countries, attitudes differ. Within the USA itself, some states have recently criminalised abortion. In Europe, this would not occur very readily without major shifts in public attitude. The UK is an example of this, as its political culture unlike the southern USA is way less religiously rooted. 

 

 

 

[Nivsch]

@bebotalk But don't you think palestinians are much more wrong from the fact they educate their children to hate, jihad and killing others?

Edited November 27, 2023 by Nivsch

[itsadistraction]

14 minutes ago, bebotalk said:

I for one see the entire conflict like any other conflict. I see that both sides have legitimate claims. So I don't see it as who is "more right or wrong" despite individual actions on both sides being grave. As for Western values, I believe states hold the right to have non-Western values. The West has no right to push its ideals onto other parts of the world.

14 minutes ago, bebotalk said:

 

The West is higher up in spiral dynamics and is trying to bring the whole world up. Evolution can only be resisted for so long. And lower stages can only be tolerated for so long. 

Edited November 27, 2023 by itsadistraction

[bebotalk]

5 hours ago, zazen said:

I get it if people are just too busy or don't feel knowledgeable enough to make a judgment and take a stand on issues. Rationality allows for relativity - to understand the other. But it also allows for discernment of what values/actions are more legit than others. We can understand others values but don't have to value their values in the same way or to the same degree. Mature rationality is not just understanding but discerning - one could further say a even higher level of rationality is not to even play the game itself and be lost in moral discussions all together.

 
The enlightened types like to be detached from the disputes and dichotomies of the common man,  looking down at it all from a lofty place of transcendence. As Ram Dass said, part of awakening can be playing the role of form we are in - that is human. To be human, we've got to get down in the muck where the humanness is happening. Moral relativity is about understanding both sides but moral legitimacy is about determining and discerning the rightness of each side. Pluralism doesn't always mean neutralism.

It's possible to see both sides of every contentious issue - that's a sign of intellectual maturity.  But just because we can see both sides doesn’t mean we should live our life as though they both have equal merit. If we don’t further grapple with the rightness of each side we neglect a whole dimension of understanding by simply leaving it at  “well I can see both sides which means both are equally right”. It’s good to understand that all concepts are relative and that none contain absolute truth, but this necessarily means that some concepts are more relatively truthful than others and by extension some actions are more relatively right than others.

None of us live our lives as though all things are the same and all concepts are equally true - men can't have babies and I can't identify as something I'm not. We don’t drink bleach to wake us up, we order a coffee. When we want to go to somewhere we take a specific route, we don’t walk in a random direction and hope for manifestation to do its magic. Our daily choices reflect our reliance on relative truths as a fundamental aspect of our everyday life.

I can understand why a robber had to rob to feed his family but I can still claim it not to be right. I can understand why Hamas did what they did and still claim it not to be right. I can understand why Israel feels entitled to the land of Palestine and still claim it not to be right.

Where a rational society malfunctions compared to a irrational one is that it doesn't mature past the stage of understanding towards discernment. It gets stuck at the subjective level playing the game of moral relativity which is like a windmill able to go in all directions and see all perspectives but which keeps us going round and round, dazed, dizzy and chaotic. As opposed to graduating to also having discernment which implies a hierarchy of values and thus a compass to guide us towards betterment.

Deciding our direction with the windmill of moral relativity and not a compass is what keeps us lost and disillusioned. I feel this is one of the reasons a lot of people in the West are returning to religion or tradition as a way to feel anchored in something with direction. But, religion and tradition can be a shortcut to thinking as can be the liberalism of moral subjectivity - that all perspectives are fine so we don't have to wrestle with the tougher beast that is discerning which perspectives are better or worse.  

It's not about moral relativism. It's about realising the roots and nature of the conflict and finding a solution based on the stated goals and aims of each side. Who then should hold the right to the lands of Israel more? Who can say this? Hardline Jews would say that God gave it to them via the Torah/Talmud. Palestinians have been living there for centuries, and it's not their fault that their ancestors invaded the lands during the Arab Muslim conquests. Whilst Jews arguably hold the oldest right to live there, this doesn't mean it's an absolute or exclusive right. By this logic, Native Americans can expel all European, African, or Asian descendants from the entirety of the Americas. If an Iroquois lives in a street surrounded by white, black and Asian families, then tough shit, they have to leave back to their ancestral lands. Doesn't matter if the white family has ancestry in the USA going back to colonial times. Doesn'te matter if the black family can trace their ancestry to early 18th century slaves from Africa. Or if the Asian family's ancestors were 19th-century construction workers from China. 

[DocWatts]

Might as well say that you can't figure out whether you're for or against slavery. Does humankind have a long and complicated history with slavery, and is there a ton of nuanced understanding that can be applied to slavery as an institution? No doubt. But figuring out whether or not slavery should be abolished is not ethically complex (at least not for a person living in our modern world).

Likewise, figuring out where you stand on whether the Israeli state should be given a free hand to commit a slow genocide against a disempowered ethnic minority is not an ethically complex question. That's not to say a sustainable solution is obvious or straightforward, but recognizing that the current status quo is absolutely unacceptable should be easy.

Edited November 27, 2023 by DocWatts

[jaylimix]

12 hours ago, DocWatts said:

Likewise, figuring out where you stand on whether the Israeli state should be given a free hand to commit a slow genocide against a disempowered ethnic minority is not an ethically complex question.

What you said is false, Israel is not doing that.

From 1960 - 2020, the population of Palestine has grown from 1.1m to 5.1m 

https://www.statista.com/chart/20645/palestine-and-israel-population-growth/

[bebotalk]

15 hours ago, Nivsch said:

@bebotalk But don't you think palestinians are much more wrong from the fact they educate their children to hate, jihad and killing others?

No, i do not. What about the Israeli settlments? Not all Palestinians are pro-Hamas. And even if all Palestinians were this way as you describe, everything has a cause. The cause is Israel being there. But then why can't Israel be there? 

Again, this one-sidedness obfuscates the issue, imho. Escalations in a conflict don't make the base claim invalid. If two siblings are squabbling over playing with a toy, and one child punches the other in the face, it doesn't invalidate his or her claim to use the toy. It's just an unnecessary escalation in that specific point. 

Edited November 28, 2023 by bebotalk

[bebotalk]

14 hours ago, DocWatts said:

Might as well say that you can't figure out whether you're for or against slavery. Does humankind have a long and complicated history with slavery, and is there a ton of nuanced understanding that can be applied to slavery as an institution? No doubt. But figuring out whether or not slavery should be abolished is not ethically complex (at least not for a person living in our modern world).

Likewise, figuring out where you stand on whether the Israeli state should be given a free hand to commit a slow genocide against a disempowered ethnic minority is not an ethically complex question. That's not to say a sustainable solution is obvious or straightforward, but recognizing that the current status quo is absolutely unacceptable should be easy.

This is with respect a poor analogy. Slavery, at least in the trans-Atlantic system, was about racially based subjugation as much as it was economics. This was apparent throughout the history of the institution.  Israel isn't out to subjugate Palestinians, or commit genocide on them. Genocide generally denotes an intent to kill a people or group. 

The issue from literally the time of the Balfour Declaration and the founding of current Israel is still pertinent. 

Edited November 28, 2023 by bebotalk

[PurpleTree]

15 hours ago, Nivsch said:

@bebotalk But don't you think palestinians are much more wrong from the fact they educate their children to hate, jihad and killing others?

Teaching children they are the „chosen ones“ is also horrible.

Time to abandon these horrible religions and move on

[Nivsch]

1 hour ago, PurpleTree said:

Teaching children they are the „chosen ones“ is also horrible.

Time to abandon these horrible religions and move on

Violent murdering indoctrination vs non-violent metaphorical scheme kids learn in Torah lessons in 2nd grade when god talked to Abraham.

Wow. I can't stop staring this art of symmetry.

Edited November 28, 2023 by Nivsch

[zazen]

H

Edited November 28, 2023 by zazen