Neither pro-Israel or pro-Palestine

[PurpleTree]

2 hours ago, Nivsch said:

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.

I mean generally not just the lessons in 2nd grade

those religions are utter trash

bibi also talked about some biblical stuff

Edited November 28, 2023 by PurpleTree

[zazen]

3 hours ago, Nivsch said:

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.

It starts as metaphorical but often becomes literal and less often radical interpretations are drawn from religious texts. People die more for fiction than facts. The fiction of flags and nationalities, religion and ideologies.

Islam's concept of martydom and jihad for example have been perverted for sick causes. Likewise being proud of ones heritage, nationality or ethnicity can and has been perverted for sick causes.

Religions often believe in paradise after death, and they go about sick ways in order to achieve it and get there, often creating hell on earth. But so can atheists and the non religious create hell on earth in trying to bring about paradise on earth such as the communist regimes which a estimated 100 million people have died because of.

Radical religion creates hell on earth for paradise in the here after, radical communism creates hell on earth for a utopian paradise on earth.

 

Edited November 28, 2023 by zazen

[DocWatts]

9 hours ago, bebotalk said:

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. 

Thing is that genocide doesn't always look like a group of people being rounded up and sent to death camps (ie how a typical Israeli is likely to understand genocide).

Sometimes an indigenous people just happen to have the misfortune of being in the way of a more powerful entity who feels entitled to the place that they've been living, which is what happened to the Native Americans and is a closer analogue to what's happening to the Palestinians. In both instances genocide is a byproduct of the policy goals of these more powerful entities, but in both cases the result is the systematic destruction of a way of life, along with appalling conditions for the survivors of this process.

Gaza has been described as the world's largest Open Air Prison, and the long term goal of Israeli's far right has been to make life so unlivable for Palestinians that they lose hope of ever changing thier situation, and try to find a way to leave as a result. Basically, make life so hopeless and unpleasant in Gaza that the life of a refugee would be preferable to remaining under Israeli military occupation.

Of course the irony is that making life for a minority so unpleasant that the hope is that most of them leave the country as refugees echos policies that have been weaponized against Jews in the early years of Nazi Germany and elsewhere (such as Tzarist Russia).

Edited November 28, 2023 by DocWatts

[zazen]

@DocWatts Well put. Its's important to agree on definitions as everyone stretches the definition of words to fit more of what they wish to associate it with.

Even if it isn't genocide which some people claim it isn't, it sure is ethnic cleansing as that by definition includes the expulsion of a people. From what I can infer by actions and statements of prominent members from the Israeli side the target is not only Hamas but Gaza itself to be unlivable.
 

No wonder they've been going at it to destroy even Hospitals that are sacrosanct. 

 

Edited November 28, 2023 by zazen

[Nivsch]

6 hours ago, PurpleTree said:

I mean generally not just the lessons in 2nd grade

those religions are utter trash

bibi also talked about some biblical stuff

It depends on to where you take tham. They are meaningful operating systems rooted in valid truths but on the screen show many false images.

Secularism is also a religion.

If you want to get rid of religion you will have to encourage the people to upgrade it.

If you get rid of X religion you will get another new religions built from its fragrances.

Edited November 28, 2023 by Nivsch

[bebotalk]

19 hours ago, DocWatts said:

Thing is that genocide doesn't always look like a group of people being rounded up and sent to death camps (ie how a typical Israeli is likely to understand genocide).

Sometimes an indigenous people just happen to have the misfortune of being in the way of a more powerful entity who feels entitled to the place that they've been living, which is what happened to the Native Americans and is a closer analogue to what's happening to the Palestinians. In both instances genocide is a byproduct of the policy goals of these more powerful entities, but in both cases the result is the systematic destruction of a way of life, along with appalling conditions for the survivors of this process.

Gaza has been described as the world's largest Open Air Prison, and the long term goal of Israeli's far right has been to make life so unlivable for Palestinians that they lose hope of ever changing thier situation, and try to find a way to leave as a result. Basically, make life so hopeless and unpleasant in Gaza that the life of a refugee would be preferable to remaining under Israeli military occupation.

Of course the irony is that making life for a minority so unpleasant that the hope is that most of them leave the country as refugees echos policies that have been weaponized against Jews in the early years of Nazi Germany and elsewhere (such as Tzarist Russia).

By contemporary international law, genocide is intentional. The Manifest Destiny of the 19th century, even before the advent of modern conventions on genocide, was an intentional move to kill or displace Native Americans. As this "destiny" was supposedly "manifest", the native peoples living there were just in the way. Either they were shoved into reservations, or they were killed. The extermination of the plains buffalo was a deliberate move to push off native tribes, so by modern international law, if used retrospectively, the American government was committing an actual genocide. There is no intentional push to kill or displace Palestinians. The cases in Rwanda and Bosnia were genocides by current international law, as was Darfur. 

Even still, you've proven my point. By taking admitted bad acts on one party, it doesn't mean that one side is more right or wrong. Individual bad acts don't or shouldn't undermine the meta-point of the conflict. If one side is "more right or wrong", then does this mean all Palestinians or Israelis should die or be forced to leave? That's not practical, nor ethical. And it just inflames further conflict. I stand by my original points, in that the elemental facet of the entire conflict has never changed. And that true peace can only be achieved if both sides can be achieved if both sides recognise the other's claims and reaching an accord. 

People who are "pro" each side often have agendas. There are some anti-Semitic "pro-Palestinians" and there are some anti-Arab Israelis. If either had their way, what then? Any chance for a lasting peace diminishes. Such positions are childish, reductive, and often stem from darker and deeper agendas. I look on anybody who is "pro" either side with scepticism and moral disdain. 

Edited November 29, 2023 by bebotalk

[DocWatts]

5 hours ago, bebotalk said:

People who are "pro" each side often have agendas. There are some anti-Semitic "pro-Palestinians" and there are some anti-Arab Israelis. If either had their way, what then? Any chance for a lasting peace diminishes. Such positions are childish, reductive, and often stem from darker and deeper agendas. I look on anybody who is "pro" either side with scepticism and moral  disdain. 

I'd argue that attempting to 'both-sides' a conflict where there's an obvious and overwhelming power imbalance at work, and where one side is clearly more responsible for the state of events that led to the conflict, is a misuse of whatever framework you happen to be using to arrive at your 'neutrality' (be that Spiral Dynamics, Integral, spirituality, etc).

Because the power dynamics are so overwhelming in favor of the Israeli state, the primary responsibility for taking the first steps to end the conflict is also in their court.

Recognizing the obvious injustice of the current situation doesn't mean wanting israel wiped off the map. Instead, it means an end to Israeli's illegal military occupation and forced ghettoization of Palestinians, and support for steps to begin implementing a two-state solution that would be a first step in ending the conflict. 

Obviously any political solution isn't going to be a 'quick fix'. Intergenerational trauma and decades of brutalization doesn't disappear overnight, but the process has to start somewhere.

 

Edited November 29, 2023 by DocWatts

[Nivsch]

@DocWatts As long as Israel exists it is the occupier and the brutal in your eyes.

Thats the root of the argument.

I'm done playing this game of symmetry.

There is one side wants to deffend itself and other side who slaugther civilians purposely and then connect itself with super glue to civilians to not being killed and Israel hands are bounded. 

Israel has to do trust building steps and mainly stop settlements expansion and thats it.

All the rest - background noise and excuses to justify the root that as long as Israel exists it will be the occupier in your eyes 🙂

Edited November 29, 2023 by Nivsch

[bebotalk]

21 hours ago, DocWatts said:

I'd argue that attempting to 'both-sides' a conflict where there's an obvious and overwhelming power imbalance at work, and where one side is clearly more responsible for the state of events that led to the conflict, is a misuse of whatever framework you happen to be using to arrive at your 'neutrality' (be that Spiral Dynamics, Integral, spirituality, etc).

Because the power dynamics are so overwhelming in favor of the Israeli state, the primary responsibility for taking the first steps to end the conflict is also in their court.

Recognizing the obvious injustice of the current situation doesn't mean wanting israel wiped off the map. Instead, it means an end to Israeli's illegal military occupation and forced ghettoization of Palestinians, and support for steps to begin implementing a two-state solution that would be a first step in ending the conflict. 

Obviously any political solution isn't going to be a 'quick fix'. Intergenerational trauma and decades of brutalization doesn't disappear overnight, but the process has to start somewhere.

 

Well, Hamas would say that Israel merely being there is problematic. Israel would retort by saying that it occupied Gaza due to security concerns, and that it has a right to a Jewish state given the near perpetual oppression Jews have faced for millennia in various cultures. The Romans, medieval European Christians, Islamic Caliphates, early modern/industrial Europeans, and then the Nazis, all oppressed them in some form. 

I can fully see that individual acts are wrong and should be condemned. And focusing on them misses the forest for the trees. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what being "pro-Israel" and "pro-Palestine" means. If so, then so be it. But I do take the "meta" position since that's the position that IMHO makes the most sense. Both sides hold a claim to the land - hence they have to find some way to share it. You yourself say as such via a two-state solution. I agree that this is the best viable option. A one-state solution like what Bibi advocates won't work, not without major sharing of power at all levels of government. Two enemies at an impasse for decades won't agree to this as a matter of course. 

[DocWatts]

2 hours ago, bebotalk said:

I can fully see that individual acts are wrong and should be condemned. And focusing on them misses the forest for the trees. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what being "pro-Israel" and "pro-Palestine" means. If so, then so be it. But I do take the "meta" position since that's the position that IMHO makes the most sense. Both sides hold a claim to the land - hence they have to find some way to share it. You yourself say as such via a two-state solution. I agree that this is the best viable option. A one-state solution like what Bibi advocates won't work, not without major sharing of power at all levels of government. Two enemies at an impasse for decades won't agree to this as a matter of course. 

A 'meta' (as in a metamodern) way of framing the conflict would be one that uses systems thinking, game theory, dialectical/developmental models as framing devices to try and understand the perspective and motivations of the different sides of the conflict. It doesn't entail having to take a 'middle of the road' stance on every issue, especially when there's a clear injustice that remains unaddressed.

Edited November 30, 2023 by DocWatts

[bebotalk]

22 hours ago, DocWatts said:

A 'meta' (as in a metamodern) way of framing the conflict would be one that uses systems thinking, game theory, dialectical/developmental models as framing devices to try and understand the perspective and motivations of the different sides of the conflict. It doesn't entail having to take a 'middle of the road' stance on every issue, especially when there's a clear injustice that remains unaddressed.

No. I use "meta" as akin to "meta" ethics, as in an overarching view of a concept or reality. Most "pro" sides take a reductive and singular view. And most people who are "pro" on either side tend to view one side as right or wrong. I do not. I believe what's done has been done. So it's best to just accept each other's claims and try one's best to live together. Either via one-state, two-state, or three-state solutions. Neither side will go anywhere, and shouldn't. I already said I can see that both sides do bad shit. This doesn't mean that the overarching point of the conflict has diminished. Most individual acts are just tit-for-tat attacks. Hamas does what it does because it sees Israel as inherently illegitimate. Israel would say it has a right to be there, and that Jews should hold the right to a state. You're not seeing the forest for the trees IMHO, and I refuse to see any side as "wrong" or "more culpable".