FAO: Braden

[DelicateSound]

Sorry to turf this one up Kung Lek, only I'm presuming you closed the thread due to the link, so I hope it's OK if I make a few replies to continue the [polite!] conversation.


"Both sides are wrong" is a valid theoretical position, but largely useless as a real-life policy. While it may cover your ass in a debate, it doesn't lead to any SOLUTION to the PROBLEM. And I'm sure we can all agree there's a problem.
Braden


Of course it recognises that there is a problem. It recognises quite adequately that both sides are wrong, both sides are committing atrocities and that a COMPROMISE is the only solution that can bring any chance of peace.



The only possible way to make such a statement logically consistent in a practical rather than theoretical debate is if you believe that there is no sense, moral or otherwise, in trying to improve upon wrong things, or find solutions to problems. And of course, there are a whole lot of undesirable implications from such a belief which I'm sure you wouldn't be comfortable with.
Braden


Never said that pal. I do believe that "wrong things" need to be rectified, but that doesn't mean I have to vehemently adhere to the ploicies of one particular faction in any way. Having a balanced opinion is a means to the end: a way of analysing the situation in a way as to obtain ans equal and fair resolution.

By viewing my political ambiguity regarding the situation you unnecessarily have questioned my ethical and moral beliefs regarding the situation - which is wrong.




Delicate :)

[KC Elbows]

No matter how many different threads you give this topic, it will still be inferior to the toothpaste thread.

[Braden]

"...have to vehemently adhere to the ploicies of one particular faction in any way. Having a balanced opinion is a means to the end: a way of analysing the situation in a way as to obtain ans equal and fair resolution."

No one who's opinion you attacked had ever asserted that they 'vehemently adhere to the policies of one particular faction' nor that one particular faction was blameless, nor that they were 100% justified, etc etc etc.

In fact, I would wager most of them 'had a balanced opinion as a means to an end: a way of analysing the situation in a way as to obtain a ... resolution'.

It's painfully obvious that sitting back and saying 'Ok, you guys both kind of suck... so let's help you guys find an equal and fair resolution' DOES NOT WORK. It sounds great. Saying that makes you sound like a great guy. It's easy and simple and makes you feel good about yourself. And it results in another decade of women and children being killed.

In real life, unfortunately, so vastly unfortunately, obtaining an ACTUAL resolution is rarely, which is to say never, equal and fair in everyones eyes. That's just one of the crappy things about the reality we live in.

Accept this, and the next step is: **** equal and fair, let's just get a resolution which minimizes the suffering this world has to see. That's as good as we're going to get, and frankly, I personally think 'minimal suffering' is a much more admirable goal than 'equal and fair.'

What the people who's opinions you attacked are saying is exactly this. And moreover, they're suggesting a route to get to this new definition of a resolution.

Ok, they didn't say it quite as diplomatically or reason it in this manner. But this really is what alot of them are saying.

[red5angel]

Hmmm, Braden, it is an interesting point of view you have, not sure yet if I agree with you or not, I will have to think about it. However, America has done mostly what you are saying in the past. For instance what we are doing in afghanistan. We arent trying to make the taliban happy, we are just shooting for minimum of pain.

[Braden]

I'm not sure what point you could disagree with. ;)

America isn't mitigating in Afghanistan, or at least it wasn't, it was at war. Very different situation.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'mostly in the past.'

[DelicateSound]

Braden dude - it's all very well and good trying to come off all humanitarian on me, but at the end of the day "appealing to end the suffering" won't work. Arafat and Sharon are calling the shots, do you think they care about the people?!!!


No they don't. They care about a few strips of land. If you want to end this, then a resolution is needed that will appease Arafat, Sharon and the extremists on both sides.

It's all nice and happy to say "what about the people", but the people aren't the guys with their fingers on the military buttons now are they??


And at the end of the day - the US can't storm in and protect the folks there - this is NOT their war.

[Braden]

"trying to come off all humanitarian on me"

It's not a debating ploy. I am an avid humanitarian.

"But at the end of the day 'appealing to end the suffering' won't work."

Agreed. And that's not what I was doing. 'Appealing to end the suffering' is a philisophical position which explains the practical actions suggested, which is what you originally attacked in the other thread. I didn't just change the subject. ;)

"Arafat and Sharon are calling the shots, do you think they care about the people?!!!"

Actually, yes I do. Sharon wants to stop burying his people. Do you really think he cares about the land? It's clear Arafat also wants to stop burying HIS people. It's unfortunate that the other arab states won't let him compromise to that end.

"They care about a few strips of land."

Arafat cares about a few strips of land. And with good reason, as he and his people happen to live there. Although I personally think they should have up and left ages ago, but that doesn't change the 'reasonableness' of his caring for that land. Sharon doesn't give a **** about most of that land.

"a resolution is needed that will appease Arafat, Sharon and the extremists on both sides."

Like what exactly?

"the people aren't the guys with their fingers on the military buttons now are they?"

Yes, they are. Especially in Palestine.

"the US can't storm in and protect the folks there"

They've done it before. Although of course I never suggested such a thing.

[Merryprankster]

Braden's right on this one.

A good working compromise is going to p!ss off the extremists on both sides--but the middle may come through united. Establish that, and you've got a working body of people that hopefully can quash the violence. BTW--that's how compromises work--if the extreme viewpoints on either side are unhappy, it's a good compromise.

The other option involves armed intervention. This option is unviable on several levels--the primary one being that Israel is considered a "stable," nation capable of handling its "internal affairs." UN intervention in a "western democracy," would be unnacceptable to at least one member of the security council--the US. And since we have veto power, it doesn't matter what anybody else thinks.

If the US were to provide armed intervention it would be VERY counterproductive--the Arab states would view it as support of Israeli interests (regardless of our aims and actions) and Israel would view it as severe interference in an internal affair.

[Ky-Fi]

Very true, Merryprankster.

I see the crux of the problem being that the Palestinian authority is either unwilling or unable (I'm truly not sure which) to control the Palestinian militants. When the civilian Israeli PM publicly declares that armed Israeli troops are withdrawing, they withdraw. When Yasser Arafat has publicly declared an end to attacks on Israel by Palestinians---they continue. Maybe it's true that a majority of Palestinians want peace with Israel, and don't deserve the harsh treatment they get fromt he Israeli military----but they aren't the problem in the first place---it's the militants who want to see Israel wiped off the Earth. I think hatred of Jews is so deeply ingrained into parts of the Palestinian culture that these militant extremists have a great deal of public support---and Arafat has to appease them or else he'll get assasinated---so they're allowed to continue their suicide bombings, and Arafat publicly says he condemns them while privately turning a blind eye or even encouraging them.


The difference I see between the Palestinians and the Israelis is that among the Israelis, those that are militantly extreme and want to wipe out the Palestinians are a small and controllable number, whereas among the Palestinians, those who want to wipe out Israel form a much higher percentage of the population, and the governmental structure in place can't contain it.

Now, for the record I'm not Jewish, but I truly believe that a lot of the pro-Palestinian sentiment in the Arab countries, and, yes, in Europe, has as much to do with anti-semitism as it does with any of Israel's policies.

[Merryprankster]

I agree on at least one count:

The Palestinian authority is either unwilling or unable to stop the attacks.

The way you fix that is by providing the Palestinian Authority the support it needs to properly police the area so it can curb the attacks. If the attacks continue, you have no choice but to believe that the Palestinian Authority is UNWILLING to help curb the attacks

[Ky-Fi]

Originally posted by Merryprankster

The way you fix that is by providing the Palestinian Authority the support it needs to properly police the area so it can curb the attacks. If the attacks continue, you have no choice but to believe that the Palestinian Authority is UNWILLING to help curb the attacks

Yes, but I think many Israelis would argue that that's exact chain of logic that they've followed which has LED them to support military incursions into Palestinian areas.

[Merryprankster]

Perhaps. I believe that "leaving them alone," and actively giving them help are two different things though.

Not that the PA would take help from the US or Israel. And UN help would insinuate a lack of control, and Israel probably wouldn't stand for help from another Arab country--maybe Jordan or Egypt?

[Ky-Fi]

Well there, I think we've established that it's a mess :). I agree US troops should not be deployed there---that would just upset everyone and they'd just become targets. And yeah, I don't think Israel would trust any Arab troops. Maybe a European force---heck, bring in the Japanese or the Chinese!

[Merryprankster]

Jordan might get away with it--as long as Sharon wasn't in power. It wasn't too long ago that the west bank was a Jordan-Israel bone of contention, was it?

Lets send in the Thais. Why? Why not?!

[Serpent]

If the US were to provide armed intervention it would be VERY counterproductive--the Arab states would view it as support of Israeli interests (regardless of our aims and actions) and Israel would view it as severe interference in an internal affair.


Are you serious? Are you suggesting that the US doesn't support Israeli interests already, financially among other methods? Surely you're not that blind or ignorant!

Why do you think they flew planes into the WTC and the Pentagon? Might have something to do with perceived "support of Israeli interests" as well as disdain for the might-is-right, corporate powered, self-interested lifestyle of the west, particularly the US.

[anton]

Originally posted by Serpent

Are you serious? Are you suggesting that the US doesn't support Israeli interests already, financially among other methods? Surely you're not that blind or ignorant!


I think he's just saying that even the most unbiased, well-intentioned US military intervention to bring peace to the region would be seen by Arab states as further support of Israel.

[diego]

Serpent, i just read something on this, i cant remember wich article though, i think it mentioned, its not some redneck illuminate amerikkkan government who give the israelis they toys, its the jeweish league of america wich is a major force in the political/ economic? worlds...Basically its the j leagues american dollars wich support the israeli state!?.
I think thats what it said, i'll try to find it if it is important.

[Ky-Fi]

Originally posted by Serpent


Why do you think they flew planes into the WTC and the Pentagon? Might have something to do with perceived "support of Israeli interests" as well as disdain for the might-is-right, corporate powered, self-interested lifestyle of the west, particularly the US.

Leftism 101 :)

"its not some redneck illuminate amerikkkan government who give the israelis they toys, its the jeweish league of america wich is a major force in the political/ economic? worlds...Basically its the j leagues american dollars wich support the israeli state!?. "

See, the KKK are the ones who put out the "Jewish Conspiracy" theories---so don't you see the contradiction in logic if on one hand you're knocking the KKK, and then on the other you're espousing their theories? (sigh)

[Merryprankster]

Serpent:

I am both blind and ignorant. This is why I am able to approach an issue from both sides, understanding that the opposing factions each have deeply held viewpoints that influence their perception of any action taken towards resolution, and which are not easily swayed.

If I had done my homework, I'm sure that I would have reached the same conclusion that the North Face fleece, Marlboro chainsmoking, Birkenstock sandal, Gap jeans, Structure belt, IMF protesters here in DC had reached--any political entity is designed only to support megacorporations and screw over those not in the elite, and that the American way of life is primarily responsible for every bad thing that happenned in the world.

Or, I might have come to the conclusion that Jewish interests run the world and that American might is just one more extension of their vast and awesome power.

If I had delved even further, I would have realized that all this is allowed only at the whim of the Illuminati and the Freemason Empire.

Unfortunately, I didn't do my homework, and had to reach the clearly untenable conclusion that this is a complicated issue in which an appropriate compromise is going to make only the people who are tired of death happy, instead of the clearly well informed, logical views, tempered with a good dose of human understanding, espoused by the "Illiterati."

[scotty1]

Here we go again...