Israeli/Palestinian conflict

The people who think violence is bad still watch UFC.

No matter how much you change people through the media or any other way, they're still going to have that primal fear inside of them. There will never be a time when people are capable of being scared. And that fear is what ruins all chances of everyone being happy and friendly. Because if one person is scared, he can do things that can make other people scared, and before too long, the fear has spread like an epidemic.

Perfect example - school shootings. When Columbine happened, everybody was instantly afraid that their child was going to be shot at school by some crazy student, despite records indicating that school violence wasn't on the rise at all. But people got scared, so they said, "Put metal detectors in the school" and "Enforce a strict dress code." Some of the students who had to suffer with that stupid shit than got angry, that someone was taking away their freedom to wear what they want and not be treated like a prisoner just because they went to school.

People want freedom. Fear makes some people want to give up freedom for safety. Other people get angry about that, and where is society? It's in a mess, because humans are a mess, and society is built by humans.

At the end of a certain very important graphic novel (I won't give the name so as to not spoil the story for anyone, but those who have read it should know what I'm talking about), the world is at peace after many years of war and tension, and society seems good. People aren't living in fear like they used to. But not everyone is happy. Some people still resist, and some are angry that they have to live in such a world, even if it is a better world. And that's always going to be there. Because people don't want to take responsibility and don't want to think things through, because thinking is hard, and some people don't want to do it. It's easy to not think, and life is hard enough without thinking, right? Maybe that's not right, but that's how a lot of people see it, and I can't really disagree with them. If you're below the poverty line, and food is scarce, you don't really have a lot of time to spend thinking about stuff. So you let your fear of death, of running out of food, of not being able to pay your electricity bill, of getting kicked out onto the street - you let your fear get to you, and you don't care that not everyone in a certain area is horrible, and you don't care about the reasons for why you hate a person or a group of people; you just hate them, and it's comforting to know that at least you're better than some other people.

Perhaps human beings will never change, only time will tell. I want to make life better for everyone in order to give them a chance to change. To learn and advance as people on their own. I'd hope that if they were given that chance then they would begin to have strong empathy for other people. It's not really hard to believe that a faceless enemy is a lot easier to kill, when humans see someone suffering they can and do put themselves in that other person's shoes. That is why people make the choice not to kill. I don't think that humans are purely selfish, I think they have a lot to offer. It's about giving everyone an equal chance and abolishing the current statutes of privilege.

Btw could you tell me the name of this novel, I'm intrigued. I recommend that anyone here who hasn't already read it should read "The gulag archipelago" by Alexander Solzhenitsyn. A very good book that puts things into perspective. You are right when you say that when faced with the worst trials, we see humanity's darkest side. But that is all the more reason to improve the quality of life for everyone. Do not harm another person and they will not be inclined to harm you. This is where nihilistic principles like destroying the world and remaking it come into the mind's eye. In order to give humans a real chance at starting anew and being good to one another, in order to toss old grudges and regrets out the window. The things that hold people back.....

It is not virtual impossibility it IS an impossibility. What you are saying is not an ideal, it is a dream. Becaues humans are a greedy and selfish species, they will do fine in creating disorder without the help of a leader. There are murders happening by the thousands everyday without a leader ever being involved, but the fact that they are brought to justice is because a government set up a law and pay the police to enforce that law to protect its citizens. Also it is human nature for humans to look towards a leader. We are social by nature and we will want a leader, so even if we destroyed all the governments in the world, groups will pop up all over the place and now we'll have mini wars all over the place.

Brainwashing ever child at birth? Seriously... Since we're on a subject of morality, the fact that this was even brought up is crazy. The fact that children would be brain washed without their consent. No matter how great the dream, it is not worth brainwashing someone of their own will. Also, the economy would decline as people would not be selfish and won't buy anything for themselves. Without the need for being selfish, people could die needlessly trying to help others. Being selfish and greedy was programmed because it is a part of our survival instinct... But yes, a society where there are no hardships, wars, or bad leaders, everyone wants it. But I'm a realist and know that dreams like that won't come true.

I can't think of anything better. It took our forefathers months to come up with the Captalistic society, which in my opinion is the best of all choices. I'm not saying capitalism is perfect. But of all the things we have tried, (including anarchism which is your ideal) capitalism worked the best.

@ShaggyJebus: You lie, there will be giant mechs in the future! XD

I disagree, I don't think it is impossible to achieve, though people are selfish they can be manipulated into doing what is right. If it is in their own best interests. I brought up brainwashing to show that it was theoretically possible. Not impossible as you say, to achieve and maintain a society of this nature. I also said that I would not advocate such a policy, or did you miss that?

You don't seem to understand the nature of the brainwashing either, people would still seek to preserve themselves. But they would preserve others first. When everyone's basic survival needs are met then everything above that is a luxury. You say the economy would fail....when people are taking what they need rather than everything they can get their hands on then how can that be bad for the management of resources?

Communist anarchism has been tried sporadically and on a small scale, it depends on the people involved to make it a success. Have you ever thought that people should die in order to help their fellow man? That it is not good enough to just say: well, it's been this way all this time, no need to change anything.

Human nature is based on socialization anyway, though many people may share similar views they will not all be the same. I believe that human evolutionary tendency can turn toward co-operation for mutual benefit rather than each person opposing another as lone competitors.

The very nature of the world at this time, is unjust and it needs to be changed. Justice is a pursuit which Capitalists do not follow, they are happy as long as their purse is full and they have power over their fellow man. There cannot be justice when some people are ridiculously wealthy and others are starving to death, because they were born in a different area of the world. Perhaps by chance, by luck?

No man should have a better chance in life than another, it is the job of any ethically minded person to try and give everyone the opportunity to make the most of their lives. No-one should be denied the basic necessities of living. No man should commit harm upon another.

They will exist, and they may even be used for war, but there won't be as many as Gundam leads us to believe. They'd be too expensive to make and useless on land.



No problem. Here it is in a spoiler:

Thanks for that :)

Anyway, back onto the topic! The Palestinians attack the Israelis, and vice versa. I doubt the Israelis wiping out the Palestinians would be the end of their problems, it would only provoke even more hatred from the surrounding nations. If this conflict escalated, and Israel was attacked by other middle eastern nations (in a war it could not win with the indirect U.S. support it would undoubtedly receive - so a hypothetical situation at best). Do you think the U.S. would take direct action to intervene and if they do, where would the rest of the world fall on this issue?

Could this begin a conflict of a scale never seen before?

Israel is very close with America and America would surely send aid in the forms of either weapons to defend themselves or troops. Depending on the actions that led up to it. As long as Israel can justify it's actions America will probably send aid.

The rest of the world is a bit of a toss up as a I don't know the foreign affairs of countries outside my own as in I don't know how Cambodia is getting along with Germany. America will probably be the only supporter but, there are a few toss ups I think may back Israel due to the "Defense of Democracy" but, their support may not being anything more than a few pallets of aid or a few kind words.

America would support Israel because of the Jewish lobby - wouldn't you agree? I mean that's why they supported the creation of the "nation of Israel" in the first place. But they would probably justify the actions with something along the lines of: "but we were defending ourselves from terrorism, don't our children have the right to go to bed at night without fear of a Palestinian rocket attack that could kill their family?"

Israel should not have been there in the first place, it created a hostile situation. Though the Palestinians are by no means right in their methods, I can certainly see their point of view. Israel is a symbol of injustice and western intervention, and yet it remains there, able to freely propagate injustice, virtually unassailable with the shadow of America hanging over it.

Israel is an artificially made country placed in the middle of a territory in which Palestinians lived for centuries...
And let's be honest, it wouldn't even come to this if UN reacted immediately when Ben Gurion entered Jerusalem in 196* (dunno the correct year)which was under international supervision and declared it Israel's capital... I don't have anything against Jews, but Israel is a country which disrespects other countries and relies on Jewish industrial lobby which saves them from any international intervention against Israel..

Just to let the people posting on this forum know, Israel was there before the Palestinian... Just to let you guys know... >_>

Oh, were they? I must have missed that, forgetful me :) Well that changes everything!!! If Israel was there before the Palestinians then that makes it all right! Silly me thinking that playground law should not be applied to national politics.

The Palestinian homeland is closer to Jordan than it is to the land where Israel currently occupies. Jews were in the land of Israel at least around the creation of the Roman Empire. The Romans united Iudaea with the Galilee to form the Roman sub-province of Syria Palaestina (encapsulating territories of ancient Canaan, Kingdom of Israel, Judah, Moab, Ammon, and Philistia) and thus included much of the land on both sides of the Jordan River although with further political sub-divisions along the Jordan River valley.

How far back do you you want to go? Byzantine? Roman? Hellenistic? Persian? Neo-Babylonian? or Canaanite period? I can go back to about 1200 BCE for the "region of Palestine" which is the area in conflict between Egypt, Jordan,etc and according to the Hebrew bible the Kingdom of Israel was created in 1020 BCE with Saul as the first king. if there is anybody to be pissed at it's the British for not holding up their promise of creating a large Pan-Arab state; promised to the Sharif of Mecca in exchange for Arab help fighting the Ottoman Empire) during World War I.

I'm pretty sure there's no mention of anything being alright. >_> I just thought I'd mention this since there are people thinking the Israeli's are in the wrong for taking territory from the Palestinians, but won't consider the fact that Palestinians had previously taken it from them, that is all. Don't see anything that would merit a d-baggery sarcasm either. >_>

@FPOD: No need to go back that far. I just wanted to let people know that Palestinians aren't all that innocent... :)

Okay apologies for the sarcasm, just thought it was poignant given the fact that there was really no merit to your statement. It was irrelevant whether the Israelis were there before the Palestinians, the borders of the world have changed countless times over thousands of years. It would be like me saying: okay well at one point Britain controlled 25% of the globe, and according to a religious text. All of that land was promised to us from our God.

So do we get it back? No. Do we have any right to it whatsoever? No. Nor do the Israelis have any right to the land they occupy right now. I never said that the Palestinians were innocent :) I said that I did not agree with their methods, I just think they have more right to be where they are than Israel do.

@FPOD: The British Empire was in a very different situation during WW1 times change, as do a nation's capabilities/willingness to get things done. Not that I am justifying the situation at all, Israel should not have been created at all. Who was there first isn't a means by which to justify who should rule over a region. Weren't the "native" Americans in America before European settlers?

So by your logic I should be trying to force out all the immigrants to America? Especially, after the use of biological weapons and genocidal treatment and forcing us onto reservations unless we gave up our culture?

Another question to you would be:

Country A Exists
Country B Invades A
Country A fights and gets their home back
Country A is unjustified because it doesn't matter that they were there first?

Nope that wasn't what I was saying, what I was trying to say was that if we were to give a country to someone based on their religious beliefs, coupled with the fact that their ancestors lived there beforehand. Shouldn't America be ruled by native Americans? It seems to me that you support that kind of logic for Israel, so why not for your own country? My main point is that Israel should not be where it is, it seemed that you supported the view that Israel had every right to be where it is. Tell me if I have misinterpreted you.

Your gift for misunderstanding astounds me. I still don't see anyplace where I even imply that it was alright for Israel to take back the land because it was theirs initially. Lemme try to clear it up... again.

In this thread, there have been numerous posts claiming that Israelis are the "bad guys" because they took a territory that "rightfully" belongs to someone else for example:



Though Nijo doesn't say Israelites are in the wrong, many others have. I just used this as an opportunity to voice this fact, just wanted to be the devil's advocate to give the Israel's side an equal footing in this debate, that the Palestinians have done the same and as such, the argument of Israelis coming in to steal the land of Palestine should be void.

Group A (Jews, Native Americans) occupies a land first. That race of people are forced out of their homeland by Group B (European Settlers, Various tribes). Group A fights to get their home back. I see nothing wrong with that. Just like if the Native Americans wanted their homeland back. The details change the outcome but, the core is the same.

Okay, let me make my position abundantly clear, I believe that the Israelis are wrong, I believe that the Palestinians are wrong. I have said from the start that the Palestinian's methods disgust me in a similar way to the Israeli retaliation. However if I had to pick a side, I would argue for the Palestinians because though they may have conquered Israel a long time ago, there would have been people who occupied the same space of land before the Israelis. It's senseless to look at "who was there first".

At the time of the formation of Israel, that land did not belong to the Israelis - that is why they were taking other people's land - therefore it does have credence. Israel has made a claim on the land, in a time of civilization, and used political influence to engineer a situation where they get the land of their ancestors. They have no right to this land, nor would they have any right to this land if they conquered it. It would be unjust.

I did assume that you were taking a pro-Israel stance based on the fact that you said that they were there first. If I misunderstood you then I apologize.

@FPOD I do see a problem with that, where does the violence end? I'm disgusted at the way European settlers treated the native American people, but that would still not make it right for them to take their land back by force. I still perceive the Jewish people as a religion, not a race that warrants it's own country. No matter where their ancestry lies. (I think I missed a post of yours a while back)- Israel should never have been awarded to the Jews, but I believe it would not be right to ship them out now. Do you believe that the UN should pass a resolution to grant ownership of the U.S. land back to the descendants of native Americans? Would that make everything all right?

We'd lose our Casinos and those silly pale faces who spend their money in our casinos :P .

I think I pointed it before that the details kind of change the end result but, splitting the region of Palestine in two is a better alternative than evicting one group or the other.