In term of tribalism/patriotism there is a vague case here maybe. Vague though.

The concept of self defense being a duty (not just a right) also has roots in secular Western philosophy, meaning pacifism for the sake of protecting the innocent among your enemy is itself immoral. — Hanover

I have not seen any evidence for this? Immoral to protect innocent people?

A mediating body could be helpful too. Although once a world war breaks out anything goes and the so-called ‘rules of war’ go out the window.

Ok. Ignore me then.

It is logical to have an unattainable goal.

I have been in such a state a few times (prolonged periods). It will end in a crash if did not begin with one.

What goes up must come down.

There is no such thing as constant ‘joy and happiness’ and if this is an unreachable goal you have then maybe ask why this is so?

With all that in mind, some philosophers have exaggerated the importance of suffering and restless agitation, as a characteristic of life. They have turned it into a neccesary evil that should be embraced with open arms to improve ourselves. When in fact, it is almost always destructive. Sustained suffering leaves your body searching for death, as it consumes your soul without destroying it. — Sirius

I have seen this kind of thing a few times. I feel the issue is more or less about equating ‘struggles’ in life with ‘suffering’. To have something in life to tackle is what makes life what it is. To refuse the trails and tribulations in life because they are tough is to not live at all.

Hedonistic views will culminate in an understanding that peak pleasure is attached by prolonged pain. Water is the best drink in the world if you are parched, yet if you are a little thirsty it will not give the same pleasures.

Note: Pleasures are all about ‘relief’ in some form. Generally we all need variety (relief from monotony).

‘Goals’ that can be reached are not our true guiding stars. You will lie and deceive yourself everyday, so just guard against this as best you can and accept that the struggle will continue - enjoy :)

I think you need to rewrite the OP. It is contrary.

Sounds like the first step towards a dystopian society.

How about an ethnographic and ethnological analysis of the state of affairs in that particular region then? :D

Just looking for some productive discussion :)

Like I said, the IRA managed to cease terrorist attacks but I am largely convinced the common traditions of peoples involved were common enough. In the middle east what kinds of commonalities exist because the various factions, and what apart than my broad statement might I have been neglecting?

I do not for a second believe it is almost entirely due to ONE point. What can we learn here? What information can we glean from these constant hostilities that can better equip us to avoid them elsewhere or help us understand conflicts of this type?

I was more or less asking about the principles of the problem and how a path can be created for future generations.

I meant in something like 50-100 years at least! The leaders will change on either side but things will continue to repeat unless there is a common world view as far as I can see. If you agree then what kind of measures could move things in that direction do you think?

All defence must be proportionate. You are fighting an embedded guerilla force. When Britain was doing the same with the IRA, they also had a right to defend themselves but not "by any means". They did not do it by killing Catholic civilians en masse or bombing and destroying their homes because that would have been madness and completely unacceptable. Instead, they did it by infiltrating and gathering intelligence on the IRA as well as beefing up their security systems so they could thwart IRA operations and negotiating in the background to make peace. This eventually worked. British civilian casualties remained relatively low, the IRA lost political support, and peace was achieved. If they had slaughtered babies in hospitals etc (regardless of their excuses) the IRA would have gained support including in the South of Ireland and in America, peace would have been impossible, more British civilians would have been killed, and Britain would have become an international pariah. That would have been stupid and self-destructive, right? — Baden

Thank you.

Exactly how comparable is this to the situation in the middle east though. Both conflicts span great swathes of time, but I think it is a hell of a lot easier for people who basically share the same traditions and history to come together and talk. I get the overall impression that this is not at all the case in the middle east as there is entrenched and despotic hatred held by many groups. Plus, there are multiple groups involved.

I would also state that it is very difficult to turn the other cheek (so to speak). The IRA were mostly acting at a distance. Hamas literally went into people houses and gunned them down. Israel has, on occasion I believe, done something similar but mostly at a distance. I am not sure there is an incredible amount of value in asking if it is ‘better’ to kill someone face to face with a gun or drop bombs on them from afar.

What could peace look like for future generations? What could be initiated now to allow the next generation to sit at a table and shake hands?

Hence why I was asking whether anyone agreed with my brief analysis of why things won’t be resolved anytime soon. The peace holds in Northern Island and view is that this is due mostly to cultural homogeny … what other reasons? What other factors are important? Are any relatable to the middle east?

People care about other people dying. That is a given. Who ‘cares’ more? Pfft is exactly my reaction to that.

I asked if people disagreed and to state why.

How long can we expect to wait? What measures can ease the transition?

So you cannot answer my question. Just childish behaviour. Great show

I make a genuine post and you call me a troll and then follow up with stupid.

If you do not wish to address my point that is your choice obviously. I think it was a valid point and an appropriate one to make on a philosophy forum.

I care that people pretend their tiny voice matters here or that back and forth moralising is in anyway useful/helpful in analysing the principle issues involved.

It could all be stopped tomorrow hypothetically. ‘Hypothetically’ not in reality.

‘Justification,’ the favourite term of those riddled with guilt. Actions need not be justified they speak for themselves.

None of us are privy to the details and I cannot say I actually care much about this whole nonsense. People will kill other people and those willing and able to act will act. Many will make poor choices based on biases and conditioning.

Conflicts like with the IRA were solved most likely due to a common worldview held between the opposing positions who had the power to act. I see no such common worldview present in this particular conflict and therefore no immediate way out of it. It is for future generations to try and patch up.

If anyone mostly disagrees please state why.

Maybe an external party could enter the scene and enforce a kind of peace … but let’s be honest. No one looks likely to do that anytime soon for fear of public/media backlash. As per usual the under-the-table politicking will continue and deals will be made and broken.

People do seem a little too obsessed in the horror in far away lands. What are you distracting yourselves from at home. Nothing? Or is this external conflict a vent for an internal one maybe?

This is not a choice. Emotionalism is a fact of human life.

So I am not sure what you mean by last resort. — FreeEmotion

Subjective. My point is that committing a violent act against someone (striking first) is not what a pacifist would do. Some people cannot be negotiated with (and say so). Such positions can require someone to act violently as a preventative measure.

I do not believe in some one rule fits all. Pacifism has its limitations but sounds fluffier than it can be if taken too far.

Let me put it like this …

If I tell you to shut up and you ignore me then I break legs and threaten to break the legs of everyone you know a love you would do what. If you resist I just up the stakes and threaten murder.

War and Violence are necessary to dispose of unwanted and hostile threats. It is not really that complicated. That is my point. The pacifist will sit idle in the midst of rape and murder trying to talk the perpetrator down instead of taking them out.

It is unjustifiable to adhere to pacifism in all circumstances. It is laughable that someone even thought I wanted non-stop violence and war. It is clear to all violence and war should be viewed as last resorts, it is not so clear that pacifism can be equally as destructive if adhered to rigorously.

Are you a pacifist? You sure as hell do not sound like one ;)

Yes. We should all just beat each other into a pulp … what do you think I meant :D

It is an unlikely argument that Pacifists start wars and get millions killed. — FreeEmotion

Why? Many who openly state they hate violence are quite quick to inspire violence in others by way of their self-righteous nonsense. A world full of pacifists would be a miserable world lacking in drive, ambition and emotion.

That was not my point. Not interested in the conflict really. Was trying to point out that media/propaganda drives the agenda (if there is one?).

It is a mess and will remain so. I could not help if I wanted to other than by actively pointing how ludicrous it is to act as if we know what is going on or really care all that much.

The simple truth is we ‘feel like’ we should care but likely are just content to live distanced and remote from the realities of war and suffering. I guess we want to feel like we can have some impact somehow … truth is few to none are willing to really commit.

I have no immediate commitment to nonsense created by stupidity. I am neither proud nor ashamed of this fact.

Maybe I am just in a particularly bitter mood today? Who knows :D

It was tongue in cheek. Was just pointing out how some military assaults are paid more attention than others.

People are quick to call out Israeli assaults yet when Saudi does something similar there appears to be less of an outcry. Not really surprising given the history of the conflict … it almost bores me. It does sicken me that I am ‘bored’ by this, but hey, still bored.

Growing up with this conflict on the news every couple of yeast with the same old story does not exactly instill hope.

The ‘solution’ will almost certainly involve one state. No way can these peoples live side by side in two separate states anytime within the next couple if generations. The strange thing is the manner in which the country was created. No war, just people settling there. If it was an invasion that allowed Israel to exist I have a horrible feeling it would be more or less ‘justified’. Maybe the cultist connotations of Zionism are somehow more horrific?

Tired of it. Bored of it. Likely to cu,minate with an invasion of Iran within the next decade.

including Saudi Arabia and Qatar — Benkei

Saudi want in on the killing too? Is Yemen not enough fun for them?

@schopenhauer1 Anyway, other than the scientific and technological progression what is Western Civilisation compared to other parts of the world?

Do you think what defines the West is lived and realised mistakes? I ask this as it seems to me the success of any culture (and progression of) is directed by how it reacts to mistakes made.

I think it is more about humans dying actually. That said, idiots will side with certain elements if it makes them feel morally superior. Humans are only human.

I should probably mention that members of the Israeli government wanted some form of attack in order to make a move on Gaza. All kinds of underhanded actions take place in these situations. Just like with Ukraine the truth of the matter may see the light of day in several decades time.

All talk is irrelevant really. Actions speak louder rhetoric.

many will necessarily have to die in order to eradicate those savages — Merkwurdichliebe

This is the crux of it. Necessary use of force. It is pretty clear to me that there has been too much force used. If people wish to avoid civilian casualties dropping lots of bombs on highly populated areas is not really going to cut it.

Boots on the ground would be the non-savage response. Killing thousands of civilians to save a 100 Israeli soldiers is not justified. In war soldiers should be dying not civilians. Seems pretty obvious to me.

The theory of postcolonialism has done a more than adequate job of contrasting Western culture with non-Western culture. No need to reinvent the wheel. — Merkwurdichliebe

There has to be a wheel to start with. There are no ubiquitous terms when it comes to culture. Culture has been a contentious term in anthropology since its inception.

Jabberwocky is better

Is not to bother reading his work. :D

The best definition I have heard is someone doing the exact same thing in identical circumstances and expecting a different outcome.

This is why human stupidity has its benefits. Sometimes something different does happen.

This is also the reason why stupidity is not the opposite of intelligence, because there are very intelligent people who are also very stupid — Matias

That is a poor argument.

People can say horrible things and not be horrible people. Stupid people are not intelligent and vice versa. That is not the same as saying intelligent people cannot do stupid things nor that stupid people cannot do intelligent things.

Note: I would not call myself Left or Right. I do not think many people hold purely Left leaning or Right leaning views on every topic. I would say the same for Liberal and Conservative.

This insidious need to associate with one side or another is the biggest problem.

It is not the duty of a state to worry about that which it has no sovereignty over. Western civilization has a prerogative for seeing the victory of it's values wherever possible, but in the places where Western values are shunned and despised by the local powers that be, especially those places that are openly hostile to Western civilization, it has every right to subjugate them if necessary. — Merkwurdichliebe

Sounds a little ‘barbaric’ though. The ‘if necessary’ is not foolproof. ‘Subjugate’ how? For what reason? To force assimilation, to dislodge or to destroy?

The problem is always application of ideals (attached to national and/or religious identity) as if they are ubiquitous to all humans.

I believe the main pillar of any civilisation society is the ability to sit down with those you oppose and talk, to disagree, and then to compromise where possible. Western Civilisation does this maybe a tiny little bit more … I think mostly due to technological and scientific development.

Israel exists now. It should not of come into existence in the manner it did, but such is life. Zionism is pretty dumb idea based on religious garbage.

As things stands too many Jews are being brought up to hate Arabs and too many Arabs are being brought up to hate Jews. I believe the vast majority just want the killing to stop but that is highly unlikely for another generation or two.

I have held the belief for a long time that patriotism and religion are equally dogmatic and almost as silly as each other.

We could explore forever what Western Civilisation means … that might be a good idea? To insinuate that Israel is a Western Civilisation makes little sense to me, geographically, historically and politically. More ‘Western’ than Syria or Jordan? 100%. Might be better to start with cultural and historical distinctions. It is a complex topic in and of itself.

This is hypothetical right?

If you believe the analogy of brain to computer is literal there is nothing to discuss me thinks. Deterministic and Determinism are different. You are aware of this?

Otherwise, might be worth exploring some weird ideas.

Everyone wants a solution, and wants peace. All except the current Israeli Prime Minister. — FreeEmotion

Except Hamas and other extremists. The sad truth is there are extremist elements on both sides driven by fear and fuelled by hatred. This has been the case ever since I started breathing.

I honestly see no real peaceful solution for another generation at least.

It took a long, long time to solve the Irish issue. Even now it could still boil over as tensions still exist. The middle east is far, far, far more volatile due to drastically different cultures being thrown together (both internally and externally).

The US can impose upon Israel, but the leadership will not. Maybe once Biden has gone whoever comes in will start pushing a little. I won’t hold my breath though.