"Disproportionate" rock throwing

Shamgar · Post by **Shamgar** » Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:37 pm

Consider this scenario:

A group of thugs come near your house and start throwing rocks at it. You try to ignore it at first, but the rocks keep coming and the thugs keep returning. You realise they are not doing this just for fun -- they are targeting you and your family. They have something against you. They want you out. What do you do?

Naturally, you want to defend yourself and your family. Hopefully you will do enough to deter the thugs from returning. You don't want to be seen as a "bully" either by your neighbours; they might catch you in an agressive mood as you fight off the thugs.

To avoid being an even bigger bully than the bully itself, you should count the number of rocks they have thrown at you and only throw the same number back. Do not use anything other than those same type of rocks. Any other form of defense will be seen as "disproportionate". You will be vilified by your neighbours, supposed friends, the media and those afar.

This is the sort of politically correct diplomatic nonsense uttered from the mouths of social and political perverts. You may agree or disagree on this, but...

If I was to protect myself and my family from violence from people who would that I cease to exist, I would use whatever means of defense was available. Be it water canon, flamethrower, driving a bulldozer over them... Oh, and God forbid it, larger sized rocks.

xan_user · Post by **xan_user** » Sun Jan 04, 2009 11:11 pm

Problem is what if that "group of thugs" feels like you (or your dad,or his dads dad...) violenlty thew them out of the house you now live in, in the first place. (with the help of the worlds biggest supplier of rocks of course.)

Course throwing rocks has been around a lot longer than houses...

Just don't throw a shoe. "I mean really, who throws a shoe?"

L2GX · Post by **L2GX** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 12:33 am

This will inevitably end with a large pile of rocks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megiddo_(place)

ACook · Post by **ACook** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 5:08 am

for all I care you throw sharpened rocks at the rock throwers as well.

But it may be considered disproportionate when you throw so many sharpened and bigger rocks at the general direction of them that you may hit them, but definately hit the whole street too...

And fence them in. And prevent any food getting in.

Sylph-DS · Post by **Sylph-DS** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 5:16 am

The question here is, what's it going to solve?

Throwing an equal amount of rocks will most likely piss them off and thus make them throw more rocks at you. Bulldozing them down will scare them shitless. This means they probably won't come back.. On their own. Chances are they'll either buzz off entirely, OR get whatever gang their part of and bury your house in a never ending torrent of increasingly large rocks.

On the occasion that they do buzz off entirely they'll probably just find someone else to throw rocks at. Which means you've only moved the problem to someone else.

Still, the alternative of trying to communicate and make peace doesn't always work. Doing this usually means turning the other cheek, and turning the other cheek usually makes the other party believe that you are weak, which in turn will make them pick on you more.

I think there is no answer simply because it is not in our nature not to be in conflict. A human being cannot live in peace without conflict. We instinctively search for conflict, simply because finding conflict is better than letting conflict find you. Finding conflict means being able to make the first strike, whereas letting conflict find you means somebody will probably make the first strike at you.

aristide1 · Post by **aristide1** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 6:21 am

On the one hand an-eye-for-an-eye eventually leads to all being blind.

On the other hand you can't make peace with somebody who considers you an inferior being (infidel).

The actions taken for years now pretty much show a lack of respect for life of the opposition regardless of which side you start with.

Ironically enough DC is the world capital for infidelity.

judge56988 · Post by **judge56988** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 9:52 am

Sylph-DS wrote: I think there is no answer simply because it is not in our nature not to be in conflict. A human being cannot live in peace without conflict. We instinctively search for conflict, simply because finding conflict is better than letting conflict find you. Finding conflict means being able to make the first strike, whereas letting conflict find you means somebody will probably make the first strike at you.

Since prehistoric times there has been conflict - it probably started when resources were scarce due to drought/climate change/rising sea level at the end of the last ice age. Human remains have been found from this period that show evidence of violent death, including stone arrow heads embedded in their bones. Before this, the available evidence shows that hunter-gatherers lived in relative peace, presumably because there were so few of them there was no competiton for resources. When one area became "full" a group would simply move on and find another area devoid of humans. Since then humans have fought each other for the most productive land, on which to hunt or grow crops, or from which they can extract minerals and fuel.
Humans have been slaughtering each other for thousands of years - Greeks, Romans, Mongols, Huns, Conquistadors, British, French, Nazis - do people think that the human race dramatically changed in 1945 after a war in which all sides deliberately targeted civilians? apart from the Serbs/Croats/Bosnians/various African tribes/Al Quaeda of course. Nothings really changed since the Romans put whole cities to the sword 2000 years ago, except now it's mechanised.

As far as I know, most animals have "territories" that they will fight each other to defend - the strongest gets the best territory and the "best" mate, genetically.
Humans are animals too and have the same instinctive, genetically driven urge to pass on their genes. In times of plenty (the last 50 years in the West) we as a species can afford the luxury of philanthropy and altruism to those that are not our immediate kin, however when things get tough (are those times just around the corner?) and the world becomes too crowded with too few resources, humans will revert too that animal behaviour that we cannot avoid. It is survival of the fittest, the selfish gene in action.

I for one am right there with Shamgar (OP) - I will do my utmost to defend (in order) my family, my "tribe" (English), my "society" (Western), and in the unlikely event that earth were to be attacked by aliens, my species!!

WE are just the latest stage in evolution and IMHO the Pacifists/PC Crowd would change their tune pretty damn quick if their families backs were to the wall.

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 1:20 pm

Q.

Is your "rock throwing" hypothetical or is there an example that fulfills your question/statement on this subject? If so, please drop in a link, if not let me know and we can philosophize and discuss the matter knowing the history and possible consequences

Andy

ACook · Post by **ACook** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 2:14 pm

I think the simili here is with gaza atm...

Shamgar · Post by **Shamgar** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 3:24 pm

andyb wrote: Q.

Is your "rock throwing" hypothetical or is there an example that fulfills your question/statement on this subject? If so, please drop in a link, if not let me know and we can philosophize and discuss the matter knowing the history and possible consequences Smile

Andy

My "rock throwing" scenario was just a crude simplistic way of describing the situation in the Middle East. I hoped that I didn't have to say it in so direct terms.

You can think of it though on any level of conflict, large or small, local, regional, international.

BTW. Before I provide further discussion, let me say I am a peaceable person, essentially non-violent. I personally do not like armed weapons and wars of any kind. I am not promoting violence here. The realities of life most often do not reflect our lofty ideals however.

If you notice in my example, I was trying to point out that sometimes a person, even the usually non-violent, may be forced to defend themselves from a potentially fatal situation.

What if a criminal breaks into your home and wants to kidnap or murder you, your wife and children, are you going to say, "Go on ahead, good sir. Why, I preach non-violence." In lieu of supernatural intervention (which I believe in), a person must use some sort of physical means of defense to preserve one's life. E.g. hitting the offender with a stick, bat, soup ladle, whatever is effective. (Although with today's nonsensical laws, you might be sued by said offender and end up being charged as a criminal yourself.)

Now, that is on a very personal, micro level, but you can take that to more involved situations in communities, countries and regions.

AZBrandon · Post by **AZBrandon** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 3:42 pm

Shamgar wrote:What if a criminal breaks into your home and wants to kidnap or murder you, your wife and children, are you going to say, "Go on ahead, good sir. Why, I preach non-violence." In lieu of supernatural intervention (which I believe in), a person must use some sort of physical means of defense to preserve one's life. E.g. hitting the offender with a stick, bat, soup ladle, whatever is effective. (Although with today's nonsensical laws, you might be sued by said offender and end up being charged as a criminal yourself.)

Now, that is on a very personal, micro level, but you can take that to more involved situations in communities, countries and regions.

I think your example is perfectly valid. Often, it's a good sanity check of a decision to take it to the personal level and see if it sounds fair or not before applying it broadly. I personally am also a non-confrontational person and will tolerate a certain amount of abuse of various kinds without taking any action of my own. Usually this plays itself out in terms of when someone cuts in line, steals my parking spot, swears at me or treats me unfairly in a rather trivial way, and so on.

However, if threatened with physical violence, I will back away only so long as the person making the threats will not then target someone else, especially an easier target than me. I can't even remember the last time I've gotten in a real physical confrontation, but my own personal beliefs tell me that there is no greater love than to live one's own life for his friends, so it's "ok" for me to use physical force even in a losing situation to try to help my friends & family. It comes down to what values system you subscribe to in order to determine what you think an appropriate response is.

Often times, leaving someone alone who is bullying your friend is NOT the right thing to do, you have to stand up for your friend, even if it means you bear the brunt of the attack. It's a hard decision to make though, especially if you will be hurt very badly as a result of your intervention.

Shamgar · Post by **Shamgar** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 3:45 pm

The M. East situation is a highly charged and sensitive one as you are all aware. Thankfully, through my example, we have spoken in more broader terms about conflict without doing our own share of rock throwing. I would like to reply to the mentions of the M.E. situation also, but, as you can understand, not in one post.

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 4:06 pm

Now I understand that you dont really want to talk about the Arab world at all, but you want to talk about similar kinds of scenarios, and the rights/wrongs and moral implications of such things included in your original post - I am happy to play along.

Throwing rocks at at your neighbour is a stupid and pointless thing to do, unless they started it and the laws of the land dont resolve the problem, and you find yourself with nothing left to do. If your neighbour is hellbent on throwing rocks your direction, and your discussions with your sadistic neighbour are fruitless, then you speak to all of your neighbours. If none of your neighbours can make the malevolent peaceful then the only sensible thing to do is to disable the neighbour entirely with extreme force.

Unless you can conjure up a cunning plan.

Get all of your neighbours who are also friends of the rock thrower to become enemies of the rock thrower and destroy them that way. i.e. Make the entire neighbourhood blame the rock thrower for all of the problems in the neighbourhood, similar to giving an entire class full of students detention because of something one student did. That plan would be so cunning "Baldrick" would admire it - but its only any good if it works.

Andy

Shamgar · Post by **Shamgar** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 6:22 pm

Rocks can be seen as a metaphor for man's lowest, primitive, nature. In 'prehistoric' times, rocks didn't need to be fashioned -- they were just there on the ground. And very effective at inflicting damage, fatal even, judging by skeletal remains.

Military arsenal can be thought of as sophisticated forms of 'rocks'. Same purposes really.

Okay, let's go a step further. Not condoning any of the following, but from my limited knowledge of these things:

small rocks: pistols, machine guns, missiles, mortar bombs, home made weapons.
Intent: random attacks to cause human damage. Sometimes targeted. To shock and attract attention from enemy.
Obtained: cross border smuggling, illegal and legal trade, older generation hand me downs from past conflicts, "creativity" with chemicals and metal.

large rocks: armed tanks, helicopters, aircraft and ships; long range and detecting missiles.
Intent: targeted attacks at enemy bases. Sometimes fire/drop and hope. Response to 'small rocks' thrower. Mass bombardment to put heavy pressure on enemy.
Obtained: from big suppliers of 'big rocks', legal trade, sophisticated arms technology.

even larger rocks: nuclear and chemical arms; biological and genetic disruptions.
Intent: mass destruction of life and infrastructure.
Obtained: government or dictatorship funded research labs, illegal and legal trade; epidemic diseases.

you don't even want to think about these rocks: asteroids, meteor showers, planetal collisions; fire and brimstone.

The Earth itself is one big rock in a universe of an immeasurable number of rocks, which are often many times larger. The Earth through its mantle, core and crust produces rocks in a continuous cycle. These same elements that make up the Earth can be found in us human beings. We are metaphorically (and physically to an extent) rocks that come from a rock/s.

Rock is also a metaphor for strength, stability, longevity, safety and assurance.

nick705 · Post by **nick705** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 12:18 am

Shamgar wrote: Now, that is on a very personal, micro level, but you can take that to more involved situations in communities, countries and regions.

No, no, you can't. Highly complex political issues are very rarely solved by reducing them to simplistic black-and-white metaphors, except in the non-minds of Sun readers and the like, and it usually just leads to more rock-throwing.

To continue your dubious analogy, why were the "thugs" (let's make it clear who are the "good" guys and who are "bad", without knowing any background information, shall we) throwing rocks at you in the first place? Or is the question "why?" simply one that you find easier and more comfortable not to bother asking?

Strid · Post by **Strid** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 1:40 am

Without taking sides here (especially with any fanatic, superstitious group that believes that they get any number of virgins if they blow them selves up or maybe that operating electrical devices on certain week days is bad, as well as eating lamb from the same plate as cheese should in some way disturb the peace of the universe), I just want to point out that nobody throws rocks because they're content.

Give people food, education, medicine and a helluva lot of TV's, and the kids will be more interested in what's on MTV, rather than their younger siblings die from lack of medicine. If someone throws rocks at you, you probably also screwed up yourself in the first place.

I suggest we load an Antonov with 50 billion TV sets and drop it all over the middle east along, and the same time have UN open up McDonalds, Sears and Wal-Marts all over the world. Then within 10 years everything should be great.

Also, whoever's in charge of UN (Ban Ki-Moon doesn't seem to be very effective to me) should be prescribed a whole lot of Viagra and Ritalin and possibly coke, making the organization less impotent than it is now. That and possibly a course in how to step up.

xan_user · Post by **xan_user** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:27 am

If the (big rock trowing) government really cared about its citizens and the countryâ€™s long term ability to sustain itself in (its neighborhood), it would abandon the use of violence and talk with its enemies.

http://counterpunch.org/gordon12292008.html

Shamgar · Post by **Shamgar** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:29 am

nick705 wrote:No, no, you can't. Highly complex political issues are very rarely solved by reducing them to simplistic black-and-white metaphors, except in the non-minds of Sun readers and the like, and it usually just leads to more rock-throwing.

I wasn't trying to suggest that complex political issues be solved by reducing them to micro personal levels. What I wanted to counter was the "Oh, look, what a big bunch of bullies using their bigger weapons on the little people. How disproportionate! How unfair! They have the heavy artillery and the other group has sticks and stones" statements I hear on the media.

If people were faced with a crisis situation on the personal level that is potentially fatal, I would like to see how many of these same people would be so proportionate in their actions. Yet there is no "proper" way to solve such situations. You could try negotiation, persuasion, distraction; they might suddenly faint; a tree might fall on them; fire from heaven might consume them. But a human's instinctive action is to defend one's self and own, and it often has to take physical means to do so.

As I said earlier, I'm not condoning rock throwing or other forms of violence. It was a rather crude analogy of a specific situation, but due to its openness for interpretation, was seen more broadly by those who responded to my original post. That's fine by me however.

nick705 wrote:To continue your dubious analogy, why were the "thugs" (let's make it clear who are the "good" guys and who are "bad", without knowing any background information, shall we) throwing rocks at you in the first place? Or is the question "why?" simply one that you find easier and more comfortable not to bother asking?

Let me say again, the analogy became very open for interpretation, even though I was alluding to a specific situation. Yes, interpreting my example openly, the rock thrower can be a blatant "bad guy", or on the other hand, someone standing up for themselves to continued pressure and violence themselves. It could be someone taunted, abused, plundered, and they cannot physically or emotionally take it anymore, and they confront the offender with a form of attack themselves.

Regarding the specific situation in the Middle East, I have my personal views on the matter that puts me off side with a lot of people, but that is my view and I will hold to it. Believe it or not, I used to be one of the "Oh, it's shocking, how horrible it all is!" type of people, used to be moderately PC, and used to believe such things as "freedom fighters". That's until I started viewing the world from a complete picture perspective and divorced myself emotionally from world events to try and understand why things happen and what purposes they serve. I'm not going to go into that here, though.

If posters wish to continue speaking in a broader context, I am happy to as well. I will respond to other comments in another post.

judge56988 · Post by **judge56988** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:34 am

xan_user wrote:If the (big rock trowing) government really cared about its citizens and the countryâ€™s long term ability to sustain itself in (its neighborhood), it would abandon the use of violence and talk with its enemies.

They don't want to talk, they want to annhialate Israel and wipe out the Jewish people.

Problem is what if that "group of thugs" feels like you (or your dad,or his dads dad...) violenlty thew them out of the house you now live in, in the first place. (with the help of the worlds biggest supplier of rocks of course.)

As far as I remember, the Jews were there from around 1400BC until about 600 AD and the birth of Islam, when the Persians expelled them. That was it until 1948 when the modern state of Israel was formed.

Regarding the specific situation in the Middle East, I have my personal views on the matter that puts me off side with a lot of people, but that is my view and I will hold to it. Believe it or not, I used to be one of the "Oh, it's shocking, how horrible it all is!" type of people, used to be moderately PC, and used to believe such things as "freedom fighters". That's until I started viewing the world from a complete picture perspective and divorced myself emotionally from world events to try and understand why things happen and what purposes they serve. I'm not going to go into that here, though.

My thoughts exactly!

Shamgar · Post by **Shamgar** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:49 am

ACook wrote:And fence them in. And prevent any food getting in.

If this really is going on to the extent that we are being told, then I am no more a supporter of their actions than you. They should let the aid get through and allow civilians to escape. I don't know what is really going on in there. I only know what I see, hear and read, and am informed by my beliefs and views to make sense of it. Why they are preventing movement, only the policy makers and commanders will know. Prejudice or strategy or both? I can't make a judgment on that.

It is very easy now in our globalised world with immediate delivery of news and images from anywhere in the world into our living rooms to point fingers at people we don't agree with and say, "They shouldn't do that" or "They should be doing this". When Western nations were on their colonisation programs and killing natives like flies, I wonder how much thought was given to the civilians, and how much critical news coverage there was at the time. Same could be applied to conflicts of the twentieth century.

In response to Strid, I wouldn't put any trust in the UN. It is a perverted organisation, contributing in no small part towards the degradation of society.

As for dropping mass capitalism on the Middle East to "solve" their problems, that would cause more problems than it would solve. They might have bloody wars there, but in the West, you have plenty of wars of a different kind with mental disorders, juvenile delinquency, family breakups, depression, drug and alcohol abuse, cancer, failing personal health and a corrupted health system, social unrest, cultural integration problems, list goes on and on. So it is all relative. We go about our day mostly undisturbed by violence however, depending on where you live.

Ch0z3n · Post by **Ch0z3n** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:36 am

My view on all of this is probably pretty far off what most people. at least Americans is. I am not overly thrilled with the blank-check the US gives Israel in the first place.

Regardless of who lived there 1400 years ago, you can't just make a country and try to throw out everyone who lives there. We did that once, Poland. I seem to remember this guy Adolf talking about it a good bit.

I think that Israel has been really pushing their luck and this most recent military action is absurd. If Israel wants to start attacking people, then I think we should withdraw our blank-check. If the West, specifically the United States withdraws support for Israel, it would most like cease to be a country in a week or two.

It seems kind of pointless to want to live somewhere where EVERYONE around you hates you. Seriously, what it seems to boil down to from talking to my friends who are very familiar with the situation is that neither side will agree to a division of the land that doesn't give them Jerusalem since it holds religious significance to both. But, Israel's alliance with the West means there is no incentive for them to make any concessions.

I am not a Muslim, I am not even religious. I am not anti-Jewish, though I am a bit anti-Israel. My problem with Israel is how they tend to respond to anything with a sense of entitlement which is very annoying to me. I also fully expect to get flamed for this post.

xan_user · Post by **xan_user** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 12:01 pm

judge56988 wrote: They don't want to talk, they want to annhialate Israel and wipe out the Jewish people.

And...
The other "They" doesn't really want to talk either, they want to annihilate Palestine and wipe out the Islamic people.

So who's right?

judge56988 wrote: As far as I remember, the Jews were there from around 1400BC until about 600 AD and the birth of Islam, when the Persians expelled them. That was it until 1948 when the modern state of Israel was formed.

My favorite history professor spent the first few classes on how to understand "frame of reference"
If you built a house and lived in it for countless generations, and then were forced out by friends of people that just returned from living abroad, would you not feel threatened to the point of possibly trowing stones to protect what you and your ancestors had built? If you were then forced to live behind fences and blockaded from food and medicine, would you not possibly throw bigger and bigger rocks?

The only solution I see (short of an outright ban on any religions that make a spectacle out of praying) is the arrival of the ultimate rock from outer space hitting the middle east, leaving nothing but a new sea connecting the Indian ocean to the Mediterranean.
-'Course then they just throw rocks at each other from their holy boats...at least it'd be harder to find the rocks.

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 12:37 pm

The only solution I see (short of an outright ban on any religions that make a spectacle out of praying) is the arrival of the ultimate rock from outer space hitting the middle east, leaving nothing but a new sea connecting the Indian ocean to the Mediterranean.
-'Course then they just throw rocks at each other from their holy boats...it just be harder to get the rocks.

Many people have suggested that most/all of the middle east should be turned into a glassy puddle. It would be one quick and easy way to sort out the problem - wipe out both sides and make the place uninhabitable for the next 1,000 years.

Ignoring the sillyness of this idea, the only way that this issue can be resolved is either by one side wiping the other out, or both of them figuring out how to get along peacefully - the latter is less likely to happen in the short term.

The entire issue is remarkably babyish, its simply nothing more than tit for tat skirmishes and wars. And yes I will continue to agree that Israel has the right to fight back against terrorists, but they are almost as bad as America whilst doing so. A very large proportion of the blame has to be given to the Terrorists, regardless of their reasons for doing so, they directly cause massive amounts of bloodshed of their friends and family by shooting rockets from other peoples back yards knowing full well that Israel is going to blow the crap out of the area - much of the time the Terrorist has run and civillians have been killed - that is cowardly beyond belief - no virgins for that idiot. I would blame the Terrorist for 70% of the palestinian deaths in such attacks, Israel would get 30% of the blame for being indiscriminate and a using too much force when little is actually needed.

Andy

aristide1 · Post by **aristide1** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 2:00 pm

I'd have to agree with Andy, though my approach would be different. I'd pull an "Atlantis" and sink it into the ocean.

When 2 children can't share a toy neither one should have it.

Added - word correction. Why do I think of 1 word and type a different one?

Ch0z3n · Post by **Ch0z3n** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 3:44 pm

Andy, I forget, who are the terrorists again? They are the ones indiscriminately bombing the other people to cause terror amongst the people right? Oh wait...

xan_user · Post by **xan_user** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:44 pm

judge56988 wrote:As far as I remember, the Jews were there from around 1400BC until about 600 AD and the birth of Islam, when the Persians expelled them. That was it until 1948 when the modern state of Israel was formed.

Fallowing this logic, which previous group should have the right to control the piece of rock I live on? (The often contested state of California)

Native American tribes? 15,000years+ years ago.
Spanish? British? 200-500 years ago.
Mexico? till 150 years ago.
United States? Last 150 years.

Skynet? ("Govenator" reference...)

Ch0z3n wrote:Andy, I forget, who are the terrorists again? They are the ones indiscriminately bombing the other people to cause terror amongst the people right? Oh wait...

Amerikkkans: the Redcoats of the 21st Century wrote:The United $tates has gone so far backwards, especially since 911, that the Bush administration criticizing "terrorism" now sounds identical to the Redcoat officers criticizing the American revolutionaries. It's not just that the Redcoats also claimed that their opponents were uncivilized nationalist fighters. The Redcoats were also anti-French. Those claiming to be Americans and calling Iraq's patriotic guerrillas "terrorists," supporting Bush's colonial administration idea and ridiculing the French for their opposition to colonialism are traitors to the American Revolution.

Thomas Paine wrote his famous quote: "These are the times that try men's souls" to refer to war in which American revolutionaries often in absolute poverty fought without uniforms, hiding behind trees and rocks, much to the disgust of the British Redcoats, who had bright red uniforms and fought out in the open, waiting for the enemy to come to fight with honor. The American revolutionaries learned their style of fighting from the indigenous people. The revolutionaries did not share the British idea of honorable fighting, because the American revolutionaries believed what they were doing was acceptable to save their nation.

rest is here-> http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/agita ... s2003.html

Shamgar · Post by **Shamgar** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:08 pm

Ch0z3n wrote:It seems kind of pointless to want to live somewhere where EVERYONE around you hates you. Seriously, what it seems to boil down to from talking to my friends who are very familiar with the situation is that neither side will agree to a division of the land that doesn't give them Jerusalem since it holds religious significance to both. But, Israel's alliance with the West means there is no incentive for them to make any concessions.

Continual concessions by Israel will reduce it to the size of a phone booth. Yet that's what a lot of people would like to see, short of a "pack up and go elsewhere and let us forget you ever existed". The split the land down the middle solution is NOT a solution. It looks good on paper, sounds good to people's ears, but it will never work. They want Israel out. But they'll never be able to do it. It is impossible.

Some people don't understand why the United States continues to support Israel, but I will try and give my perspective on that later on.

xan_user wrote:And...
The other "They" doesn't really want to talk either, they want to annihilate Palestine and wipe out the Islamic people.

So who's right?

This is simply untrue. Israel has been far more accommodating of the Palestinians than the Palestinians and greater Arab and Muslim world will ever be accommodating of them. The ancient Israel nation was largely a peaceable nation of shepherds and farmers who did not learn the art of warfare until much later than the tribes and peoples they encountered. But they eventually became a great nation with a very effective army -- as they are today. If there wasn't a threat on all sides, Israel would throw away its weapons today. You might disagree with that, but that's my opinion.

In response to those who whether jokingly or seriously wish that Israel would be sunk into the sea or destroyed from the face of the earth, sorry to disappoint you. Israel will yet face greater troubles in the future than they do today, but they aren't going anywhere. They are here to stay. You can drop atomic bombs and the like on them, but you'll never destroy them or the Israel nation.

Ch0z3n wrote:Regardless of who lived there 1400 years ago, you can't just make a country and try to throw out everyone who lives there.

From a myopic humanistic perspective, no. From a universal, complete picture perspective, yes.

FYI I am not Jewish, from Israel or Israeli. In case any one was wondering.

judge56988 · Post by **judge56988** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:06 am

xan_user wrote:
judge56988 wrote:As far as I remember, the Jews were there from around 1400BC until about 600 AD and the birth of Islam, when the Persians expelled them. That was it until 1948 when the modern state of Israel was formed.
Fallowing this logic, which previous group should have the right to control the piece of rock I live on? (The often contested state of California)

Native American tribes? 15,000years+ years ago.
Spanish? British? 200-500 years ago.
Mexico? till 150 years ago.
United States? Last 150 years.

The point I was attempting to make was in response to a previous post that stated that the Palestinians had been booted off "their" land by the West to make room for Israel. I wanted to counter this by pointing out the fact that it had been the home of the Jewish people in the past. Of course this can never be a justification for booting out the Palestinians and leaving them homeless. It is also impossible to turn back the clock and give the Americas back to the Native Americans or Australia back to the Aborigines.

It is a matter of history, as you correctly point, out that land "ownership" changes as countries are invaded, native people are either almost completely wiped out as in the Americas or turned into a "peasant" population as happened in England after the Norman Conquest. Eventually in England the differences receded, everybody spoke the same language and we became one country; although it is probably true to say that the aristocracy still have far more Norman blood in their veins than the Working Class, who are more Germanic in origin. This process took several hundred years despite similar religious beliefs. How can we think that the situation in the Middle East can be solved in a few decades when the beliefs of the cultures involved are so different? Islam seems intent on wiping out the Jews - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaks quite openly about it, as did Sadam hussein.

Is there an answer? I don't believe there is, with human nature as it is. If left to their own devices they would probably fight it out as people have always done. To the victor the spoils. People in the West aim to prevent the "evil" of war, some of them because they genuinely hate the suffering caused and some because it doesn't suit their ideas of how they want the world to be for political and economic reasons (although those same people are quite willing to go to war when it suits them, they just dress it up a bit to justify it.) Does anyone really think that America would not embark on a Nuclear War if the threat to their way of life was great enough? It would be Utopian and naive to think that we can bring an end to war - I believe it is inevitable.
Please read http://www.warnerblade.com/m/content/view/113/68/ for a much more eloquent version of what I attempted to say in my earlier post about human nature.

For what it's worth, I am an English athiest with no connection to Israel; neither am I trying to say what is right or wrong because that is a subjective opinion that depends on what side of the fence you are standing. Terrorist or Freedom Fighter?

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 1:23 pm

When two seperate people make statements that are then put together by a third person (me), the results can be rather interesting.

Andy, I forget, who are the terrorists again? They are the ones indiscriminately bombing the other people to cause terror amongst the people right? Oh wait...

Thomas Paine wrote his famous quote: "These are the times that try men's souls" to refer to war in which American revolutionaries often in absolute poverty fought without uniforms, hiding behind trees and rocks, much to the disgust of the British Redcoats, who had bright red uniforms and fought out in the open, waiting for the enemy to come to fight with honor. The American revolutionaries learned their style of fighting from the indigenous people. The revolutionaries did not share the British idea of honorable fighting, because the American revolutionaries believed what they were doing was acceptable to save their nation.

The above quotes together essentially prove that on one hand the Palestinians are fighting a geurilla war against those that see them as their opressors, and on the other hand this has happened many times in history. What we have learned from history is that geurilla warfare is usually only used by cowards, the weaker military side and terorrists.

What my point boils down to is how the individual see's the palestinian persons who throws stones. Are they freedom fighters.? Are they an enemy army thats military is so weak they will be crushed in open (non cowardly) warfare.? Or are they simply terrorists, who just want to cause death, chaos and mayhem.?

I have clearly stated my belief that they are terrorists, and that their tactics are cowardly due to the fact that they launch rockets and mortars from civilian areas then flee, letting the surrounding buildings and their occupants be killed with the (often unaccurate, and always with far too much force) retaliation.

If you believe that they are freedom fighters, then they are plain stupid. If they really wanted freedom, they should stop telling the world from behind masks whilst holding guns that they want to wipe Israel of the map. Instead they should stop being arseholes, lay down their weapons and discuss the matter like a decent human beings would do.

If you believe that they are an enemy army who's mission is....... what exactly.? Apart from wanting to wipe Israel of the map, what is the point of their "army"?

Or you believe that they are terrorists like I do, then they need to be destroyed (because they cant be reconciled), and I believe the only way of doing that is for them to be ousted by their own people - then and only then will their be peace in that part of the world.

Until then, terrorists will continue to cause murder, chaos and mayhem. Then comes the over use of force in retaliation causing dozens of civilians (and a few terrorists) to be killed. If you think about it, the terrorists indirectly kill more of their own people than they kill of the people they are (trying to) terrorize - therefore they are actually terrorizing everyone because they know exactly what the consequences will be.

Andy

Shamgar · Post by **Shamgar** » Thu Jan 08, 2009 3:01 am

I want to thank the posters for a positive and interesting discussion here. It was not my intention to stir a pot with this topic; -- only to present my point of view on a complicated and sensitive situation.

I will be away from my computer for a couple of weeks, so I won't have the opportunity to immediately respond to (agree, counter, defend?) a post, but I hope, if the thread continues, it can be done so in likewise good manner.

I would like to say that I agree with mostly what judge56988 and andyb have wrote in their last posts. judge56988 being "an English athiest with no connection to Israel" goes to show that as mature people we can share our views without "throwing rocks at each other" or blowing each other up. For what it's worth, I speak from a Biblical Christian perspective, with a strong spiritual connection to Israel.

Let me leave you with a few points from my perspective before I go.

- Whoever was in Palestine first has little to do with it. The land was originally called Canaan, inhabited by several tribes descending from the Ham line. Israel, as a people of nobodies, overthrew most of these tribes and established their nation in Canaan. However, through their history, they were to be often in conflict with surrounding tribes and nations. The name Palestine is a corruption of the name Philistine. To my knowledge, it was so named by the Romans as a mockery of Israel, who were often oppressed by the Philistines. The Romans themselves became the most brutal oppressors of Israel for many years, and Jerusalem was eventually destroyed by the General Titus, leaving the Temple in ruins to this day. Contrary to what some tell you, the Philistines were not ancestors of the Palestinians. The Philistines were from the Ham line. (I do not know who their descendants are today.) Palestinians, as they call themselves, are mostly Arabs, who originated from Ishmael, who descended from the Shem line.

- The Arabs' claim to the rights of Canaan (Palestine) and Jerusalem originate because Ishmael was Abram's first son. According to the firstborn custom, the firstborn son would get the inheritance. But, as often is the case in life, "it ain't necessarily so". The inheritor is based on a Spiritual lineage, not a physical one. So, even if one could trace his blood lineage back to Abraham, King David, Moses, whomever, it wouldn't mean that much at all. Abraham had many sons in his lifetime, but Isaac was the promised son. If you notice, ever since Isaac's birth, the older son Ishmael hated him and bullied him. Ishmael was a hunter, a "wild horse", an untameable man. This problem continues to this day.

- I'm no expert on British monarchs, but I know that many times in English history a much younger kin to the Sovereign, sometimes only a child, was given the Throne above an elder next in line kin. This seems unfair at face value. But the Sovereign had His reasons for choosing the younger for the inheritance.

- Canaan is regarded as the promised land to both Jews and Christians. The physical Land is the promise to Israel. But to Christians, the promised Land is spiritual. It is pertaining to one's personal life. They do not inherit the physical land of Palestine. I'm going to be a bit controversial here, but I'll say it anyway. The original land of Canaan promised to Abraham was a lot bigger than what Israel is today. It was considerably larger. That Land will be restored one day.

- Okay, to America. America itself represented a promised land. After the Reformation, the Protestants of Europe needed somewhere to escape its tyrannical ecclesiastical and political regimes. They ventured to a strange foreign land they had never been to before, a land of plenty where they could start a new life and build a new nation. But how did they have to do it? They had to overthrow and dispossess the native inhabitants and defeat their colonial opposition. Whether unfair or downright immoral, it was a means to an end for the establishment of a new nation. America's history runs parallel to Israel's and the connections are striking when studied closely. Despite all their wrongs (and plenty of them), Israel and America can be viewed as two of history's greatest success stories.

- I think because of this close connection, whether conscious or unconscious, the United States continues to support Israel. For now. I don't believe it is "unconditional" as some commentators like to refer to it. When the situation worsens in the Middle East, and America's own domestic problems increase, I think that support may cease, and Israel may be left on its own. This is not a negative, or a "win" for Israel's opponents and enemies.

You might not like or agree with anything I have said, but that's okay. As long as I can share my views as you do yours. I'm not a blind supporter of Israel nor do I support all Jews in Israel or elsewhere. It would be foolish to be thus. I believe in an Israel Nation in the Land of Canaan (Palestine). Any other land or place besides and Israel becomes nothing. It ceases to be anything. Note, I make a clear distinction between the Israel Nation and the political state of Israel, which I do not necessarily give my unadulterated support to.