79458Re: [evol-psych] Gaza humanitarian plight 'disastrous,' U.N. official says
- Dec 31, 2008Steve Moxon:
In accord with what I have always understood, this is from the Wikipedia site -- which being Wikipedia certainly may be wrong, but rarely so on points of easily verifiable historical fact.
"On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly, with a two-thirds majority international vote, passed the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181), a plan to resolve the Arab-Jewish conflict by partitioning the territory into separate Jewish and Arab states, with the Greater Jerusalem area (encompassing Bethlehem) coming under international control. Jewish leaders (including the Jewish Agency), accepted their portion of the plan, while Palestinian Arab leaders rejected it and refused to negotiate. Neighboring Arab and Muslim states also rejected the partition plan. The Arab community reacted violently after the Arab Higher Committee declared a strike and burned many buildings and shops. "
This biased text is centered in past scores of misdeeds by the involving parties. I see the situation as follows. Humans form populations, who live in regions. Humans have basic rights, and populations too, one of them being to live peacefully in their region. Currently (the only thing that counts) Israelis have their country, their region, and it is threatened by Hamas. So they are entitled to neutralize the threat. So, this Israeli attack is very natural, it counters an obvious beligerancy from Hamas that was going on since a lot of time. Any solution to the conflict must not drive out anybody from the region, Jews, Arabs or others. Those that have a right to be there, are simply those that currently are there. No historical rights. No silly invocations of the record of tit-for-tating in the region. To have a glimpse of these tit-for-tats, one just needs to open that junkish piece of bad text, the Bible, and read about kingdoms and tribes warring themselves (often with poor literary metaphors, like the image of two goats fighting, etc). Who did this, who did that, who broke that agreement, and when, and who did that first, and so what, should be removed from moral argumentation. Also irrelevant is the narrative of wrongdoings that are universal (corruption, sectarian violence, etc) to discredit one side. Of course, many Arab leaders have been corrupt, and Palestinians have made violence among themselves. And so what? Typical of desperate populations, typical of wars like this. One does not justify the Nazis by saying that Jews within the European ghettoes were screwing among themselves, were dirty and noisy, and even some collaborating with the Nazis, isn't it? But unfortunatelly, plenty of propagandists from both sides use these tactics to earn support.
I don't know the full history of Israeli-Arab wars, of the treaty breachings that occurred, as Steve, Ralph, and Wikipedia seem to know so well. Nor am I interested in knowing it. For me these are just two modern populations of humans who live in regions, and political moral should be based exclusively on the current problems and prospects of humans, populations, and regions.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>