Gaza ~ What would YOU do?

[RedRalph]

And no, Gaza and the West Bank are not too poor and disorganized to adopt a sensible birth-control policy - they just don't want to.

the very idea that you could know this...

 

[Munch]

Yes, I am serious about this list. If anybody has any serious objections to this being a good idea for the U.S government to do, please say so.

1) Figure out whether or not it is true that God considers Israel (the current Israel- there are claims with good grounding that they actually Khazars) to have the right to the land.

So we solve the problem by understanding the 'mind of god'. You intend to reach such a conclusion (which of course has been the subject of incessant argument over the centuries and we're no closer to 'knowing' the 'answer') by ...

Theological studies. Determine if there are any verses which suggest God took the land from Israel, or any reasons to suggest the original verses are inapplicable. Get the best theological minds on the subject, and get an impartial outsider to judge.

Oh yes of course, reading the holy texts will help us derive the truth of the problem of ownership. Thing is, a lot of the stuff in those books never actually happened. I suggest you read the chapter 7 ("The Nightmare Of The Old Testament") of Hitchens' "God is not great" for some discussion of several old testament events which are not backed up by Israeli-sponsored (and extensive) archaelogical efforts.

Then you've got the problem of which holy text and which translation to take as 'gospel', and of course neither side will agree on either. Finally, an impartial outsider who also considers theological studies to be a reasonable foundation for intervening in the land ownership disputes of foreign peoples? Good luck.

I'm assuming morality (otherwise I wouldn't care), and I don't think it's reasonable to moral and athiest. Since Christianity is the most likely non-athiest faith to be true, I'm assuming that.

Oh, forget it.

 

[Winner]

the very idea that you could know this...

Do you have a better explanation?

Basically, according to CIA factbook, Gaza strip and the West bank have one of the fastest growing populations in the world. It's even worse than in most African countries.

Now, Pal. territories have a government, the government is fairly competent and powerful by third world standards, and they have an access to foreign consulting.

Therefore, they either don't want to stop the rapid population growth, or they're too stupid to even acknowledge that rapid population growth in an area environmentally incapable of sustaining so many people is a problem.

I lean towards the first explanation. They probably believe that the short-term benefits (destruction of Israel) is worth the cost (possible famine resulting from overpopulation).

EDIT: Some authors support this hypothesis.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Oh please, not again - poverty is no excuse for maintaining an untenable population growth.

Luckily my explanation wasn't "poverty", it was lack of other entertainment.

But don't let that slow down the vitriolic rants.

unconditionally provided free aid -> no incentive to stop breeding like rabbits.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I find people who think that 1.5 million people crammed in an area smaller than my city's metropolitan area can afford to increase their population two-fold every 20 years stupid

Economic prosperity generally lower birthrate.

 

[Disenfrancised]

Do you have a better explanation?

Basically, according to CIA factbook, Gaza strip and the West bank have one of the fastest growing populations in the world. It's even worse than in most African countries.

Now, Pal. territories have a government, the government is fairly competent and powerful by third world standards, and they have an access to foreign consulting.

Therefore, they either don't want to stop the rapid population growth, or they're too stupid to even acknowledge that rapid population growth in an area environmentally incapable of sustaining so many people is a problem.

I lean towards the first explanation. They probably believe that the short-term benefits (destruction of Israel) is worth the cost (possible famine resulting from overpopulation).

EDIT: Some authors support this hypothesis.

Well unsustainably high growth rates generally occur in times of instability, not necessarily poverty, as when you can loose everything the next day children are the only investment you can make. A poor but stable and well controlled China could lower birthrates - Gaza less so.

Give them a predictable future and some opportunity (especially the opportunity to leave) rather than the chaos and 90% unemployment rate, and things other than children will start looking like a good idea.

 

[BasketCase]

Everyone is happy to shout abuse at both sides, but can anyone tell me a solution they think could work?

Until Hamas is eliminated (either removed from power or bombed out of existence), there IS no solution.

Various solutions have been attempted over the years, and Hamas has torpedoed every last one of them because none of them result in the destruction of Israel.

When somebody refuses to play ball, you have to kick them off the field. Period.

 

[Neverwonagame3]

Um, no they aren't. Gaza is the only current Palestinian 'territory' which has no Israeli presence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:West_Bank_&_Gaza_Map_2007_(Settlements).gif

Furthermore, it is not recognized by the UN as being a sovereign nation.

As the Israelis have "voted" to kick the Palestinians out of their own country?

Wish them luck as the duly elected officials of their people?

If Hamas is in charge of Palestine, they will continue to attack Israel and reject your proposed solution. Palestine is soverign in Gaza at least, you should probably admit.

So we solve the problem by understanding the 'mind of god'. You intend to reach such a conclusion (which of course has been the subject of incessant argument over the centuries and we're no closer to 'knowing' the 'answer') by ...



Oh yes of course, reading the holy texts will help us derive the truth of the problem of ownership. Thing is, a lot of the stuff in those books never actually happened. I suggest you read the chapter 7 ("The Nightmare Of The Old Testament") of Hitchens' "God is not great" for some discussion of several old testament events which are not backed up by Israeli-sponsored (and extensive) archaelogical efforts.

Then you've got the problem of which holy text and which translation to take as 'gospel', and of course neither side will agree on either. Finally, an impartial outsider who also considers theological studies to be a reasonable foundation for intervening in the land ownership disputes of foreign peoples? Good luck.



Oh, forget it.

The third part was a mere terminological mistake at worst. How can there be a rational morality (as in, one rational for it's user to hold, not a mere assumed premise) in a world where there is no God?

Not counting athiesm and agnoticism, Christianity at least has for it that there are good claims for the New Testament (the Gospel of Mark, and Paul's writings) being historically accurate- the question of a motive to write it if it wasn't true, the fact it was so close to the events (historians tend to trust sources that close), and the witnesses of miracles still alive Paul attests to.

 

[choxorn]

The third part was a mere terminological mistake at worst. How can there be a rational morality (as in, one rational for it's user to hold, not a mere assumed premise) in a world where there is no God?

Because a person can choose to have moral beliefs without needing a reason to have said beliefs.

 

[Neverwonagame3]

Because a person can choose to have moral beliefs without needing a reason to have said beliefs.

Simply arbitratily believing something is not logical.

 

[jeps]

Why the Golan Heights? And give them back to whom? Syria? Yeah, giving al-Assad a straight shot across the plains to Tel Aviv is going to fly real well with the Israeli electorate, government, and military.

thank you dachs for being one person to realize that they are completely separate issues.

there's really nothing more to do about gaza than what is being done.

 

[choxorn]

Simply arbitratily believing something is not logical.

Who says people have to be logical?

 

[Winner]

Well unsustainably high growth rates generally occur in times of instability, not necessarily poverty, as when you can loose everything the next day children are the only investment you can make. A poor but stable and well controlled China could lower birthrates - Gaza less so.

Give them a predictable future and some opportunity (especially the opportunity to leave) rather than the chaos and 90% unemployment rate, and things other than children will start looking like a good idea.

Perhaps you didn't read parts of the book I linked, so I'll summarize it for you: many Palestinian families measure their devotion to the Palestinian cause by the number of children they have.

In short, a part of the Palestinian ethos is to "outbreed" the Jews. That's no obscure hypothesis, there is enough evidence for it. Palestinian themselves are not denying it. The last Census finds Palestinian population up by 30% in just 10 years.

The Palestinian territories have one of the fastest growing populations in the world, with numbers surging 30% in the past decade, according to a census which also finds that the number of Palestinians in Jerusalem is lower than expected.

In a region where demographics are used to justify contentious claims to land, especially in the West Bank and Jerusalem, the results sparked unusual agreement between Israelis and Palestinians who attacked the headcount as inaccurate.

I say we need to STOP sending any aid to Gaza. They need a reality check.

 

[Munch]

The third part was a mere terminological mistake at worst. How can there be a rational morality (as in, one rational for it's user to hold, not a mere assumed premise) in a world where there is no God?

If there is one thing we can say about morality, it is that it evolves. We only need look at the last century to see how common attitudes to say, civil rights can change rapidly. Going a bit further back, slavery. Morality is not absolute, it has been demonstrated to be a developing product of society.

If we assume god exists and that it is interested in instructing us in morality, then it would presumably have laid out an absolute moral code in a holy text (further assuming indefensibly that the holy texts themselves have not been the victims of translation, revision and suppression of 'heresy'). Instead we find 'moral' teachings in holy texts which are very much rooted in the ancient time in which they were conceived (rules for the buying and selling of slaves, considering women as property, the sickening story of Lot, ...) and would be considered horrific today. Therefore if you are to base your morality on divine instruction, you must somehow decide which parts of a holy text are to be considered literally and which figuratively - and for example in the case of Lot, I can only hope that these two options are insufficient and we also need to label large chunks of the holy text as morally toxic. Such a judgement necessarily comes from a moral compass derived independently of holy teaching.

If instead you assume that god is more interested in passing judgement on our moral choices than in direct instruction, then it is clear that 'moral behaviour' is mere appeasement, a preventative measure in the face of eternal damnation. I suggest that this is not morality at all, and is indeed dangerous to society. If you 'do good' because of fear of divine reprisal then you are not a moral person: you acknowledge that the only reason you abstain from rape or murder is because you are being watched and judged, not because you find the act repulsive in itself. Rape is a part of our ancient history, an evolutionarily beneficial pastime. I don't assume that all humans are repulsed by rape and other violent criminal acts as there exist immoral people, but I would say that they are largely held to be immoral acts independently of holy writ, a decision brought about by empathy, which must be the root of morality.

Not counting athiesm and agnoticism, Christianity at least has for it that there are good claims for the New Testament (the Gospel of Mark, and Paul's writings) being historically accurate- the question of a motive to write it if it wasn't true, the fact it was so close to the events (historians tend to trust sources that close), and the witnesses of miracles still alive Paul attests to.

I doubt many historians 'trust' the new testament's 'historical accuracy' seeing as it was written many decades after the events that took place (I don't think that counts as 'close' enough) and there is often no consensus between the gospels as to what actually did occur. Furthermore the lack of extra-biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus is problematic. As a document in itself, it contains such things as a highly primitive attitude to agriculture, which work against the claim of being inspired by ultimate divine wisdom.

 

[Neverwonagame3]

If there is one thing we can say about morality, it is that it evolves. We only need look at the last century to see how common attitudes to say, civil rights can change rapidly. Going a bit further back, slavery. Morality is not absolute, it has been demonstrated to be a developing product of society.

If we assume god exists and that it is interested in instructing us in morality, then it would presumably have laid out an absolute moral code in a holy text (further assuming indefensibly that the holy texts themselves have not been the victims of translation, revision and suppression of 'heresy'). Instead we find 'moral' teachings in holy texts which are very much rooted in the ancient time in which they were conceived (rules for the buying and selling of slaves, considering women as property, the sickening story of Lot, ...) and would be considered horrific today. Therefore if you are to base your morality on divine instruction, you must somehow decide which parts of a holy text are to be considered literally and which figuratively - and for example in the case of Lot, I can only hope that these two options are insufficient and we also need to label large chunks of the holy text as morally toxic. Such a judgement necessarily comes from a moral compass derived independently of holy teaching.

If instead you assume that god is more interested in passing judgement on our moral choices than in direct instruction, then it is clear that 'moral behaviour' is mere appeasement, a preventative measure in the face of eternal damnation. I suggest that this is not morality at all, and is indeed dangerous to society. If you 'do good' because of fear of divine reprisal then you are not a moral person: you acknowledge that the only reason you abstain from rape or murder is because you are being watched and judged, not because you find the act repulsive in itself. Rape is a part of our ancient history, an evolutionarily beneficial pastime. I don't assume that all humans are repulsed by rape and other violent criminal acts as there exist immoral people, but I would say that they are largely held to be immoral acts independently of holy writ, a decision brought about by empathy, which must be the root of morality.

Dealing with the first claim, why be moral? For any possible action, one can ask the question of why it should be done. Why should morality be taken as something to believe without logic? It's as irrational as blind faith.

Whether or not morality is absolute depends on how it is defined. The will of God is presumably absolute, but human opinions change over time- including their views of morality. It is an empirically demonstrable fact that such is the case.

Whilst there is an easy "out" clause in the Bible for an effectively arbitrary morality (Jesus said that God had only permitted divorce for necessities of the time, or something like that- I am willing to admit I don't remember the bible that well), I would argue that, unless there is some good reason (e.g- the moral opinions of a saint who actually performs a miracle, or a great theologian demonstrating his view from the evidence), one should assume that God's morality is as laid out.

Laying out one's own morality is the epitomy of arbitrarity in such a field- why should one choose one thing, and not another? Why shouldn't I assume it immoral not to believe pigs can fly? In such a model of morality, even society's opinions are merely agreed ones imposed by historical circumstances- it could, given the right turns in history, believe slavery morally mandatory.

As for the holy texts themselves, I presume you have evidence for this? As said, I have not made up my mind- I would like to see the evidence if you have it.

In conclusion on this point, you assert empathy must be the root of morality. Not only do many amoral people have empathy (in the sense of understanding others willl act), but empathy as the root of the morality inevitably leads to arbitrary decisions based on emotion alone.

I doubt many historians 'trust' the new testament's 'historical accuracy' seeing as it was written many decades after the events that took place (I don't think that counts as 'close' enough) and there is often no consensus between the gospels as to what actually did occur. Furthermore the lack of extra-biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus is problematic. As a document in itself, it contains such things as a highly primitive attitude to agriculture, which work against the claim of being inspired by ultimate divine wisdom.

You may be right on the primitive agricultural attitudes, but I would like to see the evidence. As I understand it, in the classical world historians are forced to rely to documents decades or further after the events- therefore why should the Gospel of Mark (at least) not be included?

Why would a religion form around a fictional figure, as opposed to one who actually existed? Why would Paul appeal to witnesses that did not exist? His letters, and Josephus, count as evidence for the existence of Jesus, at least.

Anyway, I am comparing Christianity to rivals other then athiesm and agnosticism. Compared to Islam (Mohammed never did a miracle), Buddhism (They can be very disciplined, but they don't have evidence to lay on the table for their beliefs), and pagan faiths (no evidence), it fares rather well, I would contend.

 

[Yeekim]

Until Hamas is eliminated (either removed from power or bombed out of existence), there IS no solution.

Various solutions have been attempted over the years, and Hamas has torpedoed every last one of them because none of them result in the destruction of Israel.

When somebody refuses to play ball, you have to kick them off the field. Period.

Simple, sad and yet true. When one sides uses every opportunity to declare that they will settle for nothing less than complete annihilation/dissolution of Israel, I really can't blame the Jews for not reaching a peace deal.

 

[RedRalph]

Simple, sad and yet true. When one sides uses every opportunity to declare that they will settle for nothing less than complete annihilation/dissolution of Israel, I really can't blame the Jews for not reaching a peace deal.

Completely setting aside your (understandable) dislike for Hamas, dont you think thats just hyperbole and thyey know it will never happen? the IRA said they would never settle for anything less than a unified, socialist Ireland but they knew it wasnt going to happen. Dont you think Hamas know there is absolutely no chance they will ever destroy nuclear armed, American supported Israel?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

If Hamas gets bombed into oblivion, the next clan with similar agenda will fill the power void and the cycle starts again. If Hamas gets removed from power because of faltering support and is replaced by a more moderate power, you have a chance of reaching an agreement. The Westbank is the biggest ace the Israelis and Palestinians have against the extremist. Make the Westbank prosperous, remove illegal settlements and show the Gazaians an alternative to the cycle of violence.

The biggest reasons Hamas got support in Gaza, while it really isn't that popular, is because many Palestinians in the Gaza didn't see other alternatives to do something about the situation.

 

[Yeekim]

Completely setting aside your (understandable) dislike for Hamas, dont you think thats just hyperbole and thyey know it will never happen? the IRA said they would never settle for anything less than a unified, socialist Ireland but they knew it wasnt going to happen. Dont you think Hamas know there is absolutely no chance they will ever destroy nuclear armed, American supported Israel?

Who knows what Hamas believes or not. I can't also rule out the possibility that they are absolutely content with the current situation continuing ad infinitum. At least as long ad foreign aid pours in and everybody reprimands Israel when it is forced to strike back at Hamas, who has set up their launch pads at daycares (figuratively speaking). Plus, nuclear weapons have no importance here whatsoever. Israel might use them against Iran, but hardly at their own doorstep.

 

[jessiecat]

If Hamas gets bombed into oblivion, the next clan with similar agenda will fill the power void and the cycle starts again. If Hamas gets removed from power because of faltering support and is replaced by a more moderate power, you have a chance of reaching an agreement. The Westbank is the biggest ace the Israelis and Palestinians have against the extremist. Make the Westbank prosperous, remove illegal settlements and show the Gazaians an alternative to the cycle of violence.

The biggest reasons Hamas got support in Gaza, while it really isn't that popular, is because many Palestinians in the Gaza didn't see other alternatives to do something about the situation.

A pity the Israelis didn't play the West Bank card as you suggest after the last PA elections a few years ago. Removing some of the settlements, cooperating with Fatah in creating job opportunities on the West Bank and letting the Palestinians feel they were getting a good deal out of peace with Israel might have denied Hamas their popular support. People in Gaza might have followed their example and we wouldn't have the mess we have now. Instead Hamas has become more popular than Fatah on the West Bank and we are even further from a solution than we were then. Yet another missed opportunity. And no end in sight.