5 ms·

> Was Britain at war with Northern Ireland? Not formally. > I've come to believe that it's pretty impossible to understand Israel-Palestine without the lens o

> Was Britain at war with Northern Ireland? Not formally. > I've come to believe that it's pretty impossible to understand Israel-Palestine without the lens of religion. From my understanding according to common Islamic teachings non-Muslims are supposed to be Dhimmi's[0](i.e. second class citizens) and be ruled over by Muslim's. So I think this is probably the source of a lot of the issues with the Israel-Palestine conflict, although there are other factors in play as well. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi

watutalkinbout 2mo ago
"Not formally" rather implies you think it was. Northern Ireland was/is part of the UK, so civil war I could probably agree with. The reason I mentioned religion was nothing to do with the requirements it places on how things should happen, but rather about the entitlement and infallibility that a belief that god has decreed something can grant people's mindset and outlook.
- jameshilliard 2mo ago
  > "Not formally" rather implies you think it was. I mean, it comes down somewhat to definitions of war I guess. > Northern Ireland was/is part of the UK, so civil war I could probably agree with. Maybe an irregular civil war or something like that? Maybe a low level insurgency? There's a few ways to describe that conflict. I probably should know more about the troubles since I lived in southern Ireland for 3 semesters of college, but that was over 10 years ago. > The reason I mentioned religion was nothing to do with the requirements it places on how things should happen, but rather about the entitlement and infallibility that a belief that god has decreed something can grant people's mindset and outlook. Sure, religion does make solving these problems more difficult. I know at least Israeli Jews are often relatively secular statistically at least, although there are those that are more religious as well(which tend to cause more issues). Different religions have different doctrines as well which play into the conflict in various ways. All religions will generally have problematic teachings but some will cause a lot more real world issues than others, Islamic teachings around Jihad and Martyrdom tend to be especially problematic. When Israelis see they are surrounded by groups that openly call for their destruction then it's not surprising that Israelis believe those threats due to the history of those groups acting on those threats. Then there's the issue that historically whenever Israel would move in the direction of peace with the Palestinians things would backfire(i.e. Second Intifada). I'm not really sure what the best solution is but I think some Palestinian de-radicalization will be a prerequisite, but I also don't really know how that could be done in practice. > And I'm an atheist. If you had to choose somewhere in the middle east to live where would it be? I presume it would be Israel as that's basically the only country in the middle east where being an atheist is acceptable in the society.
  - watutalkinbout 2mo ago
    >some Palestinian de-radicalization will be a prerequisite I don't think there is a chance in hell of that working unless Israeli deradicalisation happens first. >If you had to choose somewhere in the middle east to live where would it be? My ethics aren't fungible based on the tribe someone belongs to...
    - jameshilliard 2mo ago
      > I don't think there is a chance in hell of that working unless Israeli deradicalisation happens first Israeli radicalization in that sense is mostly reactionary, the second intifada is what really moved Israel far to the right and subsequent events didn't help either. Israelis largely still want to live in peace with Palestinians, but Israeli's do not think Palestinians want to live in peace with Israelis. Not once has Palestinian leadership so much as proposed a concrete peace deal that they would accept. > My ethics aren't fungible based on the tribe someone belongs to... My point was that out of all countries in the middle east, it's almost certainly Israel that is closest to behaving according to your actual ethical beliefs in practice. Advocating for policies that would ultimately result in some Islamic dictatorship or other bad outcome in Israel/Palestine is rather counterproductive if you want to advance western ethics.
      - watutalkinbout 2mo ago
        I mean, it's not surprising that people living pretty normal lives, separated by terrorist attacks would think like this. Growing up in the UK, outside of Ireland, but occasionally having the threat of an IRA attack (like Manchester) I lived a low stress life. Meanwhile, those living in parts of Northern Ireland were living a life of constant stress. Kids constantly surrounded by soldiers with guns, controlling their movement and choices on a day to day basis. Violence was always, on some level, a daily threat. Northern Ireland was a lot less violent that Gaza though. It's not surprising that people living lives under dramatically different levels of stress and with dramatically different life chances/outcomes and life history have different outlooks. Comparing these two groups like they are the same really illustrates how you seem completely unable to actually see the issue at hand. Now you are asking the group that lost everything, and is living under constant stress with no prospects, and with no power, to engage with another group that holds all the power and won't create a good faith environment for any negotiation. It's like expecting a Good Friday agreement to be possible whilst London is running a policy of subsidising English resettlement in Northern Ireland and making statements on national TV about how many Irish nationalists they planned to kill each night. It's just a bonkers position. The side that holds the power breaks extremism by clearing its own side of the house and by making concessions that clearly demonstrate good will, repeatedly, over a long period of time. It is sensitive to deaths on both sides - if 50 nationalists were dying for each brit, the whole thing would still be going now, or we would have just pulled out completely. Regarding your second point, Israel isn't closest to my actual ethical beliefs in practice. It's an expansionist ethnostate that hugely intefers in Western politics and the information space. You don't advance ethics by surrendering your ethics.

watutalkinbout 2mo ago

"Not formally" rather implies you think it was. Northern Ireland was/is part of the UK, so civil war I could probably agree with. The reason I mentioned religion was nothing to do with the requirements it places on how things should happen, but rather about the entitlement and infallibility that a belief that god has decreed something can grant people's mindset and outlook.

jameshilliard 2mo ago
> "Not formally" rather implies you think it was. I mean, it comes down somewhat to definitions of war I guess. > Northern Ireland was/is part of the UK, so civil war I could probably agree with. Maybe an irregular civil war or something like that? Maybe a low level insurgency? There's a few ways to describe that conflict. I probably should know more about the troubles since I lived in southern Ireland for 3 semesters of college, but that was over 10 years ago. > The reason I mentioned religion was nothing to do with the requirements it places on how things should happen, but rather about the entitlement and infallibility that a belief that god has decreed something can grant people's mindset and outlook. Sure, religion does make solving these problems more difficult. I know at least Israeli Jews are often relatively secular statistically at least, although there are those that are more religious as well(which tend to cause more issues). Different religions have different doctrines as well which play into the conflict in various ways. All religions will generally have problematic teachings but some will cause a lot more real world issues than others, Islamic teachings around Jihad and Martyrdom tend to be especially problematic. When Israelis see they are surrounded by groups that openly call for their destruction then it's not surprising that Israelis believe those threats due to the history of those groups acting on those threats. Then there's the issue that historically whenever Israel would move in the direction of peace with the Palestinians things would backfire(i.e. Second Intifada). I'm not really sure what the best solution is but I think some Palestinian de-radicalization will be a prerequisite, but I also don't really know how that could be done in practice. > And I'm an atheist. If you had to choose somewhere in the middle east to live where would it be? I presume it would be Israel as that's basically the only country in the middle east where being an atheist is acceptable in the society.
- watutalkinbout 2mo ago
  >some Palestinian de-radicalization will be a prerequisite I don't think there is a chance in hell of that working unless Israeli deradicalisation happens first. >If you had to choose somewhere in the middle east to live where would it be? My ethics aren't fungible based on the tribe someone belongs to...
  - jameshilliard 2mo ago
    > I don't think there is a chance in hell of that working unless Israeli deradicalisation happens first Israeli radicalization in that sense is mostly reactionary, the second intifada is what really moved Israel far to the right and subsequent events didn't help either. Israelis largely still want to live in peace with Palestinians, but Israeli's do not think Palestinians want to live in peace with Israelis. Not once has Palestinian leadership so much as proposed a concrete peace deal that they would accept. > My ethics aren't fungible based on the tribe someone belongs to... My point was that out of all countries in the middle east, it's almost certainly Israel that is closest to behaving according to your actual ethical beliefs in practice. Advocating for policies that would ultimately result in some Islamic dictatorship or other bad outcome in Israel/Palestine is rather counterproductive if you want to advance western ethics.
    - watutalkinbout 2mo ago
      I mean, it's not surprising that people living pretty normal lives, separated by terrorist attacks would think like this. Growing up in the UK, outside of Ireland, but occasionally having the threat of an IRA attack (like Manchester) I lived a low stress life. Meanwhile, those living in parts of Northern Ireland were living a life of constant stress. Kids constantly surrounded by soldiers with guns, controlling their movement and choices on a day to day basis. Violence was always, on some level, a daily threat. Northern Ireland was a lot less violent that Gaza though. It's not surprising that people living lives under dramatically different levels of stress and with dramatically different life chances/outcomes and life history have different outlooks. Comparing these two groups like they are the same really illustrates how you seem completely unable to actually see the issue at hand. Now you are asking the group that lost everything, and is living under constant stress with no prospects, and with no power, to engage with another group that holds all the power and won't create a good faith environment for any negotiation. It's like expecting a Good Friday agreement to be possible whilst London is running a policy of subsidising English resettlement in Northern Ireland and making statements on national TV about how many Irish nationalists they planned to kill each night. It's just a bonkers position. The side that holds the power breaks extremism by clearing its own side of the house and by making concessions that clearly demonstrate good will, repeatedly, over a long period of time. It is sensitive to deaths on both sides - if 50 nationalists were dying for each brit, the whole thing would still be going now, or we would have just pulled out completely. Regarding your second point, Israel isn't closest to my actual ethical beliefs in practice. It's an expansionist ethnostate that hugely intefers in Western politics and the information space. You don't advance ethics by surrendering your ethics.