Why There Cannot Be Peace Between Israel and the Palestinians

I remember Christians fighting Christians.
Do you think that it may be possible that some of them got morality wrong? How about you? do you think that you get it wrong at times and if so do you think that studying moral philosophy will only make the matters worse?

Are you under some kind of impression that I give Christians a free pass for evil behaviors?

No, but just as they can get morality wrong how can you be sure that what you think is correct?

Oh I tend to not go near the border line of what might or might not be consider moral.

Blowing yourself up along with everyones else that are on a bus including women and children is far from a borderline issue in morality.

Nor is forcing tens of thousands of women into sexual slavery or blowing up other people religion centers or flying planes full of innocent people into buildings also full of innocent people as you are shouting god is great.

That include launching war rockets at random across the border and so on.

Well I can find value in that response but if you noticed I have also included sociology into this conversation and I think that if you would give the last video that I shared with everyone a chance and comment how it is not helpful then I might be able to have a better understanding of where you are coming from.

Here it is again.

Nonsense.





It was hardly horrific for us to try to save the South Vietnamese people from Communist oppression.

The only horrible act on our part was the Democrats cutting off aid to South Vietnam so the Communists could overrun them in the mid 1970s.





That is unlikely. But if so, it would have been collateral damage, not the result of any effort to kill civilians.

But more importantly, it is unlikely.

Oralboy spurts and, as is usual, he spurts lies.

Simple minded nonsense was my first impression when watching the video and let deal with oil and the Middle East.

First all the oil in the middle east would still be worthless without Western culture and in the case of oil mainly the US developing large scale uses for the oil beginning with kerosene for lighting replacing whale oil and later on the engines that could use gasoline and diesel make from the oil.

Next dealing with the idea that the big bad oil companies make a pact with local evil overlords and arm them so the companies could ripped the oil off the poor people that the oil to this point had been worthless to them.

The oil companies was not responsible for the social development stages of the people who they found living on top of the future oil fields and for a large part those societies were base of tribes that did not get along with each other or who treated their own lower class members well.

Somehow as the only thing the oil companies care about was drilling for oil in peace so I question if the companies would not had been far more over joy to had found large scale and stable governments and sociality to deal with instead of the mess that existed on the sites of the new oil fields.

They instead needed to deal with the societies that they found existing when their surveying and drilling teams arrive.

The local lower class people did get some benefits as some of the new wealth did filter down to the lower classes and as the oil companies needed some stability the intertribal fighting was reduce by giving one tribe the power to enforce peace by force of arms if need be.

So to sum up the oil companies was not evil they just work with the culture they found existing and it would had been far cheaper and simpler if that culture had been more balance and fair and stable.

One thing they surely were not responsible for was the imbalances of wealth in those societies nor did they ripped off the poor people in those regions instead they pump great wealth into the area in trade for a resource that had been worthless to them before the companies showed up.

First of all, "simple minded nonsense" is your inability to stay on subject, changing the topic to oil to avoid the topic at hand. You're like a one year old -a very short attention span.
The point of the talk was to get across the idea of trying to empathize with other individuals, and not about trying to get people to show empathy for you (as you're doing with your dribble about USA and its justification on oil drilling, which is besides the point). Think about it for an instance, on what it must be like as a Palestinian for a day.
Is it that inordinately difficult for you to not give a damn about non-Americans and to not think twice about what it means to be occupied by foreigners?
Let's pretend I've invaded your home with a hundred tanks and a dozen or so drones, and you have no weapons. Are you going head-to-head with the these tanks?
Try it, and you die! No doubt about it.

Others would find indirect methods to fight to try to win.
Can you conceive it now? Do you comprehend why they're thinking the way they do, and acting the way that they are?

I'm not persuaded. Merely a bunch of rather arbitrary definitions and Taxonomies, without meaningful external boundaries. Some statistical studies are mildly interesting, but these too can be misleading. Whether human behavior is deterministic or not is unknown, and, even if it is so on a neuronal level sensitive dependence on initial conditions (=chaos) is almost a certainty, leaving it unpredictable. We are very far from any micro understanding of consciousness or even the ability to observe the processes involved.

Sociology is a pseudo science.

The experience of life , and the habit of connecting with those you meet and attempting to see their perspective on the encounter, provides more real understanding than studying the subject.

Targeting the killing of innocent women and children on buses or machine gunning wedding parties or people at religion services is not a valid means of fighting no matter how must the other side have you out gun.

An you and the other mothers who gave you a vote up for you posting are sick sobs indeed to think so.

Side note such behaviors do not win conflicts and never have won conflicts and all it had does is to make sure that the hammer come down on the people who are outgun, as the other side with the heavy weapons begin to look at your people as not human but as mad dogs instead.

The 911 attack did not cause the American people to consider withdrawing from the middle east or changing the polities in that region all it did was cause us to go after the attackers in order to destroy them at any cost.

Hell the Japanese empire seal it faith when it had slow code clerks and as a result the Pear Harbor attack came as a surprise attacked while we was still in good faith negotiation with them.

Man, reading your reply is like taking a huge dose of over simplistic unintelligible bullshit.



Win conflicts? If you mean "flattening gaza" how is your idea any better than mine to resolve the conflict. If you can justify that, you would just as easily justify the Nazi's response to the Warsaw Ghetto uprising.


Well it would also help to know that Hamas terrorizes their own population into submission.
This is where you entire catalog of random preconceived ideas goes down the drain. Whenever one of the sides decides to blame the entire conflict on the other without taking a shred of responsibility for their own role, then that exactly is what drives the conflict to continue. By your idea of "winning," this war isn't going to come to any conclusion after a century or more of blood shed.

I think Palestine would have more of an effect in promulgating their displeasure and attaining a favorable result to their liking if their protestation were synonymous to Gandhi's peaceful protests. This is clearly more in the favor of the Palestinians seeing that Israel holds the bigger stick, but I'm sure Hamas would disagree to this idea, unfortunately.
That isn't to say Israel is by anyway justified in their own efforts to unnecessarily propagate conflict.
I predict that this conflict won't reach a conclusion any time soon, the way that both these parties are conducting with each other.

The present leadership of the Palestinian Authority has pursued non-violent approaches for some time now. The results haven't been so promising seeing as how Israel has continued to expand and build settlements in land that's been designated for a Palestinian state, and is even using the PA's non-violent approaches, e.g. its UN recognition of non-member status, as a pretext for the former's continued settlement expansion and building. On the other hand, the leadership of Hamas, who control the Gaza Strip, resorted to violence to get Israel to loosen its stifling blockade there. In regard to this conflict, violence has proven to be a more effective impetus for change in the status quo, unfortunately.

Oh the Poles were killing German women and children?

Somehow I missed that little fact.............

I am aware of a few sporadic instances here and there of such non-violent approaches, but have they taken a permanent stand in a campaign to pursue a non-violent struggle?

You're missing more than just a "little fact," you're missing a brain.
Tell me, in your broken English, how German women and children are relevant to Nazi's response to the Warsaw Ghetto uprising?

How is Palestinians killing women and children of Israel have anything to do with justifying putting down the Warsaw upraising as the there seems off hands zero connections or similarity unless the Poles was killing German women and children as the Palestinians happen to be doing?

Mahmoud Abbas has made clear that armed resistance is a right and an option in their struggle.

I agree with the man arm resistance is a right if very stupid in this case however arm resistance does not cover acts of terror.

An firing off of rockets at random is an act of terror having zero military value to say nothing of blowing yourself up in crowds.