I generally agree, but I think at this point calling it a war is disingenuous as it implies some form of equal footing. This is a massacre upon tens of thousands of people who did not ask for this. It's inhumane.
While I agree with you, here is the moral dilemma I reckon with: Was Israel supposed to do nothing after the October 7th attacks? What amount of retaliation would have been appropriate? Where did it cross the line? When we're talking about human life, when did the slaughter of lives become one too many, crossing from "appropriate" retaliation into genocide? Who gets to say what is appropriate in war?
I have always thought the concept of "war crimes" was mind-splitting. If the goal of war is to exterminate people, why would there be gentlemanly agreements about it? It does not compute in my head. The violation of morality is already too severe that I expect nothing less than ongoing severity — whatever it takes for either side to win their cause. What are people thinking, talking about humane rules of warfare?? That this is a game? I cannot reconcile how people think Israel would *not* bomb hospitals in order to finish what they started. I cannot fathom why people think Israel *would* allow aid to the very people they're slaughtering. Is it beyond heinous? Yes. So was the start of this.
We cannot treat violence with peace nor acts of religion with reason.
For the record, one of my many thoughts is this: What did Israel think would happen? What result did they anticipate from sequestering, depriving, monitoring, and abusing generations of Palestinians in one over-crowded, under-resourced sliver of land? How did they *not* see Hamas coming? Were *Palestinians* supposed to do nothing, for generation after generation?
Or maybe this was Israel's long-term plan all along: to suffocate a people slowly, over generations, until provoking reaction they could then retaliate against, all the way to the end?
In my opinion, you have a lot to contribute to this discussion, but like you said, not by taking sides, analyzing situations, calling for action, or any of that. I think that you have a very rare perspective that lets you take a step above the situation and look at it from a more universally human perspective.
The perspective I'd love to see you write about is the vulnerability of human beings to emotional manipulation. You see how smart, generous people are manipulated, intentionally or not, by the media they are consuming. You know the vulnerabilities we all have when it comes to situations that evoke rage, fear, sadness, and other strong emotions.
I believe that the most important thing we can communicate to the people we touch right now is how to recognize our vulnerabilities to emotional manipulation and how to guard against them. The lesson here is not about how Israel oppressed Palestine, how Palestine reacted by killing civilians, or how Israel reacted to that. The real lesson here is about how the human beings on both sides have brains that intrinsically respond to the highly charged emotions and situations they live with every day. It is about how their environment indoctrinates their minds into holding beliefs (religious and otherwise) that can lead to such extremes. It is about how people following the situation from afar believe one way or another based on the sphere of information in which they immerse themselves. Human perception so easily snaps to the simplest, most emotional views of the informational ecosystem they live in.
I'd love to see you write about this topic from this overarching, human point of view. I think exposing as many people as possible to the ideas behind neurological humility is the most important thing we can do in a world where simplified, emotional information swirls around us constantly. I think your understanding of the issue and your writing style are perfect for expressing this message.
Protesting/blockading weapons manufacturing and exports seems like one of the most practical ways to both try to stop violence and protest violence against anyone involved, but I don’t know how that gets achieved on a large scale without the cooperation of many unions.
There's a great book called Politics is for Power. The author shows that we often use social media engagement as a feel-good way to participate in politics that does absolutely no good. Even worse, it makes us feel like we're doing something so we don't take actual steps that would make a difference. If I were more ethical I'd find the cause I admire and donate time and effort. But he also shows those effective orgs are few and far between. But at least I no longer rant and rave on social media thinking that I'm doing anything good.
I generally agree, but I think at this point calling it a war is disingenuous as it implies some form of equal footing. This is a massacre upon tens of thousands of people who did not ask for this. It's inhumane.
While I agree with you, here is the moral dilemma I reckon with: Was Israel supposed to do nothing after the October 7th attacks? What amount of retaliation would have been appropriate? Where did it cross the line? When we're talking about human life, when did the slaughter of lives become one too many, crossing from "appropriate" retaliation into genocide? Who gets to say what is appropriate in war?
I have always thought the concept of "war crimes" was mind-splitting. If the goal of war is to exterminate people, why would there be gentlemanly agreements about it? It does not compute in my head. The violation of morality is already too severe that I expect nothing less than ongoing severity — whatever it takes for either side to win their cause. What are people thinking, talking about humane rules of warfare?? That this is a game? I cannot reconcile how people think Israel would *not* bomb hospitals in order to finish what they started. I cannot fathom why people think Israel *would* allow aid to the very people they're slaughtering. Is it beyond heinous? Yes. So was the start of this.
We cannot treat violence with peace nor acts of religion with reason.
For the record, one of my many thoughts is this: What did Israel think would happen? What result did they anticipate from sequestering, depriving, monitoring, and abusing generations of Palestinians in one over-crowded, under-resourced sliver of land? How did they *not* see Hamas coming? Were *Palestinians* supposed to do nothing, for generation after generation?
Or maybe this was Israel's long-term plan all along: to suffocate a people slowly, over generations, until provoking reaction they could then retaliate against, all the way to the end?
I can totally appreciate this point.
In my opinion, you have a lot to contribute to this discussion, but like you said, not by taking sides, analyzing situations, calling for action, or any of that. I think that you have a very rare perspective that lets you take a step above the situation and look at it from a more universally human perspective.
The perspective I'd love to see you write about is the vulnerability of human beings to emotional manipulation. You see how smart, generous people are manipulated, intentionally or not, by the media they are consuming. You know the vulnerabilities we all have when it comes to situations that evoke rage, fear, sadness, and other strong emotions.
I believe that the most important thing we can communicate to the people we touch right now is how to recognize our vulnerabilities to emotional manipulation and how to guard against them. The lesson here is not about how Israel oppressed Palestine, how Palestine reacted by killing civilians, or how Israel reacted to that. The real lesson here is about how the human beings on both sides have brains that intrinsically respond to the highly charged emotions and situations they live with every day. It is about how their environment indoctrinates their minds into holding beliefs (religious and otherwise) that can lead to such extremes. It is about how people following the situation from afar believe one way or another based on the sphere of information in which they immerse themselves. Human perception so easily snaps to the simplest, most emotional views of the informational ecosystem they live in.
I'd love to see you write about this topic from this overarching, human point of view. I think exposing as many people as possible to the ideas behind neurological humility is the most important thing we can do in a world where simplified, emotional information swirls around us constantly. I think your understanding of the issue and your writing style are perfect for expressing this message.
So very well-said! Thank you so much. I really appreciate this encouragement. 🙏🏼
I agree that saying nothing is not a bad thing and is often the right thing.
Protesting/blockading weapons manufacturing and exports seems like one of the most practical ways to both try to stop violence and protest violence against anyone involved, but I don’t know how that gets achieved on a large scale without the cooperation of many unions.
I appreciate this practical piece of action, thank you!
There's a great book called Politics is for Power. The author shows that we often use social media engagement as a feel-good way to participate in politics that does absolutely no good. Even worse, it makes us feel like we're doing something so we don't take actual steps that would make a difference. If I were more ethical I'd find the cause I admire and donate time and effort. But he also shows those effective orgs are few and far between. But at least I no longer rant and rave on social media thinking that I'm doing anything good.