The Politics Thread

[boltonboris]

Religion. It's all very much about religion.

no - it's not - not really.

Hmmm. Some different scenarios being discussed, but on this, we'll have to disagree. The subject is too vast and complicated to be defined in a post on here, and I'm making no statements about the rights and wrongs of it all, or wanting a major debate, but...

there's always a but....

And there's always an arse

[TANGODANCER]

In which case you might give some indication as to why you disagree. If you have a view, then state it instead of just yawning and flicking your cigar ash. You are but another opinion.

there'd be no point as you already very clearly stated you don't want any debate!!

*(plus - earlier in the thread we already had this discussion where I stated my opinion at length!)

If you read my post properly you'd see I said I didn't want a debate on the rights and wrongs of the situation in Gaza. I wrote:

"The subject is too vast and complicated to be defined in a post on here, and I'm making no statements about the rights and wrongs of it all, or wanting a major debate, but a couple of facts need considering:"

The facts were about my statement on religion. As ever you duck and dive and avoid answering direct questions. Your choice, that's okay with me. You answered my post negatively, not me yours. I'm not sure why you bothered.

[thebish]

Religion. It's all very much about religion.

no - it's not - not really.

Hmmm. Some different scenarios being discussed, but on this, we'll have to disagree. The subject is too vast and complicated to be defined in a post on here, and I'm making no statements about the rights and wrongs of it all, or wanting a major debate, but...

there's always a but....

And there's always an arse

and here you are, as usual, to prove it!

[thebish]

The facts were about my statement on religion. As ever you duck and dive and avoid answering direct questions. Your choice, that's okay with me. You answered my post negatively, not me yours. I'm not sure why you bothered.

it's not primarily or mainly about religion - it's about the carve-up of the land. the sloution will not have a religious element - there will be no attempt to decide who is right or wrong about who God is supposed to have given the land to. it's simply about land - and how both sides can or can't co-exist peaefully.

here's a very handy guide to what it's about - not especially number 2.

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/17/5902177/9- ... u-were-too" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[TANGODANCER]

The facts were about my statement on religion. As ever you duck and dive and avoid answering direct questions. Your choice, that's okay with me. You answered my post negatively, not me yours. I'm not sure why you bothered.

it's not primarily or mainly about religion - it's about the carve-up of the land. the sloution will not have a religious element - there will be no attempt to decide who is right or wrong about who God is supposed to have given the land to. it's simply about land - and how both sides can or can't co-exist peaefully.

here's a very handy guide to what it's about - not especially number 2.

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/17/5902177/9- ... u-were-too" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Again, views "with a giant neon lit disclaimer" principally because it's all so complicated. I'll take a watching brief and maintain my belief in the religious aspects. The politics of it, like ours, are permeated with bullshit. Peaceful co-existence? I don't think so.
Just pray that nobody's rockets ever hit the Western Wall or Dome of The Rock.

[thebish]

The facts were about my statement on religion. As ever you duck and dive and avoid answering direct questions. Your choice, that's okay with me. You answered my post negatively, not me yours. I'm not sure why you bothered.

it's not primarily or mainly about religion - it's about the carve-up of the land. the sloution will not have a religious element - there will be no attempt to decide who is right or wrong about who God is supposed to have given the land to. it's simply about land - and how both sides can or can't co-exist peaefully.

here's a very handy guide to what it's about - not especially number 2.

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/17/5902177/9- ... u-were-too" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Again, views "with a giant neon lit disclaimer" principally because it's all so complicated. I'll take a watching brief and maintain my belief in the religious aspects. The politics of it, like ours, are permeated with bullshit. Peaceful co-existence? I don't think so.
Just pray that nobody's rockets ever hit the Western Wall or Dome of The Rock.

yes - there are religious aspects - yes - religion is a complicating factor - but it is not fundamentally or primarily or all about religion. it's about land and who build nationhood on it.

[Hoboh]

The facts were about my statement on religion. As ever you duck and dive and avoid answering direct questions. Your choice, that's okay with me. You answered my post negatively, not me yours. I'm not sure why you bothered.

it's not primarily or mainly about religion - it's about the carve-up of the land. the sloution will not have a religious element - there will be no attempt to decide who is right or wrong about who God is supposed to have given the land to. it's simply about land - and how both sides can or can't co-exist peaefully.

here's a very handy guide to what it's about - not especially number 2.

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/17/5902177/9- ... u-were-too" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Its all about what?

An Iranian official said missile technology transfers from Tehran to Gaza had enabled the Hamas war effort.

[Lord Kangana]

I'm fascinated hoboh. Israel basically has a defence shield that negates 99.9% of the Hamas rockets. On the other hand, Israel has the kind of capability that only leaves the fillings from your teeth.

Now, bearing that in mind, do you believe it a commensurate response to use the nuclear option against the arrows? Or would it perhaps be in the best interests of world peace (I know, I'm that naive) for Israel to take the moral high ground and perhaps not kill lots of people (basically children) for the sake of it?

[Hoboh]

I'm fascinated hoboh. Israel basically has a defence shield that negates 99.9% of the Hamas rockets. On the other hand, Israel has the kind of capability that only leaves the fillings from your teeth.

Now, bearing that in mind, do you believe it a commensurate response to use the nuclear option against the arrows? Or would it perhaps be in the best interests of world peace (I know, I'm that naive) for Israel to take the moral high ground and perhaps not kill lots of people (basically children) for the sake of it?

It would, but I do not believe they are killing people on purpose.
People take the simplistic view 'it's just those nasty Israelis' but behind Hamas are similar types of folk like IsIs in Iraq, people who would given a chance actually nuke Israel without one thought for the millions of martyers that would go up with them.
Just the same as Hamas launching these rockets from the areas they do.

[LeverEnd]

I'm fascinated hoboh. Israel basically has a defence shield that negates 99.9% of the Hamas rockets. On the other hand, Israel has the kind of capability that only leaves the fillings from your teeth.

Now, bearing that in mind, do you believe it a commensurate response to use the nuclear option against the arrows? Or would it perhaps be in the best interests of world peace (I know, I'm that naive) for Israel to take the moral high ground and perhaps not kill lots of people (basically children) for the sake of it?

It would, but I do not believe they are killing people on purpose.
People take the simplistic view 'it's just those nasty Israelis' but behind Hamas are similar types of folk like IsIs in Iraq, people who would given a chance actually nuke Israel without one thought for the millions of martyers that would go up with them.
Just the same as Hamas launching these rockets from the areas they do.

Hamas? Yes they would do that, as they are horrible terrorist woman-hating bastards etc etc. We know this. But as thebish says, they can't, they can barely touch the Israelis. Bombing Palestinian kids plays into their hands. Israel holds all the cards militarily, but Hamas militants make up a relatively small proportion of the dead in Gaza while the Israeli death toll is overwhelmingly made up of soldiers.

As for the religious aspect, I think it is overplayed as far as Gaza goes. Go to Turkey, where Christianity and Islam coexist. They can because they are equal and no one faction is oppressing the other.

[Prufrock]

I can't quite buy that religion has 'nothing' to do with it. I don't think it's a driving force behind the current conflict, but it is essential to this '2 into 1' framework.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I'm fascinated hoboh. Israel basically has a defence shield that negates 99.9% of the Hamas rockets. On the other hand, Israel has the kind of capability that only leaves the fillings from your teeth.

Now, bearing that in mind, do you believe it a commensurate response to use the nuclear option against the arrows? Or would it perhaps be in the best interests of world peace (I know, I'm that naive) for Israel to take the moral high ground and perhaps not kill lots of people (basically children) for the sake of it?

The boundaries of what is a commensurate response are an interesting question.

For instance, if, hypothetically, the stronger of two parties had to kill 100 of the other side to avoid the death of 1 of its own, is it morally obliged to 'choose' the death of its 1 rather than the other's 100? And, if so, what is the numerical tipping point where this changes?

[thebish]

Its all about what?

land.

[thebish]

I can't quite buy that religion has 'nothing' to do with it. I don't think it's a driving force behind the current conflict, but it is essential to this '2 into 1' framework.

nobody is saying religion has "nothing" to do with it, are they? I am saying it is not all about religion. it's a complicating factor - but it's not what the conflict is "about".

[Prufrock]

I can't quite buy that religion has 'nothing' to do with it. I don't think it's a driving force behind the current conflict, but it is essential to this '2 into 1' framework.

nobody is saying religion has "nothing" to do with it, are they? I am saying it is not all about religion. it's a complicating factor - but it's not what the conflict is "about".

I don't think it can really be divorced from the issue at all, it's always there in the background and I think it's more than a complicating factor; it's one of the fundamental reasons for it. You've said it's about land, and I'd broadly agree, but it's about specific land and for scriptural reasons. Do I think that it's a driving force for any real number of people involved now, or that if you now took religion away the conflict would cease? No, but that doesn't mean religion gets to wash its hands and say 'look, not our fault'.

[Prufrock]

I'm fascinated hoboh. Israel basically has a defence shield that negates 99.9% of the Hamas rockets. On the other hand, Israel has the kind of capability that only leaves the fillings from your teeth.

Now, bearing that in mind, do you believe it a commensurate response to use the nuclear option against the arrows? Or would it perhaps be in the best interests of world peace (I know, I'm that naive) for Israel to take the moral high ground and perhaps not kill lots of people (basically children) for the sake of it?

The boundaries of what is a commensurate response are an interesting question.

For instance, if, hypothetically, the stronger of two parties had to kill 100 of the other side to avoid the death of 1 of its own, is it morally obliged to 'choose' the death of its 1 rather than the other's 100? And, if so, what is the numerical tipping point where this changes?

It's an interesting one. Do you draw a distinction between civilian deaths and those of military personnel? The latest numbers I found are here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28586190" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) which show about 27 Palestinian deaths for every Israeli death. However, of the 67 Israeli deaths, only three were civilians (one of whom was actually a Thai national, but it seems fair to count the number as three given we're talking about the conscionability of killing civilians). Now I have no idea how many of the 1800 Palestinian dead are what you might call military Hamas members, but I haven't heard too many reports of Israel saying 'Yeah, we got that guy we were specifically after', so I think we're looking at about 500 Palestinian civilians dead for every 1 Israeli civilian.

500 does it for me.

[thebish]

I can't quite buy that religion has 'nothing' to do with it. I don't think it's a driving force behind the current conflict, but it is essential to this '2 into 1' framework.

nobody is saying religion has "nothing" to do with it, are they? I am saying it is not all about religion. it's a complicating factor - but it's not what the conflict is "about".

I don't think it can really be divorced from the issue at all, it's always there in the background and I think it's more than a complicating factor; it's one of the fundamental reasons for it. You've said it's about land, and I'd broadly agree, but it's about specific land and for scriptural reasons. Do I think that it's a driving force for any real number of people involved now, or that if you now took religion away the conflict would cease? No, but that doesn't mean religion gets to wash its hands and say 'look, not our fault'.

again... I have not said it should be divorced from the issue - not have I said it is not in the background. nor have I said anyone should be able to wash their hands and say "look, not our fault."

it is about land-borders drawn by the UN - not the Bible.

acid test for me... if it is essentially and fuindamentally about religion - than any proposed peace talks will be fundamentally and essentially about religion. thing is - they won't be - cos religion is not what it is fundamentally or essentially about.

do I think that religion is a driving force for some of the people involved? yes - i said this quite clearly a few pages back - religious extremists have been attracted to this conflict on both sides - and are a complicating factor. but - if you took them away - you still have the fundamental conflict about land, nationhood and security.

[KeyserSoze]

Not sure if this will work or if it's paywalled, but as it was his birthday yesterday, here's a big interview with yer man barry

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democrac ... e1ccd3c598|" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Prufrock]

I can't quite buy that religion has 'nothing' to do with it. I don't think it's a driving force behind the current conflict, but it is essential to this '2 into 1' framework.

nobody is saying religion has "nothing" to do with it, are they? I am saying it is not all about religion. it's a complicating factor - but it's not what the conflict is "about".

I don't think it can really be divorced from the issue at all, it's always there in the background and I think it's more than a complicating factor; it's one of the fundamental reasons for it. You've said it's about land, and I'd broadly agree, but it's about specific land and for scriptural reasons. Do I think that it's a driving force for any real number of people involved now, or that if you now took religion away the conflict would cease? No, but that doesn't mean religion gets to wash its hands and say 'look, not our fault'.

again... I have not said it should be divorced from the issue - not have I said it is not in the background. nor have I said anyone should be able to wash their hands and say "look, not our fault."

it is about land-borders drawn by the UN - not the Bible.

acid test for me... if it is essentially and fuindamentally about religion - than any proposed peace talks will be fundamentally and essentially about religion. thing is - they won't be - cos religion is not what it is fundamentally or essentially about.

do I think that religion is a driving force for some of the people involved? yes - i said this quite clearly a few pages back - religious extremists have been attracted to this conflict on both sides - and are a complicating factor. but - if you took them away - you still have the fundamental conflict about land, nationhood and security.

I don't think we massively disagree, but two points:

1) I don't think it is about 'land-borders drawn by the UN'. It's a much more primitive 'this is our land'. The justification for it being 'ours' is partly historical and partly scriptural. It's explicitly in there. This is your land, promised to you by god.

Whilst the UN borders would be important in any negotiations, that's not really what it's fundamentally about.

2) I'm not sure that works as an acid test for me. In any case, any resolving peace talks would have a big focus on Jerusalem and its division. That makes at least a bit about religion for me.

[thebish]

I can't quite buy that religion has 'nothing' to do with it. I don't think it's a driving force behind the current conflict, but it is essential to this '2 into 1' framework.

nobody is saying religion has "nothing" to do with it, are they? I am saying it is not all about religion. it's a complicating factor - but it's not what the conflict is "about".

I don't think it can really be divorced from the issue at all, it's always there in the background and I think it's more than a complicating factor; it's one of the fundamental reasons for it. You've said it's about land, and I'd broadly agree, but it's about specific land and for scriptural reasons. Do I think that it's a driving force for any real number of people involved now, or that if you now took religion away the conflict would cease? No, but that doesn't mean religion gets to wash its hands and say 'look, not our fault'.

again... I have not said it should be divorced from the issue - not have I said it is not in the background. nor have I said anyone should be able to wash their hands and say "look, not our fault."

it is about land-borders drawn by the UN - not the Bible.

acid test for me... if it is essentially and fuindamentally about religion - than any proposed peace talks will be fundamentally and essentially about religion. thing is - they won't be - cos religion is not what it is fundamentally or essentially about.

do I think that religion is a driving force for some of the people involved? yes - i said this quite clearly a few pages back - religious extremists have been attracted to this conflict on both sides - and are a complicating factor. but - if you took them away - you still have the fundamental conflict about land, nationhood and security.

I don't think we massively disagree, but two points:

1) I don't think it is about 'land-borders drawn by the UN'. It's a much more primitive 'this is our land'. The justification for it being 'ours' is partly historical and partly scriptural. It's explicitly in there. This is your land, promised to you by god.

Whilst the UN borders would be important in any negotiations, that's not really what it's fundamentally about.

2) I'm not sure that works as an acid test for me. In any case, any resolving peace talks would have a big focus on Jerusalem and its division. That makes at least a bit about religion for me.

without the religious labels that are so easy to use - the justification for it being "ours" would be just as strong... it would be a "we were here first" argument or a "the land is ours by international law" argument...

religious justifications complicate the issue - but the bottom line is land and people will always find a justification as to why they should express their nationhood by means of the land they occupy... see the Falklands - no religious explanation needed - but equally intractable and immovable conviction about land and national identity.

I think part of the reason wht religion "seems" to be so crucial here is that it is seen as co-terminous with nationality on both sides. in many peoples' eyes Israeli=Jewish / Palestinian=Muslim - and so when the issue is actually nationalism, it is very easily confused for religionism...

anyway - as you said, I don't think we are that far apart...