Yeah, as Dave said, I don't think anybody's accusing you of being any kind of monster. The point is that there's a difference between allowing for emotion and being ruled by your emotions. Just as, as you say, there's a difference between being rational and being a robot (not accusing you of being a robot or, in fact, any of these. Just …
Yeah, as Dave said, I don't think anybody's accusing you of being any kind of monster. The point is that there's a difference between allowing for emotion and being ruled by your emotions. Just as, as you say, there's a difference between being rational and being a robot (not accusing you of being a robot or, in fact, any of these. Just establishing a baseline).
If we were all looking at the situation with clear vision, Israel would follow international law by defining it's borders in line with the 1967 borders, ending the blockade and, at the very least, reshaping the West Bank Barrier in line with those borders, removing the illegal settlements, and allowing Palestinians forcibly removed from their homes to return. Israel's attempts to move forward without accepting this are a significant source of the turmoil in the region.
Israel would also recognise that bombing Gaza into oblivion can only ever radicalise their enemies even further and lead to more attacks in future.
The Palestinians would accept Israel's acceptance of International law with good grace, denounce all future violence, and devote their energies to making their Palestinian state flourish.
The Palestinians would also recognise that acts of violence against the most powerful military force in the region, even if that military force is breaking international law, can only ever end badly for Palestine.
This is all perfectly rational and humane. But it's not even close to where we are. Because there are decades of emotion clouding the issue for both sides. So first, we have to start with the simplest possible questions like, "how can we get these people to agree to stop killing each other as soon as possible?"
I think the main reason Palestinians hate Israelis are the aforementioned violations of international law. Most of all, the humiliation and suffering related to the blockade, occupation and settlers.
I think the main reason Israelis hate Palestinians is the fear that one of them will come to Israel and blow themselves up on a bus or in a synagogue. Or now, come across the border with paragliders and rape, kill and abduct civilians. There's also the fear that Palestinians want to drive them from what they see as their God-given land.
If I've learned one thing over the past few years of talking and writing about these kinds of issues, it's that being objectively correct, having all your facts right and using iron-clad logic, isn't even close to enough. You always have to contend with people's emotions. You have to bridge gaps where there's a strong difference of opinion about what the "best solution for everyone" is. And the best way to do that, as you say, is to appeal to simple--and hopefully common--values.
Saving the lives of as many children as possible. Freeing hostages. Liberating innocent people from oppression. Allowing people to live peacefully in the land they were born in. Most people can agree on the importance of these ideas because we can empathise and emote. We know we'd want these things for ourselves and the people we love. The people who can't compromise even on issues like these are the ones who are being irrational. And sometimes you need to poke them to remind them of the full human weight of what they're arguing.
I don't think we're actually disagreeing on the broader point, we need cool heads. We can't allow a single atrocity to dominate all other thinking. I just also think there's a real danger of being cool headed to the point where these human beings just become abstract numbers. 10,000 here, 1,400 there. Reminding ourselves that each one of them had a face and a name is important.
> "If I've learned one thing over the past few years of talking and writing about these kinds of issues, it's that being objectively correct, having all your facts right and using iron-clad logic, isn't even close to enough. You always have to contend with people's emotions."
I fully agree, at a broad and general level.
Analysis and persuasion have different characters, and should not be conflated into one big ball of sameness.
Accurate analysis is hindered, not helped, by constant emotional hijacking. That's a time when it's best to have the ability to detach from the emotions of the moment in order to better understand the rational connection between actions and our humane values.
After one uses this dispassionate logic to better understand real world, you are correct that one still needs to use emotional arguments to persuade others, because that's how the majority get convinced.
Both are true, of their separate domains. But it is not helpful to lump them together and assume that the same dynamics apply to both accurate analysis and to public persuasion, so if passionate emotionality helps with the latter it must also help with the former.
I'm guessing that by "1967 borders" you don't mean the borders from 1967 to present, but the borders from 1949 to 1967, ie: basically the "green line" 1949 armistice borders, right?
Why do you see the 1949 armistice line as more legitimate than, say, the 1946 borders? Or the 1947 UN partition plan?
A problem is - a lot of Palestinians (and their supporters in the Arabic and/or Muslim world as well as the West) do not accept the borders established by war in 1949 either (ie: your (pre) 1967 border).
Look at Gaza - whose border pretty much follows the 1949-1967 borders. Israelis are not shrinking Gaza, in fact in 2005 they forcibly removed all the settlers, in what the left leaning government sold as "land for peace". But the Gazans overwhelmingly elected two parties who were not calling for an end to the blockade, but an end to Israel entirely.
What I'm getting at is: do you believe that a "return to the pre-1967 borders" (even if Palestinians do not accept those borders as any more valid) would end or reduce the intention of eliminating Israel? Our would it result in Israel essentially facing the same implacable opposition, only much better armed and positioned?
Try this: use Google maps to zoom in on the Tel Aviv area, and note how far t is from the 1949-1967 border to, say, Tel Aviv. The airport is only about 8 miles from the border. Hesbolah has reportedly amassed 100,000 rockets in the north, so an independent Palestine could do so too, far closer to Israeli population centers. But they wouldn't even need rockets - it's in very easy artillery range. Tel Aviv and other Israeli population centers would likely become similar to Seol South Korea, with massive North Korean artillery able to destroy any portion thereof.
The possibility of a war with Palestinian losses 10 or 100 or more times greater than what's happening in Gaza today would be very real (along with an even greater multiplier of Israeli losses). Literally millions of lives would be at stake, and if Israel were to feel they were losing, nukes would come out.
I can't simply say "a rational person would obviously agree that withdrawing to the pre-1967 borders would obviously reduce rather than increase the chances of a catastrophic war in the coming decades". We don't know the future, but the chances of a vastly worse outcome for Israelis and Palestinians seems is hardly trivial.
In the strategic circumstance, with literally millions of lives likely on the line, it seems short sighted to simply decide on the best course forward based on no more than what saves thousands of lives in the immediate future - no matter how many horrifying videos try to emotionally hijack our rational long term considerations, under the nominal intention of "reminding us" that there are real people dying.
If one is concerned about a far more catastrophic war in the future, we have to factor in the real people with faces and names who would die in that conflict - even tho we don't have videos of those people yet, to activate our limbic systems and amygdala.
I've been reading the Hamas charter, the statement of Hamas leaders, the statement of PA leaders, and opinion polls among Palestinians (which are skimpy because it's very hard to do, even before this war). I personally don't see much realistic hope of peace, only of different front lines. And from that perspective, I can understand why Israel may be unwilling to return to the pre-1967 borders.
That doesn't mean there could not be some border which would work better for peace than the 1949 green line, or the present situation. But it makes harping on the pre-1967 border as if it would produce peace and security rather questionable.
I'm also not saying that means the Israeli's are justified in their actions. I think what's happening is horrible, and I want it to end in a better world.
I'm saying that some of the proposed "solutions" may be penny wise and pound foolish, ineffective in the real world of achieving the nominal aims of said solution, and too likely leading to even larger wars. Good (short term) intentions do not automatically lead to good (longer term) outcomes.
> "Reminding ourselves that each one of them had a face and a name is important."
I fully agree that each human affected has a face and a name.
However, at this moment, I am swamped with exactly that "reminder". The first ten times it might generously be termed a "reminder" just in case one had forgotten, but by the 100th time, it can come to feel like emotional manipulation because one hasn't forgotten.
And this can be done by both sides.
As I have said, I have sympathy for the strong passions, I can easily understand where they come from. But when almost EVERY attempt to rationally discuss the options gets hijacked by strong emotionalism, I do not think that lack of passion is the real problem or that further "stirring the emotions" is on the path out of the problem. Sober, unbiased, rational evaluation (grounded in big picture humane values) is in far shorter supply than inflamed passions.
If I rarely heard such "reminders" and most of the discussion was about seeking truth through reason and evidence, I might think that a reminder is needed. But when "reminders" are ubiquitous, and seem to be displacing other discussion, I question the value and role of once again shifting the discussion to the horrors of it all (as if that had been forgotten).
It starts feeling like CSJ folks saying "why don't we ever talk about race?", when such talk is already omnipresent.
Yeah, as Dave said, I don't think anybody's accusing you of being any kind of monster. The point is that there's a difference between allowing for emotion and being ruled by your emotions. Just as, as you say, there's a difference between being rational and being a robot (not accusing you of being a robot or, in fact, any of these. Just establishing a baseline).
If we were all looking at the situation with clear vision, Israel would follow international law by defining it's borders in line with the 1967 borders, ending the blockade and, at the very least, reshaping the West Bank Barrier in line with those borders, removing the illegal settlements, and allowing Palestinians forcibly removed from their homes to return. Israel's attempts to move forward without accepting this are a significant source of the turmoil in the region.
Israel would also recognise that bombing Gaza into oblivion can only ever radicalise their enemies even further and lead to more attacks in future.
The Palestinians would accept Israel's acceptance of International law with good grace, denounce all future violence, and devote their energies to making their Palestinian state flourish.
The Palestinians would also recognise that acts of violence against the most powerful military force in the region, even if that military force is breaking international law, can only ever end badly for Palestine.
This is all perfectly rational and humane. But it's not even close to where we are. Because there are decades of emotion clouding the issue for both sides. So first, we have to start with the simplest possible questions like, "how can we get these people to agree to stop killing each other as soon as possible?"
I think the main reason Palestinians hate Israelis are the aforementioned violations of international law. Most of all, the humiliation and suffering related to the blockade, occupation and settlers.
I think the main reason Israelis hate Palestinians is the fear that one of them will come to Israel and blow themselves up on a bus or in a synagogue. Or now, come across the border with paragliders and rape, kill and abduct civilians. There's also the fear that Palestinians want to drive them from what they see as their God-given land.
If I've learned one thing over the past few years of talking and writing about these kinds of issues, it's that being objectively correct, having all your facts right and using iron-clad logic, isn't even close to enough. You always have to contend with people's emotions. You have to bridge gaps where there's a strong difference of opinion about what the "best solution for everyone" is. And the best way to do that, as you say, is to appeal to simple--and hopefully common--values.
Saving the lives of as many children as possible. Freeing hostages. Liberating innocent people from oppression. Allowing people to live peacefully in the land they were born in. Most people can agree on the importance of these ideas because we can empathise and emote. We know we'd want these things for ourselves and the people we love. The people who can't compromise even on issues like these are the ones who are being irrational. And sometimes you need to poke them to remind them of the full human weight of what they're arguing.
I don't think we're actually disagreeing on the broader point, we need cool heads. We can't allow a single atrocity to dominate all other thinking. I just also think there's a real danger of being cool headed to the point where these human beings just become abstract numbers. 10,000 here, 1,400 there. Reminding ourselves that each one of them had a face and a name is important.
> "If I've learned one thing over the past few years of talking and writing about these kinds of issues, it's that being objectively correct, having all your facts right and using iron-clad logic, isn't even close to enough. You always have to contend with people's emotions."
I fully agree, at a broad and general level.
Analysis and persuasion have different characters, and should not be conflated into one big ball of sameness.
Accurate analysis is hindered, not helped, by constant emotional hijacking. That's a time when it's best to have the ability to detach from the emotions of the moment in order to better understand the rational connection between actions and our humane values.
After one uses this dispassionate logic to better understand real world, you are correct that one still needs to use emotional arguments to persuade others, because that's how the majority get convinced.
Both are true, of their separate domains. But it is not helpful to lump them together and assume that the same dynamics apply to both accurate analysis and to public persuasion, so if passionate emotionality helps with the latter it must also help with the former.
I'm guessing that by "1967 borders" you don't mean the borders from 1967 to present, but the borders from 1949 to 1967, ie: basically the "green line" 1949 armistice borders, right?
Why do you see the 1949 armistice line as more legitimate than, say, the 1946 borders? Or the 1947 UN partition plan?
A problem is - a lot of Palestinians (and their supporters in the Arabic and/or Muslim world as well as the West) do not accept the borders established by war in 1949 either (ie: your (pre) 1967 border).
Look at Gaza - whose border pretty much follows the 1949-1967 borders. Israelis are not shrinking Gaza, in fact in 2005 they forcibly removed all the settlers, in what the left leaning government sold as "land for peace". But the Gazans overwhelmingly elected two parties who were not calling for an end to the blockade, but an end to Israel entirely.
What I'm getting at is: do you believe that a "return to the pre-1967 borders" (even if Palestinians do not accept those borders as any more valid) would end or reduce the intention of eliminating Israel? Our would it result in Israel essentially facing the same implacable opposition, only much better armed and positioned?
Try this: use Google maps to zoom in on the Tel Aviv area, and note how far t is from the 1949-1967 border to, say, Tel Aviv. The airport is only about 8 miles from the border. Hesbolah has reportedly amassed 100,000 rockets in the north, so an independent Palestine could do so too, far closer to Israeli population centers. But they wouldn't even need rockets - it's in very easy artillery range. Tel Aviv and other Israeli population centers would likely become similar to Seol South Korea, with massive North Korean artillery able to destroy any portion thereof.
The possibility of a war with Palestinian losses 10 or 100 or more times greater than what's happening in Gaza today would be very real (along with an even greater multiplier of Israeli losses). Literally millions of lives would be at stake, and if Israel were to feel they were losing, nukes would come out.
I can't simply say "a rational person would obviously agree that withdrawing to the pre-1967 borders would obviously reduce rather than increase the chances of a catastrophic war in the coming decades". We don't know the future, but the chances of a vastly worse outcome for Israelis and Palestinians seems is hardly trivial.
In the strategic circumstance, with literally millions of lives likely on the line, it seems short sighted to simply decide on the best course forward based on no more than what saves thousands of lives in the immediate future - no matter how many horrifying videos try to emotionally hijack our rational long term considerations, under the nominal intention of "reminding us" that there are real people dying.
If one is concerned about a far more catastrophic war in the future, we have to factor in the real people with faces and names who would die in that conflict - even tho we don't have videos of those people yet, to activate our limbic systems and amygdala.
I've been reading the Hamas charter, the statement of Hamas leaders, the statement of PA leaders, and opinion polls among Palestinians (which are skimpy because it's very hard to do, even before this war). I personally don't see much realistic hope of peace, only of different front lines. And from that perspective, I can understand why Israel may be unwilling to return to the pre-1967 borders.
That doesn't mean there could not be some border which would work better for peace than the 1949 green line, or the present situation. But it makes harping on the pre-1967 border as if it would produce peace and security rather questionable.
I'm also not saying that means the Israeli's are justified in their actions. I think what's happening is horrible, and I want it to end in a better world.
I'm saying that some of the proposed "solutions" may be penny wise and pound foolish, ineffective in the real world of achieving the nominal aims of said solution, and too likely leading to even larger wars. Good (short term) intentions do not automatically lead to good (longer term) outcomes.
> "Reminding ourselves that each one of them had a face and a name is important."
I fully agree that each human affected has a face and a name.
However, at this moment, I am swamped with exactly that "reminder". The first ten times it might generously be termed a "reminder" just in case one had forgotten, but by the 100th time, it can come to feel like emotional manipulation because one hasn't forgotten.
And this can be done by both sides.
As I have said, I have sympathy for the strong passions, I can easily understand where they come from. But when almost EVERY attempt to rationally discuss the options gets hijacked by strong emotionalism, I do not think that lack of passion is the real problem or that further "stirring the emotions" is on the path out of the problem. Sober, unbiased, rational evaluation (grounded in big picture humane values) is in far shorter supply than inflamed passions.
If I rarely heard such "reminders" and most of the discussion was about seeking truth through reason and evidence, I might think that a reminder is needed. But when "reminders" are ubiquitous, and seem to be displacing other discussion, I question the value and role of once again shifting the discussion to the horrors of it all (as if that had been forgotten).
It starts feeling like CSJ folks saying "why don't we ever talk about race?", when such talk is already omnipresent.