How readily can political opinions change?

[Cynric]

I bring it up, because after a while lurking and posting on JREF, my opinion on one of the forum's major discussions has changed. It is, of course, Israel/Palestine.

When I first visited JREF, my opinion was basically that Israel was richer, more powerful, much better armed, and occupying Palestinian land. Ergo, my sympathies were with the Palesinians.

Then I found out a little about Arafat, and about the Peace Prize, and that seemed pretty odd - start a war of resistance and then when you talk about stopping it, be hailed as a man of peace.

And then, in amongst the hate-filled diatribes about Palestinians that certain posters excel in, a few more facts leached out of the rhetoric. The number of agreements that both sides had reneged on, the absolute failure of the Palestinian authority to control terrorism, the misappropriation of funds and corruption in Arafat's government.

That got me more interested in the history of Israel, and I learned that they've basically been under attack from their neighbours since the foundation of their state. And then I reflected on how the Jews had previously responded to a genocidal enemy with non-aggressive means - it went really badly for them.

I began to think that a failure of political will was behind the problems.

And then, the Palestinian people elected Hamas.
The PA still indulges terrorist organizations in complete indifference to the many commitments they've signed.

I still think that Israel uses illegal and vindicitive tactics (such as missile strikes on Palestinian leaders), but to be frank, I now think that the best hope for the region is for Israel to unilaterally impose borders, and lock down on immigration. I would even say that those borders could legitimately enclose regions of the West Bank that have settlements, but are outside the original borders.


This is, of course, the abridged and not in the least important opinion of an opinionated Englishman with no personal investment in the situation. I recognize that the real losers in this terrible mess are the poverty stricken Palestinians, neglected by their own "government" and harrassed by the IDF, and the innocent Israels targetted by suicide bombers.
I also realize that the reason for my opinion changing was due to ignorance being put right, but I share this as an example of how the forum does change individual perceptions, I think for the better. Even in the Politics section.

Has anyone else had their opinion changed?
Why am I still wrong?

[NB Ultimately, as an Englishman, I realize that this is all our fault.]

 

[BPSCG]

Has anyone else had their opinion changed?

Can't say I've changed my opinions on anything significant. But I have had my ignorance on many issues or questions of fact straightened out. If you want to know what the third law of thermodynamics is, or why your PC runs slower when you have two antivirus software products loaded, or what H2SO4 stands for, or why your girlfriend left you last week*, this is the place to get educated. I think of it as a skeptic's wikipedia, where BS and ignorance get weeded out and the truth - or at least the facts - ultimately emerges.

[NB Ultimately, as an Englishman, I realize that this is all our fault.]

No, it's Bush's fault (I call Mycroft's Corollary!).

* Because you don't have a good enough job. But it's okay - you're better off without her.

 

[Cynric]

My girlfriend's left me?

I thought it was a bit quiet.

 

[Mephisto]

Welcome to the forum, Cynric.

As part Native-American I've easily sympathized with the Palestinians. They've had their land taken away from them, they're purposely kept poor, and anytime an independant act of terrorism rocks Israel - a Palestinian family loses their home, whether or not they had anything to do with the attack.

BUT, I've also sympathized with the Israelis. The Jews have always been a despised and mistrusted people and have never gotten their fair shake from the people of the world. They certainly deserve a homeland where they can feel safe and secure against the world's prejudice.

However, you hit the nail on the head in asserting that both sides have lost innocent people needlessly. THOSE are the reasons I scoff when the area is laughingly called, "The Holy Land." It's a political conundrum that will leave people much more adept at handling such things confounded.

Either way, it's a problem that will continue long after you or I are gone, so jump in and always remember to have fun (and not take too many things personally in here - it's hazardous to your health).

 

[Cynric]

Welcome to the forum, Cynric.

As part Native-American I've easily sympathized with the Palestinians. They've had their land taken away from them, they're purposely kept poor, and anytime an independant act of terrorism rocks Israel - a Palestinian family loses their home, whether or not they had anything to do with the attack.

That's one of the most depressing aspect isn't it? The directionless tit-for-tat violence.
I have to say, though, that the PA doesn't seem to be taking many positive steps towards ending it - just compaints and blame. Perhaps, because they lack the power to control much?

Oh, and thank you for the welcome.

However, you hit the nail on the head in asserting that both sides have lost innocent people needlessly. THOSE are the reasons I scoff when the area is laughingly called, "The Holy Land." It's a political conundrum that will leave people much more adept at handling such things confounded.

Oh, yes. The 'holy' land. Old testment smite-and-ruin style holy, presumably.

Either way, it's a problem that will continue long after you or I are gone, so jump in and always remember to have fun (and not take too many things personally in here - it's hazardous to your health).

As I said, I fortunately have no personal investment in this mess beyond a desire for humanity to live in peace and direct its efforts towards worthwhile aims.
That's why I'm interested in whether the opinions of other people without emotional fog have changed.

 

[Mephisto]

That's one of the most depressing aspect isn't it? The directionless tit-for-tat violence.
I have to say, though, that the PA doesn't seem to be taking many positive steps towards ending it - just compaints and blame. Perhaps, because they lack the power to control much?

Oh, and thank you for the welcome.

Yes, I'll have to agree. There are a good many people here who are consistently rabid about either view in this particular subject, and there are a good many people who would also like to see an end to the tit-for-tat violence. Unfortunately, the worst of both sides involved seem to have the easiest time in keeping the blood running and the wounds fresh.

The Palestinians are exacerbating their problem by "democratically" electing Hamas as their political spokesmen (of course they are seen as a charitable organization to the Palestinians, who apparently aren't aware of their reputation as terrorists everywhere else ).

I had once suggested intermixing Palestinian children with Israeli children and vice versa for the purpose of educating the future generations of the fact that (as humans) they have much more in common than they might think. It would also cut down on the likelihood of violent actions by either faction against schoolchildren. I had heard that a similar program brought relative peace among Catholic and Protestant families in N. Ireland.

As long as vengeance is much easier than simply STOPPING the violence somewhere - there will never be peace in the "holy land."

 

[Art Vandelay]

You've brought up two issues on the Palestinian question that I would like to address: the "cycle of violence" cliche, and the missle strikes against Palestinian leaders. These are both issues which are used to condemn Israel, but I don't see much merit in either of them.
On the first issue, Palestinian sympathizers have worked hard to portray a certain equivalence between the actions of Palestinians and Israelis, saying that acts of Palestinian terrorism are in "retribution" for some Israeli act, trying to imply that the Palestinians are simply reacting to the Israelis. The fact is, Palestinian terrorism is based on a hatred of Israel, and would exist regardless of what Israel does. Furthermore, it is based purely on a desire to hurt Israel, rather than any attempt at justice. Israeli violence, on the other hand, is relatively restrained, directed as much as possible at those responsible, and done only in self defense, not out of genocidal motives. It is not a "cycle" of violence, it is completely linear. Palestinians attack, Israel retaliate. Then the Palestinians make another attack, which they would have done anyway.
On the second issue, Palestinian supporters often criticize missle strikes against Palestinian "leaders" (code for "terrorists"), but I have yet to see any alternative proposed. I even started a thread asking what else people propose, and got no answer. Calling these attacks "illegal" is based on the fallacious notion of "international law", and calling them "vindicative" isn't justified unless you can point to an acceptable alternative.

 

[Cynric]

You've brought up two issues on the Palestinian question that I would like to address: the "cycle of violence" cliche, and the missle strikes against Palestinian leaders. These are both issues which are used to condemn Israel, but I don't see much merit in either of them.
On the first issue, Palestinian sympathizers have worked hard to portray a certain equivalence between the actions of Palestinians and Israelis, saying that acts of Palestinian terrorism are in "retribution" for some Israeli act, trying to imply that the Palestinians are simply reacting to the Israelis. The fact is, Palestinian terrorism is based on a hatred of Israel, and would exist regardless of what Israel does. Furthermore, it is based purely on a desire to hurt Israel, rather than any attempt at justice. Israeli violence, on the other hand, is relatively restrained, directed as much as possible at those responsible, and done only in self defense, not out of genocidal motives. It is not a "cycle" of violence, it is completely linear. Palestinians attack, Israel retaliate. Then the Palestinians make another attack, which they would have done anyway.
On the second issue, Palestinian supporters often criticize missle strikes against Palestinian "leaders" (code for "terrorists"), but I have yet to see any alternative proposed. I even started a thread asking what else people propose, and got no answer. Calling these attacks "illegal" is based on the fallacious notion of "international law", and calling them "vindicative" isn't justified unless you can point to an acceptable alternative.

Ok, regarding the cycle of violence, are you seriously suggesting that Israeli retaliation against Palestinian terrorism somehow exists separately from the Palestinian violence? You don't think that the leadership of Hamas might just have an easier time recruiting foot soldiers after the IDF has just bulldozed a Palestinian camp? You really think that all the suicide bombers are motivated by a genocidal mania, and not in the least influenced by seeing their homes destroyed and their land annexed? The leadership on both sides exploits this resentment to the full, surely.
The irony - and it's a tragic irony as always - is that my reading of the situation is that the Israelis would respond very positively to a non-violent programme of rebellion by the Palestinians. For a long while, I thought that the terrorists were clouding the issue, and if only the Palestinians were given some room to express themselves, humanity would prevail.

But then the Israelis withdrew from Gaza, giving the PA just such an opportunity, and it promptly degenerated into violence. Then the Palestinians elected Hamas, and my opinion on the situation changed for good.

Finally, assassination by methods involving significant collateral damage, without a trial, is illegal in just about every country of the world, I imagine. Certainly the civilized ones. Except in times of war - which may be your point.


BTW. I do hope those sponsored links are an April Fool...

 

[Mephisto]

On the first issue, Palestinian sympathizers have worked hard to portray a certain equivalence between the actions of Palestinians and Israelis, saying that acts of Palestinian terrorism are in "retribution" for some Israeli act, trying to imply that the Palestinians are simply reacting to the Israelis.

Well as a "Palestinian sympathizer" I don't think I've EVER "worked hard to portray a certain equivalence between the actions of Palestinians and Israelis." As a matter of fact, I've ALWAYS pointed out the most blatant differences - namely the fact that the conflict is actually pretty one-sided.

The fact is, Palestinian terrorism is based on a hatred of Israel, and would exist regardless of what Israel does.

There you go with your "facts" again. I won't discount that the Palestinians hate the Israelis, but it probably has a lot more to do with the FACT that the Israelis simply plopped themselves down on a parcel of land ALREADY INHABITED BY SOMEONE and claimed it as their own. I may also have a little to do with the FACT that most Palestinians are dirt poor and kept that way by the Israelis. You can't expect a symbiotic relationship between two cultures if one of them invades a territory, claims it as their own, then promptly sets about oppressing the indigenous population. That is, unless you're planning a genocide (like with the Native American Indians) to "get rid of the problem."

Furthermore, it is based purely on a desire to hurt Israel, rather than any attempt at justice.

You're right! Most Palestinian terrorist actions are based on an attempt to "hurt Israel." Justice has nothing to do with it! We're talking about TERRORISTS, remember, NOT innocent Palestinians.

Israeli violence, on the other hand, is relatively restrained, directed as much as possible at those responsible, and done only in self defense, not out of genocidal motives. It is not a "cycle" of violence, it is completely linear. Palestinians attack, Israel retaliate. Then the Palestinians make another attack, which they would have done anyway.

Sounds like a cycle of violence to me!

As for lobbing missiles into populated areas, using tanks against children throwing rocks, helicopter strikes in crowded neighborhoods, THAT'S RESTRAINT?

Also, how is it self-defense when the Israelis bulldoze a Palestinian's home when that particular Palestinian had nothing to do with a terrorist action? Suggesting that all Palestinians are terrorists is the same as saying all Jews are penny-pinching lawyers, isn't it?

On the second issue, Palestinian supporters often criticize missle strikes against Palestinian "leaders" (code for "terrorists"), but I have yet to see any alternative proposed. I even started a thread asking what else people propose, and got no answer. Calling these attacks "illegal" is based on the fallacious notion of "international law", and calling them "vindicative" isn't justified unless you can point to an acceptable alternative.

I've got an alternative for you. The Israelis should toss away all the multi-BILLION dollar war technology we've provided them with and use only small arms in the fight against Palestinian terrorists. Instead of an air strike or a missile strike, strap some C4 and a detonator to an Israeli soldier and send him into a Palestinian marketplace. It would level the playing ground a bit and "make it more sporting" to those who insist that killing is the only way to solve this problem.

As for Israel's tit-for-tat military policy, what is it if not vindictive? Here's a definition from dictionary.com
________

vin·dic·tive P Pronunciation Key (vn-dktv)
adj.
Disposed to seek revenge; revengeful.
Marked by or resulting from a desire to hurt; spiteful.

That doesn't sound like Israel's military policy at all, does it?

I've got a viable alternative - how about tossing out all the state-of-the-art, high-tech military weapons, the notion that the Palestinians don't have anything to complain about and maybe spreading some of that wealth around? Working toward a symbiotic relationship with each other makes a lot of sense, especially when you consider that there is no end in sight using the current methods whereby revenge is the justification for everything both side do in this fiasco.

It pains me to know that there are likely people on BOTH sides who simply want to live in peace, and maybe raise their children with joy and peace instead of fear and hate. It won't ever happen though - it's much easier to whip ourselves into a frenzy of rationalization than to simply STOP and see each other as human.

 

[Art Vandelay]

There you go with your "facts" again. I won't discount that the Palestinians hate the Israelis, but it probably has a lot more to do with the FACT that the Israelis simply plopped themselves down on a parcel of land ALREADY INHABITED BY SOMEONE and claimed it as their own. I may also have a little to do with the FACT that most Palestinians are dirt poor and kept that way by the Israelis. You can't expect a symbiotic relationship between two cultures if one of them invades a territory, claims it as their own, then promptly sets about oppressing the indigenous population.

So you have three "facts":
"the Israelis simply plopped themselves down on a parcel of land ALREADY INHABITED BY SOMEONE and claimed it as their own."
"most Palestinians are dirt poor and kept that way by the Israelis."
and "[Judaism invaded] a territory, [claimed] it as their own, then promptly [set] about oppressing the indigenous population."

Can you explain how those "facts" are true?

Sounds like a cycle of violence to me!

What's cyclical about it?

As for lobbing missiles into populated areas, using tanks against children throwing rocks, helicopter strikes in crowded neighborhoods, THAT'S RESTRAINT?

Relatively restrained. Why do people keep complaining about using tanks against children throwing rocks? It's like that joke about the guy who goes to the doctor and says "Every time I twist my arm like this, it hurts" and the doctor says "Quit twisting your arm like that". If Palestinians have a problem with Israelis using tanks against children throwing rocks, there's a simple solution: keep your children from throwing rocks. If you know that someone is going to shoot you if you throw rocks at you, then why throw a rock at them unless your intent is simply to create more "martyrs"? And if your intent is to get yourself shot, how can you complain if you do, in fact, get shot?

Also, how is it self-defense when the Israelis bulldoze a Palestinian's home when that particular Palestinian had nothing to do with a terrorist action?

I don't know the details of every Israeli decision, and even if I did, I wouldn't be able to answer except with reference to a specific instance. One reason that Israelis bulldoze homes is to keep terrorists from using them as cover.

Suggesting that all Palestinians are terrorists is the same as saying all Jews are penny-pinching lawyers, isn't it?

You're attacking a strawman.

Instead of an air strike or a missile strike, strap some C4 and a detonator to an Israeli soldier and send him into a Palestinian marketplace.

I said acceptable alternative, not fliipant BS.

It would level the playing ground a bit and "make it more sporting" to those who insist that killing is the only way to solve this problem.

Another strawman.

As for Israel's tit-for-tat military policy, what is it if not vindictive?

Self-defense.

I've got a viable alternative - how about tossing out all the state-of-the-art, high-tech military weapons, the notion that the Palestinians don't have anything to complain about and maybe spreading some of that wealth around?

So Israelis should respond to terrorism by giving money to the terrorists? How would that stop terrorism? Osama bin Laden is a millionaire. The idea that terrorists are poor, that ending poverty would end terrorism, is a myth.

Working toward a symbiotic relationship with each other makes a lot of sense, especially when you consider that there is no end in sight using the current methods whereby revenge is the justification for everything both side do in this fiasco.

You can't ubilaterally work toward a symbiotic relationship, vague platitudes don't constitute an alternative, and revenge is not the justification for everything.

It pains me to know that there are likely people on BOTH sides who simply want to live in peace,

But only the ones on the Palestinian side are in a position to do anything about it.

 

[Art Vandelay]

You don't think that the leadership of Hamas might just have an easier time recruiting foot soldiers after the IDF has just bulldozed a Palestinian camp?

Easier time, yes. But it still would be able to recruit without it.

 

[Mephisto]

Why do people keep complaining about using tanks against children throwing rocks? It's like that joke about the guy who goes to the doctor and says "Every time I twist my arm like this, it hurts" and the doctor says "Quit twisting your arm like that". If Palestinians have a problem with Israelis using tanks against children throwing rocks, there's a simple solution: keep your children from throwing rocks.

Typical neo-con reaction - blame the victims.



Oh, and thanks for the new sig line! I was looking for something that really summed up what the neo-cons think of war and human life.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Typical neo-con reaction - blame the victims.

Wow, that's some double-talk. Someone throwing rocks is a "victim"? Seems to me that the person having rocks thrown at them is the victim. Do you think that throwing rocks is not blameworthy?

Earlier, you claimed to not be trying to suggest any sort of equivalency between Israelis and Palestinians. Yet now you're claiming that Palestinians are "victims", even when they're the aggressors. So either you don't think Israelis are victims, or you are trying to promote an equivalency. Which is? When you said that you think it's "one-sided", what side do you think that is?

And I notice you didn't explain any of theose "facts" that you mentioned.

Oh, and thanks for the new sig line! I was looking for something that really summed up what the neo-cons think of war and human life.

So I'm a "neo-con"? I thought supporting assisted suicide was generally thought to be a liberal position. Are you now saying it's a "neo-con" position? What do I think of "war and human life"?

 

[Mycroft]

Stepping back from the Arab/Israeli conflict, I will address the OP and say yes, there have been instances where these forums have changed my opinion.

More than than, it has also helped me to form opinions on issues where I was previously ignorant.

 

[Cynric]

Stepping back from the Arab/Israeli conflict, I will address the OP and say yes, there have been instances where these forums have changed my opinion.

More than than, it has also helped me to form opinions on issues where I was previously ignorant.

Can you think of any striking examples?

Of particular interest would be cases where a traditionally right-wing opinion has shifted to the left. There's a cliche that one's opinions get more right wing with age, and in some instances I seem to be fulfilling the cliche (but then I was a bit of a lefty to begin with). Can it work in reverse?

 

[Mephisto]

Israeli violence, on the other hand, is relatively restrained, directed as much as possible at those responsible, and done only in self defense, not out of genocidal motives. . . snip . .

On the second issue, Palestinian supporters often criticize missle strikes against Palestinian "leaders" (code for "terrorists"), but I have yet to see any alternative proposed.

Self-Defense and Palestinian "leaders" (code for terrorists), huh?

WARNING!

THESE SITES CONTAIN IMAGES OF GRAPHIC MILITARY VIOLENCE INVOLVING INNOCENT CIVILIANS - DO NOT CLICK ON THESE LINKS IF YOU ARE OFFENDED BY VIEWING SUCH THINGS!

http://www.nogw.com/israeliatrocities.html

http://answering-christianity.com/pali_torture.htm


Maybe you'd care to view these links and tell me why the Israelis had to defend themselves against these babys?

Maybe you can tell me how a 10 year old Palestinian girl became a Palestinian leader (code name for terrorist) at such a young age?

(edited to add "an alternative") How about stopping to admit that this violence is unproductive and should stop ASAP.

(re-edited to add) So much for your "facts."

 

[Mephisto]

Of particular interest would be cases where a traditionally right-wing opinion has shifted to the left. There's a cliche that one's opinions get more right wing with age, and in some instances I seem to be fulfilling the cliche (but then I was a bit of a lefty to begin with). Can it work in reverse?

Interesting theory, Cynric, especially considering I'm close to 55. If it's true you can imagine how unbearable I must have been at 19.

I was once fairly Conservative and it was really swell, but the swelling's gone down now and I'm better.

 

[shemp]

Congratulations to Mephisto on making the 400,000th post to the PCESI forum!

 

[Mephisto]

Congratulations to Mephisto on making the 400,000th post to the PCESI forum!

Thanks, Shemp. At least the 400,000th post wasn't wasted on apologies and excuses.

Do I get a prize?

 

[Darat]

My must striking change of opinion caused by discussion in this section was about gun control and gun violence in general. I was of the belief that since guns are bad e.g. killing machine gun control laws would make all societies better places. It is apparent from the facts that this is not the case it's about societies and cultures.