And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee

This is related to, but separate from, the discussion on Israel and Palestine. Mainly because I think it deserves a discussion in a wider sense than the politics, and applies to other prolonged conflicts.

This article examines concerns about the vastly increasing brutalisation of Israeli society with an unspoken but clear connection to the treatment of Palestinians. It describes inhuman responses that I have observed during the Troubles in Northern Ireland as violence soaked into the collective psyche.

For generations, Jews were considered a people that sanctified nonviolence in interhuman relations and lived by the the "law of the land." Our ancestors relied on God, but the modern-day Orthodox place less reliance on Him; they have fewer expectations of their prayers being answered. Instead - and it makes no difference whether we are talking about the Zionist ultra-Orthodox people from the illegal West Bank outposts or the non-Zionist ultra-Orthodox ones from the Mea She'arim outpost - they do exactly as they please. A time traveler from the past would ask himself: These are Jews?

This is the trend that one refers to when other human beings are demonised and denied their rights. This is why it is always in our interests in civilised countries to apply the highest standards of rights to others, no matter their provocations, because the danger exists that we become monsters in our turn - and the evil wins.

I am aware that is not however, a universal opinion in a community where we have even had apologists for torture. I would be interested in those other opinions, and what safeguards might be proposed to prevent a plummet into the abyss.

were talking about the ultra-orthodox, right?
give it up BG. we'll never understand them.

get this:
on the sabbath it is forbidden to throw a rock. but yet the ultras manage to get around that rule by "stetting aside" a rock before the sabbath to use on the sabbath.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by article

"If you see a car weaving from lane to lane on some highway overseas, you know it's an Israeli," a friend once told me. "And I've learned the hard way that, in the blink of an eye, you can become embroiled in a brawl in the middle of a highway here."

---

Can't argue with that logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by article

The English jurist William Blackstone once said that the law reaches no further than the end of a club. Unfortunately, our law enforcement agencies have not managed to come to grips with the scope of Israeli crime. Only one out of every 100 thieves is indicted, due to the difficulties of obtaining evidence, and it is no wonder that 60 percent of all crimes - including sex crimes and violent crimes - are never even reported to the police.

---

Wait. Are we talking about Israel or Venezuela?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by article

The ready availability of weapons in a country where the entire nation is in the army has turned us into a violent society. It was truly unbelievable to see a soldier shooting a bound Palestinian in the leg while his commander held the man down. Or to see border policemen freely abusing residents of the territories. Such mutations have left us shameless and utterly without inhibition.

---

End the Swiss oppression of the Palestinian people! :furious3:

The ready availability of handguns in Washington DC has turned this place into a crime ridden cesspool.


People see what they want. I recently read criticism that the Israeli people are becoming more passive and are risking their security.

What the author means to say is: Get off my lawn!

well said vladimir.

if i understand correctly, the argument is that israel has become a more violent society.
my answer: name me a society, when majorly urbanized, hasent become more violent. my bet is that early christians werent violent at all when they were a minority, but when they became majority in urban areas, you have crime. its natural.
the author has a flawed argument.
first off, back in the times of the temples there was crime, like rape and murder and the usual. we dont know if it was commonplace or not, due to the times. so to say we are more violent than ever before is a risky thing to say.
next, jews, until israel, had no cities like tel aviv that jews were the majority. in eastern europe, jews were in small villages, which made crime pretty unlikely because everyone knew everyone else.
so basically my thought is that the more urban a society gets, the more crime it does.

BG, im not sure what you wanted out of this article. are we discussing how violent israelis are? well, you cant judge all israelis from a few bad ones. its like islam. 99% of muslims are good and peace loving people. the 1% are the bad ones.
same case here.

And if you look to much into the problem you become the problem. There is NO way out of this, Palestina will never exist, they don't even want it so why would they make an effort to make it work, they want to kill jews wherever they find them it is really as simple as that, this is religious intolerance, simple as that.

Hmmmmm....

Quote:

---

"I fear very much that the Jews are like all underdogs. When they get on top they are just as intolerant and cruel as the people were to them when they were underneath. I regret this situation very much because my sympathy has always been on their side."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Hmmmmm....

---

human nature.

all this has nothing to do with israelis in particular. its human nature.

Fascinating responses so far, thank you.

Perhaps the title would have been better as "Through a Glass Darkly".

or maybe a better title couldve been "the deterioration of society through urbanization"
:yes:

Actually, I always thought the Starship Troopers movie was a bit of a satirical poke at Israel and other societies which, when faced with an existential threat, become violent and nationalistic.

I reserve the right to equal contempt for all sides in that conflict. None are acting in good faith, none seek the long-term good of their own people, none have a realistic plan for peace that doesn't involve genocide.

It's a good thing nobody's going to make me envoy to the middle east anytime soon.

Until both sides come to the mutual realization that they love their children more than they hate each other things aren't going to change for the better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

my bet is that early christians werent violent at all when they were a minority, but when they became majority in urban areas, you have crime. its natural.

---

I think I remember reading somewhere that when Christianity was just getting started, and still a rather small group, they were banned from the city of Rome because they wouldn't get on with all the other religions and kept starting riots. :juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Actually, I always thought the Starship Troopers movie was a bit of a satirical poke at Israel and other societies which, when faced with an existential threat, become violent and nationalistic.

---

really? i never thought of that movie that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

really? i never thought of that movie that way.

---

I believe the book and movie apply to mankind as a whole. And so does Lemur's first sentence. The only thing I would do is change "nationalistic" to whatever's in fashion at the time (tribalistic(?), etc).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

I believe the book and movie apply to mankind as a whole.

---

Well, actually, when R. Heinlen wrote the book he was dead serious. The movie took it in a satirical direction, which was entirely absent from the text. I love them both equally, but for different reasons.

Another angle I'd like to explore is one alluded to in Banquo's Ghost's opening post:

Quote:

---

I am aware that is not however, a universal opinion in a community where we have even had apologists for torture. I would be interested in those other opinions, and what safeguards might be proposed to prevent a plummet into the abyss.

---

Another thing that happens is "we" explain, or excuse or forgive ourselves (whom we believe to be civilized, compared to the barbarian threat). So an atrocity or some atrocities are commited upon "us" by "them" - who are beastly - and we explain to ourselves that we must shed our civilized selves and be atrociously beastly in return, promising that this is only temporary, because of the emergency, and for the sake of survival.

But, over a pretty short time, historically speaking, our own atrocities, temporary though we intend, also brutalize us ourselves, and gradually inure us to our own inhumanity.

Remember the shock and horror felt when the guy Danial Pearl was beheaded? Pretty awful, and only a few years ago. Now, though it's still gruesome, we've almost come to accept beheading as something that just happens. And it somehow gets twisted into a rationale to justify for example: waterboarding.

Indeed, the abyss gazes into us.

Counterpoint:

To what extent is victory possible only by embracing the strategems of the opposition?



BG's OP article etc. rightly point out the potentiality for a given collective to become like the collective it has always derided -- the idea being that brutality harms both the victim and, over time, the perpetrator as well.

On the other hand, isn't the adoption of an opponent's tactics and strategems a typical -- and often effective -- response to those strategems?

The article seems long on the accusations, and quite short on the facts.

It seems more like a "Today's kids have no morals and are leading to a downfall of society" speech that comes out every generation or so since the beginning of generations.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Another angle I'd like to explore is one alluded to in Banquo's Ghost's opening post

---

I think your post hit the nail on its head. This is not an angle alluded to, your post adresses the precise point of the article.

Brutal governments create equally brutal societies. Throughout the world, violence leads to more violence. And, more worryingly since it goes overlooked, outward brutality turns to inward brutality. A society in a prolonged war will lose its internal peace and calm. Nothing new about the phenomenon, it has been observed everywhere.

Pacifying societies can take decades after prolonged or particularly brutal conflict. Whether as victim or perpetrator or a mix of the two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

I think your post hit the nail on its head. This is not an angle alluded to, your post adresses the precise point of the article.

Brutal governments create equally brutal societies. Throughout the world, violence leads to more violence. And, more worryingly since it goes overlooked, outward brutality turns to inward brutality. A society in a prolonged war will lose its internal peace and calm. Nothing new about the phenomenon, it has been observed everywhere.

Pacifying societies can take decades after prolonged or particularly brutal conflict. Whether as victim or perpetrator or a mix of the two.

---

Yes, but (you knew there'd be a 'but', yes?) Seamus' observation:

Quote:

---

On the other hand, isn't the adoption of an opponent's tactics and strategems a typical -- and often effective -- response to those strategems?

---

also deserves attention. Looking at history - everywhere, as you say - war-deciders, or let's call them conflict-wagers, since we don't declare war anymore, inevitably seek to 'win' the conflict, and the shortest path to victory seems to be brutal... as brutal, or more brutal than the enemy.

OTOH, total annihilation of the enemy has seldom (never?) been achieved, although we fight as though that were our goal. Leading us to cast aside our scruples.

Can anyone think of any war fought where one side did not commit atrocities? Is it possible to do so?

Well, if we come to the conclusion that conflicts/wars without atrocities are impossible and stop complaining about them, won't they become more common and is that a good course to take or should we keep trying to force people to keep them at a minimum?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Well, if we come to the conclusion that conflicts/wars without atrocities are impossible and stop complaining about them, won't they become more common and is that a good course to take or should we keep trying to force people to keep them at a minimum?

---

I don't think it's impossible. But it certainly would take a different mindset.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Can anyone think of any war fought where one side did not commit atrocities? Is it possible to do so?

---

Matters what is considered a atrocity.

Also, to the OP. Making any thread with the Nietzsche (Or was it someone else that said that?) quote is pretty gutsy, you pulled it off though. A balloon for your efforts :balloon2:

"Urbanization" has precisely jack to do with the situation over there.

The problems are mainly, in no order, 1. religious intolerance and bigotry, 2. a self-perpetuating vicious cycle of violence that neither side seems to be able to break out of, 3. an apparent desensitization of society to violence (I think the same is happening to a much lesser degree in America), and 4. a complete and total lack of repercussions for both sides involved.

It always takes two to make a fight. The Israelis are out of control and using the context of self-defense way too much. The second some idiot fires an RPG over a fence, they're out carpet bombing some village. Their responses have been entirely disparate and ridiculous for some time. They also need to realize that one fool shooting off a gun does not represent a people as a whole, and I think this is key. Palestine needs to get it's damn population under control. They do have way too many nutjobs running around in the countryside looking for a good place to shoot off some hand-made SCUD. I think at this point it's equal parts religious nutjobs and products of Israel's barbaric responses.

If anything at this point I'm going to come down more heavily on Israel. They are nuclear capable and they know it, everyone knows it. I am pretty damn sure at this point that if they weren't that a true peacekeeping force would have intervened. The only real solution I see to this would be some kind of international sanctions. I think they have been using that as a prop to stand on knowing that they can push the envelope when it comes to their responses and attitudes toward the Palestinians.

Just my thoughts so far.

whacker you completely missed the point of my argument, but ok. think what you want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

whacker you completely missed the point of my argument, but ok. think what you want.

---

From the article, Israel has far outstripped, for example, England. We have violence here, but it's largely confined to the capital and other large cities. Population density may be an element, almost certainly is, but that's not the whole story here.

Israel/Palestine...
One word....
Bollox
Though another word can be added
Jellyfish...bastards coming in invading the diving boards as though they owned the place, I don't care if they was here thousands of years ago and G*D said they should float the currents.
11 under tens moaning about getting stung and evicted from their swimming spot really gets on my tits.

I don't give a **** if other sea organisms are eating them up in a genocidal manner , zooplankton shouldn't claim refuge here when it is full of swimmers.

ok, one city has less violence than a whole country. wow. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Israel/Palestine...
One word....
Bollox
Though another word can be added
Jellyfish...bastards coming in invading the diving boards as though they owned the place, I don't care if they was here thousands of years ago and G*D said they should float the currents.
11 under tens moaning about getting stung and evicted from their swimming spot really gets on my tits.

I don't give a **** if other sea organisms are eating them up in a genocidal manner , zooplankton shouldn't claim refuge here when it is full of swimmers.

---

:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

ok, one city has less violence than a whole country. wow. :rolleyes:

---

Um, my point was that serious violence is not endemic. Total population of Israel is 7,411,000 as of last year. The total population of Greater London is... 7,512,400.

So, if there's less violence in London, then London is proportianally safer. If there is more violence it's probably still safer than a comparable population density in Israel.

In point of fact, the Met tells me there were 139 murders in Greater London in the last 12 months: http://www.met.police.uk/crimefigures/. Wiki says Israel had 173 in 2004 and 147 in 2000: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder#Israel. The Beeb says London had 194 in 2004, down from 222 in 2003. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7191769.stm

That's just one densely populated city though, and that population is greater than the population of Israel and the West Bank.