http://cleave.blogs.com/pomomusings/2006/07/no_words_1.html

http://cleave.blogs.com/pomomusings/2006/07/israel_does_gre.html#comments

For the record, I find Adam’s views of the conflict one-sided too, sometimes offensively so. And he chooses his words badly, too.

I apologise if I was ‘cherry picking’, but I was attempting to engage with the content of your post. Could I have done this differently/better? (That’s an honest question).

I did not attack your views because they weren’t “Christian”. You will note I have steered clear of the theological. There is a reason for that - I simply don’t feel capable of mounting those arguments, so for the time being, I will consider to think and ponder them. Again, in my post at 46 I attempted to make it clear that I was responding to MNs comments, not yours. I was not meaning to insult your Christianity - it’s something I despise immensely. I was responding to MN’s suggestion that there were theological arguments made in your posts, which I didn’t think there were (were there?) Again, this is *not an insult* (if it were, then I would be covering up or not admitting the fact that there’s no theological arguments in mine!)

Look, I’m truly sorry for any hurt caused. Perhaps this reveals a generation/cultural gap - I don’t see ‘irrational’, ‘emotive’ and ’subjective’ as insults, but rather statements of fact as to methodological. I don’t privilege objectivity, rationality and reason over them. In the second para in post 46, I was actually attempting to undo harm - I wasn’t meaning to compound it!!

But I won’t - I’ll try to keep this short (I said ‘try’) as personal time constraints will leave me unable to return to this matter in any length until after the weekend. Maybe this thread will have died down by then, but I can’t drop things without making some points relating to the tone and inferences in your posts, rather than the theme of this discussion (and yes, I have taken your tiredness into account).

You comment: ‘Given that you’ve [ie me] come out very, very firmly in favour of Israel here, I see that as one-sided’ and ‘but when I say they’re “irrationally one-sided”, I mean that I think that it’s irrational to think that there’s ever an easy answer to the problem of conflict’.

Whatever you intended to mean with those statements, what I read are two things:
a. that I am irrationally one-sided because I do not take your side; and
b. my views are simplistic leading to the first easy answer that comes along.

I find the second part highly offensive. Haven’t you read what I’ve posted?

In your post you say ‘I think you do [make good points] but soon after call me irrational. Does not compute. Either my points are ‘good’ or they are ‘irrational’.

I have stated, clearly, that my position has come from a lot of thinking and soul searching: ‘I’d like to think my position is a rational one, based on sound Biblical principles and a lot of soul searching & prayer. Of course, I’ve been known to be wrong once or twice.’

How you can read that and still assume irrationality, simplicity or emotionalism, when I can credit you with the opposiite: ‘I’ve assumed you are coming from a Christian, rational basis and I would appreciate you doing the same’ (from the bottom of my post #40 but with the corrections I highlighted in 42 for readibility).

I expect a bit more grace and maturity in this argument yet your second last paragraph in #46 is highly insulting and does you no service.

You say ‘irrationally one sided’. I have consistently claimed a rational basis for my arguments. But because I don’t share your point of view you have decided that my position is ‘irrational’.

You infer I have taken the easy option, when a critical and neutral view of my points over the last few days would provide some sense that these views have actually been thought out. Why can’t you credit me with that?

You accuse me of being one-sided and that my ‘one-sided’ views are emotive and not rational based on your understanding of conflict. But that’s all. Just an accusation without any justification except for your ‘understanding’.

I have made points, sometimes strongly and sometimes snidely, but have not attacked you for your views yet you have sought to undermine me with perjorative statements, cherry picking and taking out of context (eg in #40 I said Israel didn’t start the wars with it’s neighbours - this has nothing to do with violence in the Occupied territories that you bring up in #46).

The fact that you cannot bring yourself to my way of thinking does not cost me any sleep (aside from the time taken to post this). I’m a big boy and am used to having others disagree with me.

The fact that you attack my ability to reason, and by inference Christianity (because what does a Christian use to inform their thoughts if not the Bible and their faith), does cause me sorrow.

Please re-read that second last paragraph again. Then read the definition of ‘irrational’ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irrational and think about what you’re accusing me of.

I’ve tried to present my thoughts with as much logic and thought as I could in what is a highly emotive subject for anyone but have been met with what I consider unwarranted insults. Am I being precious? Ask me in 6 months and I may agree with you.

As I said, I am not going to be able to spend much time on signposts until next week. I just wanted to convey how I feel with the way that my postings have been dealt with. I harbour no ill-will but needed to get this off my chest.

Hope everyone has a great weekend and blessed Sunday!

I’d change that phrase above from “Israel is a rogue state” to “Israel is being a rogue state in this respect”. I think it is - I think Israel is flouting international law, but I don’t want that to be read as me denying Israel’s right to exist - I don’t deny that at all.

I’m not sure where to begin with your post…

Israel didn’t start the violence against it’s neighbours? Sorry? What has Israel being doing against the Occupied Territories for all this time? Israel’s actions have been illegal under international law. Israel is a rogue state, a state that ignores international law just as much as the US or Iraq have. Actually, forget that - Israel has ignored international law more than the US has. At least there was some scope for legal argument about the meaning of the Security Council’s resolutions re: Iraq - I disagreed with the arguments mounted by the US, but at least they had some. Israel has flagrantly flouted international law. If there’s one thing we learnt from WWII, it was the importance of respect for international law.

Yes, Hezbollah and Hamas triggered the recent fighting, but surely you don’t view these actions in isolation from history? Again, if there’s one thing I’ve learnt from my forays into research into conflict, it’s that it goes back a very long time, and that people go around and around in circles blaming each other. Something has to put a spoke into the wheel, and believe it or not - violence is rarely, if ever, that spoke.

Resources - there’s more “resources” in the world that natural ones. Social, political, intellectual. People in the Gaza strip are horrifically poor, they’re denied access to basic health care and other essential services. They’re literally fighting for their lives. Everywhere I look - East Timor, Solomon Islands, remote Australia, the middle East - I see young people (men, generally) resorting to violence because it’s the only way they can experience any sense of hope and empowerment in their lives. If people are denied access to their land in which their spirituality is rooted, if people are denied the means to make a living, if people are denied the ability to take their sons and daughters to hospital - they will be angry. If they’re angry enough, they will resort to violence. And that violence will give them a brief experience of power, and more violence will follow.

I’m sorry, but I do think that your posts are irrationally one-sided. I think they’re very well argued, but when I say they’re “irrationally one-sided”, I mean that I think that it’s irrational to think that there’s ever an easy answer to the problem of conflict. I can’t think of any conflict that’s one sided. I think there’s a lot of blame all round here, as Cheryl points out. Given that you’ve come out very, very firmly in favour of Israel here, I see that as one-sided - and my understanding of conflict leads me to believe that’s a emotive, rather than objective, view to hold. I truly didn’t mean it to be the insult that I realise it came across as - I was rather responding to the emotion of your posts.

I weep when I read things on conflict, because I think of the voices of the young people I’ve interviewed and emailed in the last few years. So few of them plan to kill people, even hurt people. They get involved not knowing where things will lead. And they all speak of the excitement in finally having something to do, of having something to believe in. That’s why I simply can’t believe that there’s a right and wrong side in this. I know that if I were doing fieldwork in the Middle East right now, I’d have friends who were Israeli, friends who were Hamas, friends who were Hezbollah…and all of them would weep for their own pain and the pain they knew they were causing others. And all of them would want it to end.

For those that claim God’s favour, also have to deal with the other part of God’s covenant comes with it too.