TED Conversations

Laura Bickle

This conversation is closed.

Israel/Palestine conflict, call to pre-1967 boarders

The right seems to be parroting the phrase "Obama threw Israel under the bus" with out a solid explanation of why Israel has the right to the territory they seized in the six days war. What is your position on the "Right of Return?" Or the right of the displaced Palestinians to return to their settlements.

What is the position of those who think Obama "threw Israel under the bus?"


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Jun 8 2011: I feel that if any legitimate progress is going to be made between the two sides, there is going to have to be forgiveness on both ends. Both sides have committed atrocities, both sides have been hurt, and both sides have justifications for their feelings. Not all claims are substantiated, but neither side is completely in the right or in the wrong here.

    I feel that this conflict can learn a lot from the ideologies of Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi. From all that I have seen I believe that until there is a willingness to forgive one another, there is no hope at a compromise. I do not think this will be easy as the conflict goes thousands of years further back than 1947, but I cannot imagine a solution that does not involve forgiveness; I don't see an artificial line drawn in the sand providing the solution that is necessary here.
    • thumb
      Jun 8 2011: Ross, your point about forgiveness is a good one. I hope you will express you feelings on another debate thread about the issue of forgiveness- 'Is learning to forgive the PhD of being human?'.
      Bring it to the level of nations and warring factions will expand and enrich our understanding there too.
    • thumb
      Jun 8 2011: It is clear, as hard as it might be for some to hear, that for any progress to be made there will indeed be need for forgiveness, for without forgiveness there can't be compromise. I think the Palestinian people have shown more willingness in that respect though.
    • thumb
      Jun 8 2011: I think that viewpoint is not only naive, but counterproductive.

      The only way for progress is for both sides to see peace as their self-interest.

      If the Israeli's see peace as sacrificing land that they could otherwise possess...

      or the Palestinians see peace as leading to further settlement ...

      then there won't be peace.
      • thumb
        Jun 8 2011: What could the Hegelian Dialectic be in this conflict Tim?

        What would be the Thesis? I guess this would be a great start.
        • thumb
          Jun 9 2011: Starting point is arbitrary. How about with the Amalekites?
      • thumb
        Jun 9 2011: Well, that's a reference from the bible. It wouldn't be objective and even less constructive to give it any credit. If the bible can be taken so literally as to invade a country (which is exactly what happened) in modern times, what else could be justified? An invasion of "Eden"? Are we simply living another chapter of the crusade's book?

        My question was focused on current events. Should WW2 be considered the thesis, or the invasion of Palestine? This is an interesting start, as far as I'm concern, because on either ones the Palestinian are victims. They were not involved in WW2. So why would they pay someone else's bill? I don't believe that without WW2 and the holocaust such an occupation could have been justified, not that it is or ever was, but the world must have had more consideration for Jews than for the Arabs. Or perhaps the Jews had better lobbyists?
        • thumb
          Jun 9 2011: Why not start at the first genocide - the Amelekites? Come on Tony, entriamo il laberinto. Where every room has either two entrances and one exit, or one entrance and two exits.

          You know in italian the word for history is storia. Which of course is root of the english word for both story and history. Fact and fiction merge at some point.

          Are you a fan of Borges?
      • thumb
        Jun 10 2011: Why not start at the first genocide - the Amelekites? Come on Tony, entriamo il laberinto. Where every room has either two entrances and one exit, or one entrance and two exits.

        Si, e vero che cuesto e un labirinto. Therefore I will correct my Hegelian Dialectic reference and replace it with the Monty Hall problem (two entrances and one exit, or one entrance and two exits). You will probably smile as the "trinity", in a sense, is still present. Can we ever get rid of it?

        Borges: I'm not sure if "Fan" is the right term in my case. But I do indeed look up to those who were constantly being kept off Nobel prizes. Almost like not being granted the "privilege" is a sign of true, or purer, integrity and objectivity, at least literally speaking. I just don't share the same will to pass away at the Hôtel des Beaux Arts, even thus it seems many influential people(to me) 'chose' hotels, so impersonal yet full of personality, to take their last breaths.
        • thumb
          Jun 10 2011: Tony: The Monty Hall problem is a new one for me. Very interesting. Thanks.

          The true value of the dialectic comes from it's iterative application.

          Amelelites + Israelis
          Israelis + Babylonians
          Babylonian Jews + Zoroastrians
          Returned Israelis + Romans
          Roman Jews + Christians
          European Jews + Nazis (with Zarathustrian influences)
          Returned Jews + Palestinians

          Always two stories merging into one. And being early people of the book they have experience guiding the narrative.

          But tell me. Does the Monty Hall problem have some additional application here? Has one door been opened?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.