Zonie63 -> RE: The current middle eastern crisis is Israels fault... (8/2/2014 7:34:33 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: crazyml The challenge: If you've been strongly supporting one side or the other on this thread, I challenge you to set aside 30 minutes (no more than that). Just before the 30 minutes begins, you have to set aside your support for the side you've been backing, and then spend 30 minutes arguing the point from the other side. In the first 10 minutes, ague it from the perspective of a statesman (or a leader), for the second argue it from the perspective of a grandfather or grand mother, and for the last 10 minutes argue it from the perspective of a 19 year old. I'm not sure if I take one side or the other, but I suppose I'm on the U.S. side more than anything else. I think the U.S. government should do what's best for its own people, just as I would expect other national governments to do the same. I think the main problem for America is that we've been taking sides in a conflict which isn't really our fight. In comparison to Northern Ireland, I don't think we ever really took sides in that matter (although I may be wrong). In fact, we usually seem to take a neutral stance on these kinds of conflicts. I don't think we ever took much of a position on the Basque separatists or the Oaxacan rebels either. We did balk about the Soviet annexation of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, but it's not like we actually did anything about it. Same thing with Tibet, although they've gotten a few celebrity sympathizers. There are actually quite a number of ethnic/religious conflicts around the world - some dormant, some active. But one hardly sees the same level of passion or outrage as one sees in the debate over the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Even the U.S. government seems far more interested in this conflict than any of the others. So, I wonder: What is it about this conflict which makes it more interesting or more compelling to take a side than any of the others?
|
|
|
|