There are extremist and violent groups everywhere, and yet not everywhere do those extremist groups hold significant power. Why do you think they hold power in Gaza? Is there some inherent, material moral failing that people who live in that region all seem to possess that allows them to be more favourable to extremist voices, or do you take the position that the material conditions of those people can be a significant influence on ideology and outcomes?
I don't know that I've ever heard the phrase 'material moral failing.' Is there a political theory where that is mentioned specifically? Does it mean something like a failure to use material conditions that are otherwise sufficient? And in your statement that you contrast against this, I assume you mean a paucity in material conditions, as being something that then influences ideology or outcomes.
I don't totally know, but I think it is true that material conditions everywhere can be hard to manage, no matter how good they are in a place. In that area though, I assume it is kind of naturally rough, and that the abstracted carrying capacity of that land might be kind of naturally low. How much of the land is really arable, or good for long-term housing? How many imports are needed, and how fast is the population growing? Then again, maybe it's better than I assume it is.
I'm not really sure, that's why I was asking what humans 'bring to the table' outside of material conditions, if that makes any sense. Because at least then, they can bring some ingenuity to the table, of some sort
Like I said, I think it makes perfect sense for the people of Palestine to be much more motivated by a sentiment that promises retribution against their oppressors than a sentiment that says "we need more infrastructure for tourism", and I think it's pretty obvious why this isn't simply a result of a moral failings of millions of people.
Well, people can have moral failings on a group level, though it's not to say it can't be corrected. The whole human endeavor appears to be an experiment in different moral positions, set in the group level generally, and maybe not all of them can be 'right' all of the time
They get to then attack that neighbour and seize their land. I mean, what was it that Nazi Germany got out of scapegoating Jews and socialists? Turns out they got a lot. They used it as a pretext to attack their ideological enemies, consolidate state power and annex neighbouring territory in the name of the fatherland.
Israel has the backing of the USA and one of the most heavily funded and effective armies in the world. They get a lot out of antagonising a significantly weaker neighbour while losing very little. If Israel had nothing to gain from Palestine, they simply would not be engaging in the wide-ranging settler-colonialism that we see today on the west bank. They definitely want the land, and they want to consolidate power in the region. It's a self-perpetuating cycle. Israel steals land and kills Palestinians, which leads to more Palestinian extremists, which leads to more terrorist attacks again Israeli civilians (with very little reaching the political class), which leads to more stealing of land.
I really would have to learn more about what the value of the land exactly is over there. What kind of land is it? Maybe it would be better if they had a united states of the middle-east or something, where is was a just a federal holding, I suppose. Then anyone could just move anywhere. I should read a book on the gaza strip. I guess I'll just pick a random one, but it looks there are actually a ton of them.
