Lots of threads on RF about the war in Gaza.
I've put some time into studying the last couple of hundred years into studying Israel. I'm no expert, but if we just take the last hundred years the history is incredibly complex. I see a lot of finger pointing going on in these RF discussions, and a lot of the finger pointing seems to boil down to:
"well your side started it". E.g. "Hamas is justified, because Israel oppresses Palestinians".
From a logic perspective, if you make a claim like the above, you ARE using some context in your claim. Your argument is dependent on the idea that - at least in recent history - you think Israel has been oppressing Palestinians. If recent history was different and Gaza was paradise on earth, you probably wouldn't think that Hamas's attacks on Oct. 7th were justified.
From my perspective, CONTEXT ALMOST ALWAYS MATTERS. So it's fine that you use some historical context to draw your conclusions, that's often how we sort out ethical and moral dilemmas. Context is often key in legal situations.
== How much context is the correct context?
To me, that's the hard question. When we look at this war in Gaza and try to make sense of it, how much context should we be using? Should we use only the last 2 months? That seems insufficient. How about the last 20 years? How about if we start our analysis at the beginning of the 1967 war? Or maybe it should be started in the weeks leading up to the 1967 war? Or maybe we need to go back further and start in 1947-48? Or maybe further and start with the Balfour declaration? Or maybe go back a couple hundred years and look at how the Ottoman's were ruling this area of land?
== The mistake is to avoid considering context
If you have an opinion about this war, as clearly many people on RF do, how did you come to this opinion? How much historical context do you think should be a part of your thinking?
I've put some time into studying the last couple of hundred years into studying Israel. I'm no expert, but if we just take the last hundred years the history is incredibly complex. I see a lot of finger pointing going on in these RF discussions, and a lot of the finger pointing seems to boil down to:
"well your side started it". E.g. "Hamas is justified, because Israel oppresses Palestinians".
From a logic perspective, if you make a claim like the above, you ARE using some context in your claim. Your argument is dependent on the idea that - at least in recent history - you think Israel has been oppressing Palestinians. If recent history was different and Gaza was paradise on earth, you probably wouldn't think that Hamas's attacks on Oct. 7th were justified.
From my perspective, CONTEXT ALMOST ALWAYS MATTERS. So it's fine that you use some historical context to draw your conclusions, that's often how we sort out ethical and moral dilemmas. Context is often key in legal situations.
== How much context is the correct context?
To me, that's the hard question. When we look at this war in Gaza and try to make sense of it, how much context should we be using? Should we use only the last 2 months? That seems insufficient. How about the last 20 years? How about if we start our analysis at the beginning of the 1967 war? Or maybe it should be started in the weeks leading up to the 1967 war? Or maybe we need to go back further and start in 1947-48? Or maybe further and start with the Balfour declaration? Or maybe go back a couple hundred years and look at how the Ottoman's were ruling this area of land?
== The mistake is to avoid considering context
If you have an opinion about this war, as clearly many people on RF do, how did you come to this opinion? How much historical context do you think should be a part of your thinking?
