Notices
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: The Middle East How to use science to help mediate among a bunch of brats

  1. #1 The Middle East How to use science to help mediate among a bunch of brats 
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    This thread is not about who's right and who's wrong, whether it's about religion, war, politics, etc.

    This thread is not about whether the use of force is right, wrong, unbalanced, inappropriate, etc.

    This thread *IS* about how to use science to help monitor/mediate among the factions involved. Specifically, which side started the violence, the killing and damage done, the military/civilian significance, etc. I'm thinking that my proposal would minimize the lies, the exaggerations, the finger pointing, the rhetoric, etc that seems to accompany attempts to settle conflicts in this region. It reminds me of a bunch of brats that need an ever-vigilant babysitter to help settle their squabbles.

    I'm thinking of the following systems to be used by the UN or other impartial groups:
    • Regional radar that monitors all air activity — aircraft, rockets, missiles, bombs, mortar rounds, drones, etc.
    • Explosion locator systems (similar to gunfire locators) that monitor strikes by aerial weaponry (described above) and other weaponry.
    • Damage assessment teams to identify what was hit, who was killed/wounded, specifically whether the target was civilian or military.

    All comments, questions, and critiques are welcome.


    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    There's always going to be a person with a bigger gun than the other fellow. There's always going to be conflict whether over a piece of land or a cow. So trying to settle all disputes seems rather pathetic for as soon as one dispute is extinguished another flares up. The UN has tried doing what you are saying but it doesn't do much because it has no military might to back it up.

    As in the situation with Iraq and Syria it is getting worse for the military of Iraq doesn't want to fright to protect its own citizens and has given up over 4 divisions and many of those soldiers have been murdered by the ISIS terrorists. There's nothing anyone can do when the hate and animosity has gone on for centuries so little that the outside groups do really can't bring about peace.


    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Well, for example, look at what's happening now. Both Israel and Gaza commit violence toward one another. Both sides say that they will cease their fire after the other ceases its fire. The situation is deadlocked. If a neutral party could determine, say, that Israel dropped a certain number of bombs on Gaza, and that Gaza shot a certain number of rockets at Israel, then each might agree to drop/shoot only half that number the next day as a goodwill gesture toward a cease fire, which might occur the day after.

    Such a neutral party could also determine who began shelling/bombing/etc the other when these overt hostilities begin. It's really pathetic that these people act so immaturely toward each other and that they require a babysitter/mediator to help them refrain from overt violence and to help them to stop once it begins. (Is it possible to teleport the entire region to Mars? )

    On the other hand, they both behave like a couple of brats, and maybe the world should simply let them consume themselves with their self-perpetuating hatred and be done with it. Reminds me of the Let That Be Your Last Battlefield episode in the original Star Trek series. Maybe Voice of America should broadcast this episode into the region 24/7.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Nothing will ever resolve in that region. The reason being that people have decided that all violence is bad.

    In today's world, if a Mafia warlord threatens to kill me I'm not allowed to go to his house and kill him. The safest route, if I really want him not to act on his threat would be to preempt it. But no. The modern world wants me to appease the warlord by any means necessary so nobody has to die. I can change his mind with "kindness", but I can't use a bullet.

    In an environment like that, Mafia warlords are free to run amok. They quickly take control of every society that gives into this pacifistic dogma. They're the "one eyed man" in "the land of the blind". Or in this case, the one violent person in a world of pacifists - which is the same thing.



    From there, the rest is inevitable. The Mafia warlords quickly pilfer all the wealth from their communities until the people are starving and discontent, and then tell them their neighbors from the next country over are the ones who did it. The people are already terrified of the warlord, so they don't want to call him on his lies, but they also need the food, so they go ahead and attack their neighbors.

    The warlord uses the confusion to pilfer still more wealth, making the people still more desperate, and uses the opportunity to blame the neighbors for still more harm. And the cycle becomes self perpetuating. Worse, the warlord will claim he's "protecting" the people from their evil neighbors - and if they get rid of him the evil neighbors will win.

    But you see? The problem was never their neighbors. It was always the mafia warlord. Or maybe a Hezbollah warlord, or the warlord in charge of Mossad. Or maybe just a banker with his own private army. (So although I say "mafia warlord" I really mean any number of kinds of warlords and thug captains.)
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    Technological peacekeeping solutions? Sure, when just about every pedestrian has a Wi-Fi video device uploading live, and all the world is watching. That's soon.

    Sooner, I suppose, someone will try to restrict what gets out. International community will moan about this but do nothing. Anyway, the damning vids will out. Then the blame must shift to "bad apples", which works legally but can't erase the gut feeling that a larger group is guilty by association. So how do antagonists play this media game? Whoever gets their own babies most graphically killed, wins?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    "Technology" is about stepping outside the box, and reexamining traditional approaches, and then trying something genuinely new.

    If we use the scientific method, then it should be obvious by this point in history that aggressive nations, factions, or people are rarely if ever stopped in their aggressive behavior by the use of "appeasement", no matter how generous that appeasement is.

    The pure use of force, on the other hand, often fails also. It generates resentment, and even if one generation is pacified, the next one has a tendency to pick up the swords their fathers left on the ground.

    However, when the two are used in combination, a strange synergy effect emerges. It actually becomes possible to coerce people without too much resentment. The Mafia often use it to turn police officers. Start with a threat to their family, and end up with a generous bribe when they acquiesce.
    You can even do it by taking all of someone's money/freedom/sustenance and then giving them back a portion of that money/freedom/sustenance when they behave in certain ways. If the person has no means of escaping the situation, they will develop a kind of Stockholm's syndrome about it, and start sympathizing with you. You just have to create a linear or nearly linear relationship between behavior and reward. A little behavior gets a little reward. A lot of behavior gets a lot of reward. You can skew the return just enough so that no amount of behavior gets the full reward, and then they're hooked. Behaving looks like the best way to regain what has been lost, when in fact it is impossible to regain the whole thing that way.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    885
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    Well, for example, look at what's happening now. Both Israel and Gaza commit violence toward one another. Both sides say that they will cease their fire after the other ceases its fire. The situation is deadlocked. If a neutral party could determine, say, that Israel dropped a certain number of bombs on Gaza, and that Gaza shot a certain number of rockets at Israel, then each might agree to drop/shoot only half that number the next day as a goodwill gesture toward a cease fire, which might occur the day after.

    Such a neutral party could also determine who began shelling/bombing/etc the other when these overt hostilities begin. It's really pathetic that these people act so immaturely toward each other and that they require a babysitter/mediator to help them refrain from overt violence and to help them to stop once it begins. (Is it possible to teleport the entire region to Mars? )

    On the other hand, they both behave like a couple of brats, and maybe the world should simply let them consume themselves with their self-perpetuating hatred and be done with it. Reminds me of the Let That Be Your Last Battlefield episode in the original Star Trek series. Maybe Voice of America should broadcast this episode into the region 24/7.
    insanity is, doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different outcome(A.E.Einstein)describes the middle east pretty well imo.

    i'm just talking from my point from view. and i think the israelis, more than any other nation should know that; living stateless in some kind of ghetto is not an option in the long run.

    every country has some bomb-throwing nut cases, but usually the majority condemns and stands up by voting a leader/government who does too.

    and that's the palestinian problem. are they so oppressed by their ruling party, that they're too scared to stand up; or is hiding behind a big shoulder convenient?

    in short, i guess, lack of politics on both sides.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    The Italian mafia started out as a group of "freedom fighters". That's how pretty much all mafias start. Noble resistance fighters who just need the people to "donate to the cause", so they resort to some racketeering, theft, or other measures "to support the cause".

    Then either the cause succeeds or it doesn't, or the war ends, and they go right on "supporting the cause".

    What is needed is for people to begin to understand that Hizbollah, Al Qaeda, and even the Taliban are just budding mafias
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D. stander-j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    854
    In my opinion, a conflict resolution process mandated by an objective third-party mediator could work for Palestine and Israel if it focused on mutually agreed upon results instead of a final solution to the conflict.

    It seems whenever they actually make it to negotiations, both parties get side-tracked over details like who gets Jerusalem -or- how to share it. You'd think that's a counter productive process to go about resolving the territory conflict, because the talk from both sides is cheap. Why not focus on goals that are achievable at the present? Surely there are regions Israel will readily cede and Palestine will accept with the assumption that it's a fair parcel of land which is a part of a projected area that will eventually transfer hands.

    Progressive infusion of Palestine into territories that Israel will readily cede seems like a pretty good route. You can't just uproot Israelis from a territory, but you can discourage the movement of Israelis into sectors that the state intends to return to Palestine by a projected date. That way you're allowing people on both sides a fair transition period, and a gradual transfer of territory. Israelis don't want to leave their homes, Palestinians want them back. So make it transfer that isn't going to leave a whole generation with a foul taste in their mouth. The more two groups of people work together, the easier it is for them to find common ground and come to solutions both parties are okay with.
    "Cultivated leisure is the aim of man."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    282
    I have long thought that the only way the Isreali-Palestinian conflict will ever reach a satisfactory conclusion is a charismatic, morally sound leader arises who denounces the violence and insists the unfair inequalities be addressed. A Gandhi or Mandela or Martin Luther King figure. It is nearly impossible for a negotiated peace to be reached when no one really speaks for the Palestinians. Arafat was so corrupt he was viewed more as a clown than a serious leader by the Isreali side. Other so called Palestinian leaders have been so entrenched in the terrorist movement they have no interest in peace; their entire power base is founded on organizing armies of angry young men to commit outrages, ending the violence would mean seeing their power and prestige evaporate. The Isreali leaders have often been far from reasonable, but at least they actually speak for their side with some authority.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 138
    Last Post: July 8th, 2012, 12:36 AM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: February 3rd, 2012, 08:25 PM
  3. understanding Middle East history
    By Demen Tolden in forum Politics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: December 27th, 2008, 08:09 PM
  4. Interesting backgrounds of Middle-East!
    By PetriFB in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: August 7th, 2006, 03:44 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •