He Who Hesistates

A delegation from Hamas just finished negotiations with Israel in Egypt, I believe it was. They reached ceasefire, and have since broken it. So, unless their is something far more than self-evident about this, they are being invited to the table. End the occupation? It's an excellent idea, but when you do, and the rockets continue to fall, well, what next? The head-for-an-eye comment is apt. The problem though, is not that Israel and Hamas have been trading blows for years. The problem is that Hamas has, in its founding charter, a section on the "elimination" of the Jews. The only thing they want from Israel, in the long run, is its destruction. And Israel cannot give them that. Israel and Palestine can co-exist. Until something drastic changes about Hamas, though, Israel and Hamas cannot. Israel is then determined that, if one must be destroyed, it is not them.

I would just like to take this opportunity to state that, for the record, references to the Nazis do not apply in every situation. My first objection to this statement is in terms of accuracy. Hamas instigated its conflict, the Jews did not. Hamas would like nothing better than to see Israel utterly destroyed, simply as a part of who they are- the Jews did not wish the same to the Nazis; quite the opposite in fact. The Nazis committed their crimes in an institutionalized, cold, murder-by-numbers sort of way. If Israel has committed crimes, then they are crimes of battle- disregard for civilian casualties, overextension, overreaction- not the systematic and deliberate slaughter of non-combatants. The Jews had no options but to run or die, but all Hamas has to do is lay down their weapons, perhaps turn over some of their leaders to the Hague, and there will be no more- or little- fighting. Secondly, don't you think that Hitler references are becoming more than a little clichéd? We have three-thousand years of recorded history- more, perhaps, in some places- I'm certain we can find more than one example to relate our arguments to. Certainly Hitler had perhaps the largest influence on modern history of any man, and I do see the slight irony of this comparison, but it would make debates much more interesting we did not in some was refer to the third reich once a page. I'm just... tired of it. It's unoriginal and a wee bit childish.

I think we could find quite a lot of instances where that is not true. It is, however, in this case a valid point. This is why Mr. Canada is all more right- we, the uninvolved rest of the world, must enforce these protocols and values, since no one over there will.

That is certainly true. On the other hand, how many members of Hamas would sit down across the table? I hesitate to say that there is no bargaining with terrorists- but bargaining is certainly not possible with the militantly stupid. At least, not without making them very sure that you can hit them harder than they can hit you. And that is what Israel has done. If, for example, Iceland starting firing rockets at Canadian cities, killing several people a day, what measures would you feel appropriate? What if there rocket bases were deeply hidden inside densely populated civilian centres? I am not saying that Israel has been blameless in this affair- or even close- but they don't have many good options.

I believe the difference would be this: to imply that atheists need saving is to say that 'provided Christianity is correct, atheists need saving'. This is quite true. However to imply that 'provided atheism is true, Christians do not enjoy life' changes nothing, it is still possibly incorrect. On the other hand, I for one have no problem with people being insulted on buses. Opposition is frankly the best thing for the church.

"Governments, as we understand them today, did not exist in any sense 500 years ago." I understand what you're thinking, but I also think you miss the point entirely. Obviously, governments and states have changed greatly over the years that have passed. We've invented all sorts of new and exciting things that would have had Socrates spitting out his tea. However, the one essential definition has not altered a bit: a state is still a population (and often territory) under a government, and a government is still the controlling and regulating power within a state. How has this changed since the classical age? And, if we can agree that relatively stable definition, my point stands; it is only in the major and minor details that the state has evolved. I believe you are wrong when you say that governments in 500 years will "not be in any way like" what we know and patronize today. Certainly you or I could not imagine or predict how they will appear, but as long as they are governments the one most basic criteria will be met. "under certain circumstances, a Canadian citizen can reside outside of Canada yet be subject to Canadian law, vote in Canadian elections and even pay Canadian taxes." Yes. Bien fait. Geographical location does not necessarily have anything to do with belonging or not belonging to a state. As long as someone adheres to the Canadian government, he is a part of the Canadian state. Perhaps I am narrow. But then, I suppose the truth must always be narrow, because for every thing that is true, a thousand lies can be told.

I would like to, first of all, question the statement: war is a necessary part of our society. How? In as much as I can tell, war is approximately the least useful thing we've ever come up with. It wastes ressources, time, and above all, lives. The only way it could be seen as useful is in the Orwellian sense: as a means of destroying wealth to oppress the proletariat, and I hardly think you'd like to quote that. You claim in your first paragraph that you will explain why war is necessary in the second, then you proceed to, flatly, not do so. Is there a reason for this? You also say that all war is caused by a lack of communication. While this is sometimes the case, a very wise man once said that "a lack of communication is the cause and the prevention of war". Sometimes there are people that are, frankly, best kept apart. Such are your extremists, those who "blatantly refuse to accept the facts". You are very correct when you say that such people exist, and are capable of massive harm. They are. But they are few, and there success in our day has depended on misleading people into following them. Their primary instrument of deception is isolation: a man will follow any idea if he has not heard another. In a world state, all people would be connected, they would have access to the ideas and opinions of billions of people over thousands of years, and the weight of that knowledge makes it hard to raise an arm in violence. It will take time, time and education, time and educatiuon and the element of surprise. But with the ressources that would be freed up by eliminating nationalism, such would be possible. Over time, your first- and valid- point about geographical concentration of malcontent would fade in importance, as people became more and more equal on all levels. Which leaves us with our hotheads and extremists, a point I have already made and you haven't countered. The World State would mean a vast reduction in the global armed forces, but that small percent that remained, under control of the world state, would be very, very good. They would be absolutely able to deal with the violent extremists. Your line "phones are instant but maybe words arent fast enough anymore" is very clever, but I think it is just not true. Through co-operation and technology, we could tame the globe. I'm not taking 'cheap-shots' by criticizing your grammar, just trying in a friendly way to improve your comprehensibility. It's about time someone did.

You speak of control, as if by its very nature a world government would oppress its citizens. A government should be no more than an extension of the collective will of the people. There need be no control, except where very necessary. You also speak of the people of our world as if they were medieval peasants, who will rise up against their rulers at the slightest provocation, not seeing the larger picture. And certainly there is truth to this. People are far more apt to blame the bad in their lives on the government than the good. But will this 'rebellion' as you call it lead to the fall of the state? Not necessarily. Is rebellion, expressed verbally and peacefully not an entirely fitting part of democracy? Take Canada, for example. We haven't had a violent insurrection in, wow, it must be forty years now. That includes the FLQ crisis, which leads me to the next point. You say that the government cannot crush the small rebllions. During the October crisis of 1970, Pierre Trudeau called in the war measures act and, I believe, crushed that rebellion pretty effectively. The revolutionaries were all neutralized, and the sentiments behind them set back fifty years, at least. Therefore, while you are fully correct in saying that feelings of rebellion will always be around (I agree with the 'watch a child to understand a man' comment, by the way), there is no reason that these seeds should blossom into anarchy. And, as the governments are fully capable of crushing the hotheads, a world state will prevail. Oh, and for the record, psychology takes an s. It is a devilishly tricky one, isn't it?

I believe that a lasting and succesful world government is fully possible. Empires have, it is true, risen and fallen in an endless cycle over the history of the earth. However, we must ask: why did they fall? Almost without exception, they met their end because they met another equal force (Russia, Greece), they tyrranized their subjects into revolt (Britain, France), or their territory grew to exceed their technological ability to manage it (Rome). Do any of these apply? I rather think not. A world government could not, by definition encounter an equal and opposing force. Our technology has advanced very rapidly of late, while the earth has stayed about the same size, so we should have no problem manging it. All we must do then, is give the people the rights they desire, so that they do not become the rights they demand, or the rights they wish to seize. This we should be able to do. Simply because empires have fallen does not mean they will fall. Simply because it has repeated does not mean that it is a pattern, or that it will repeat again. And, when the factors affecting have changed to the degree that they have, there is no reason to believe that the past should set a valid precedent. The World Government is not only possible and beneficial, but it is the inevitable product of civilization.