“Between a high, solid wall and an egg that breaks it, I will always stand on the side of the egg. Yes, no matter how right the wall may be and how wrong the egg, I will stand with the egg.” -Haruki Murakami I felt like I had to comment on Gaza, even though I have nothing original to add, just because I couldn’t be silent now, and remember I was silent years from now, and live with myself. Then I remembered this quote from Rosa Luxemburg: “The most revolutionary thing
I think the comments here are way too negative so I had to drop in and offer support. Israel holds 90% of the power, and Palestine suffers 90% of the agony. Well said.
…except the quote at the beginning. I really don't think it sends the right message and probably ticked off a lot of people who didn't read the rest of the article and went straight for the comments.
There's no doubt that Haruki Murakami is overstating the case a lot- he's trying to be brief and provocative- I think that's the prerogative of the poet- to present a model which is wrong, simplistic, but also an important corrective to our ordinary blindness. I'm also erring on the side of simplicity, not quite as much as him, but somewhat, I'll admit. However I do hold that the core thesis here is straightforwardly correct- having studied people for many years- in almost all cases where two sides are vying for your sympathy, the weak need an additional advocate more than the strong. I went back and forth on adding something in response to the commenters, but I think the meaning is fairly clear, and the way I would respond to various objections is also clear.
"If an egg kills, kidnaps and rapes innocent civilians, but is weaker than the wall - then I will always stand with the egg" - Philosophy bear
By your simple framework, A bank Robber that is shot by the police is weaker than the police, and the polices obviously creates more suffering for him than he creates for the police. So we should stand with the bank robber and not with the police.
In any case, thank you for letting me know where you stand and letting me unsubscribe from someone who implicitly supports the massacre of my family and my people.
I am not one to unsubscribe because of disagreement, but I fully agree with the fact that this principle, if applied consistently, would put you and Murakami on the side of bad but uncoordinated criminals instead of the bigger society that opposes their actions. No. Just no.
It is also of note that equating countries and their leadership is bad, and this is true both of Hamas that consistently bring woe to both Israeli and Palestinians (indeed, they are a huge factor in "Few can leave") and Netanyahu and his stuff who try to look harsh to cover up their unbelievable failure.
Thank you for speaking out on this issue. Sending lots of love.
The comments section is not it. I like to think of how this one quote might apply to your case. "What is right is right even if no one does it. What is wrong is wrong even if everyone does it."
Though of course, your stance is ultimately the majority worldwide.
I hope the comments dont put you off. I think of this quote, "What is right is right, even if no one does it. What is wrong is wrong even if the whole world does it."
don't blind yourself to the truth, Are you supporting the backward ass terrorists.
The people of Gaza don't need the help of kaafir, they hate you for your religion and the same shall occur soon in europe and the americas.
They hate you and will kill you, are you still gonna support this egg. It's a religious war and your their opponent yet you pose to help and support them. Thats buffoonery
There's an easy case to be made about defending the humanity of Gazan civilians right now, during a time when mass death and suffering seem likely. But that appeal needs to acknowledge the full reality of the situation, including Israeli security concerns. The idea that we should stake out a position without any regard for context, history, or consequences is just foolishness.
If you want to fix just ONE thing then yes, preventing abuse of the weak by the powerful is a good thing. But what happens after that? In the end this is an existential struggle that must be fought out by the various sides, and thus force and power WILL be exercised by both sides. Maybe the best we can do is prevent this from becoming something more.
It's not that simple; you cannot ignore the fact that the egg (or the wall) may be morally bad. Unlike other commenters I have no family ties to either side in this conflict and feel no particular loyalties to either side. Sometimes I wish the world would just stand back and let them annihilate each other. Are there even any 'innocents' caught up in this? Alex Shleizer's unsubscribing makes the point: family ties predetermine which side you will take. Are even children innocent?
FIWF, it's true that family ties are a big part of it. But I would be much more sympathetic to this position if Hamas would have just target military targets and kidnap soldiers (Like it easily could have done), instead of massacring a music festival, killing parents and kidnapping their children and all the other atrocities committed.
I have a distant relative, and elderly women who got murdered at her home by Hamas terrorists. Hamas are unapologetically, Jihadist terror organization that say over and over again that they would like to kill all Jews, and part of a greater movement that wants to fight and conquer all non-Muslim nations. They prosecute gay people, they kill Palestinian political opposition and violate humans rights of other Palestinians routinely, they are all around pretty bad people.
But philosophy bear seems to support them because they are the weaker side. This rule of thumb seems so unserious and leads to such abhorrent results that the only reasonable explanation is that it was chose post-hoc to justify a position that he holds for entirely different reasons. There is room for nuance, but this position is not nuanced - it implicitly justifies any atrocity committed by the Hamas.
> It's not that simple; you cannot ignore the fact that the egg (or the wall) may be morally bad
Can't you? It does not seem dissimilar to opposing the death penalty or prisoner mistreatment even when the prisoners are guilty of genuinely horrid crimes. First stop the strong from doing horrible things to the weak, *then* worry about whether the weak has done some genuinely bad things at a lower scale.
(Reasonable minds can of course disagree about how large the difference between weak and strong needs to be for this to apply; clearly in a war between two roughly-identical countries you shouldn't always support the *slightly*-less-populous one. But the point stands.)
I think the comments here are way too negative so I had to drop in and offer support. Israel holds 90% of the power, and Palestine suffers 90% of the agony. Well said.
…except the quote at the beginning. I really don't think it sends the right message and probably ticked off a lot of people who didn't read the rest of the article and went straight for the comments.
There's no doubt that Haruki Murakami is overstating the case a lot- he's trying to be brief and provocative- I think that's the prerogative of the poet- to present a model which is wrong, simplistic, but also an important corrective to our ordinary blindness. I'm also erring on the side of simplicity, not quite as much as him, but somewhat, I'll admit. However I do hold that the core thesis here is straightforwardly correct- having studied people for many years- in almost all cases where two sides are vying for your sympathy, the weak need an additional advocate more than the strong. I went back and forth on adding something in response to the commenters, but I think the meaning is fairly clear, and the way I would respond to various objections is also clear.
"If an egg kills, kidnaps and rapes innocent civilians, but is weaker than the wall - then I will always stand with the egg" - Philosophy bear
By your simple framework, A bank Robber that is shot by the police is weaker than the police, and the polices obviously creates more suffering for him than he creates for the police. So we should stand with the bank robber and not with the police.
In any case, thank you for letting me know where you stand and letting me unsubscribe from someone who implicitly supports the massacre of my family and my people.
I am not one to unsubscribe because of disagreement, but I fully agree with the fact that this principle, if applied consistently, would put you and Murakami on the side of bad but uncoordinated criminals instead of the bigger society that opposes their actions. No. Just no.
It is also of note that equating countries and their leadership is bad, and this is true both of Hamas that consistently bring woe to both Israeli and Palestinians (indeed, they are a huge factor in "Few can leave") and Netanyahu and his stuff who try to look harsh to cover up their unbelievable failure.
Thank you for speaking out on this issue. Sending lots of love.
The comments section is not it. I like to think of how this one quote might apply to your case. "What is right is right even if no one does it. What is wrong is wrong even if everyone does it."
Though of course, your stance is ultimately the majority worldwide.
I hope the comments dont put you off. I think of this quote, "What is right is right, even if no one does it. What is wrong is wrong even if the whole world does it."
don't blind yourself to the truth, Are you supporting the backward ass terrorists.
The people of Gaza don't need the help of kaafir, they hate you for your religion and the same shall occur soon in europe and the americas.
They hate you and will kill you, are you still gonna support this egg. It's a religious war and your their opponent yet you pose to help and support them. Thats buffoonery
-1 sub
There's an easy case to be made about defending the humanity of Gazan civilians right now, during a time when mass death and suffering seem likely. But that appeal needs to acknowledge the full reality of the situation, including Israeli security concerns. The idea that we should stake out a position without any regard for context, history, or consequences is just foolishness.
Typo: "I do not anyone to die"
If you want to fix just ONE thing then yes, preventing abuse of the weak by the powerful is a good thing. But what happens after that? In the end this is an existential struggle that must be fought out by the various sides, and thus force and power WILL be exercised by both sides. Maybe the best we can do is prevent this from becoming something more.
"What matters, in the main, is who holds the majority of the power and who endures the majority of the agony." I see why agony is important...
It's not that simple; you cannot ignore the fact that the egg (or the wall) may be morally bad. Unlike other commenters I have no family ties to either side in this conflict and feel no particular loyalties to either side. Sometimes I wish the world would just stand back and let them annihilate each other. Are there even any 'innocents' caught up in this? Alex Shleizer's unsubscribing makes the point: family ties predetermine which side you will take. Are even children innocent?
FIWF, it's true that family ties are a big part of it. But I would be much more sympathetic to this position if Hamas would have just target military targets and kidnap soldiers (Like it easily could have done), instead of massacring a music festival, killing parents and kidnapping their children and all the other atrocities committed.
I have a distant relative, and elderly women who got murdered at her home by Hamas terrorists. Hamas are unapologetically, Jihadist terror organization that say over and over again that they would like to kill all Jews, and part of a greater movement that wants to fight and conquer all non-Muslim nations. They prosecute gay people, they kill Palestinian political opposition and violate humans rights of other Palestinians routinely, they are all around pretty bad people.
But philosophy bear seems to support them because they are the weaker side. This rule of thumb seems so unserious and leads to such abhorrent results that the only reasonable explanation is that it was chose post-hoc to justify a position that he holds for entirely different reasons. There is room for nuance, but this position is not nuanced - it implicitly justifies any atrocity committed by the Hamas.
> It's not that simple; you cannot ignore the fact that the egg (or the wall) may be morally bad
Can't you? It does not seem dissimilar to opposing the death penalty or prisoner mistreatment even when the prisoners are guilty of genuinely horrid crimes. First stop the strong from doing horrible things to the weak, *then* worry about whether the weak has done some genuinely bad things at a lower scale.
(Reasonable minds can of course disagree about how large the difference between weak and strong needs to be for this to apply; clearly in a war between two roughly-identical countries you shouldn't always support the *slightly*-less-populous one. But the point stands.)