Comments on: In conflicts over beliefs and values, symbolic gestures matter more than reason or money

By: Ford

Ford — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:40:42 +0000

I wonder how someone who would be outraged at a “bribe” might respond to policies that reward “the enemy” when they themselves misbehave. If every Israeli killed by Palestinians meant a million dollar increase in US aid to Israel, would that deter attacks? What if every Palestinian civilian killed by Israeli military action meant a similar decrease in aid to Israel? (In both cases, we’d need to be sure the aid wasn’t spent on weapons.) Imagine extremists on both sides thinking “they deserve to die, but killing them actually makes their side stronger.” Seems like this might calm things down, even though it’s obviously not a complete solution.

By: Miklos Hollender

Miklos Hollender — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 12:11:06 +0000

What’s so surprising about it? For those whom participation in a conflict is a moral duty, the whole basis of their dedication is the belief that the enemy consists of utterly despicable villains. Such gestures shake the very foundation of that belief. It entirely fits common sense and everyday experience.
I think there are two kinds of social sciences: one that’s utter nonsense and one that just reaffirms we’ve always known from common sense and experience. The later is the better one, this is why I like this blog. You are just reinventing common sense – but even that’s much better than others who try to challenge common sense.

By: max hodges

max hodges — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 17:23:10 +0000

“Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing the right thing.”
–Issac Asimov

By: Pierce R. Butler

Pierce R. Butler — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 00:23:23 +0000

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is very much (though not entirely) about solid physical land: just take a look at these maps (as compared to the standard western-media version at the top of this post).

By: Ed Yong

Ed Yong — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 23:42:46 +0000

Yismith – I value your firsthand experience but I think you’re reading the paper unfairly.
The goal of the researchers was to understand an aspect of human psychology. The Israeli-Palestine conflict provided a relevant backdrop that allowed them to do so. But it was just that – a backdrop. They did not set out to explain the current conflict. If they had, I would agree with you that it would be a very oversimplified take.

By: yismith

yismith — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 22:12:57 +0000

This post hits rather close to home. I live in a part of Israel that may would call the ‘occupied territories’. I moved here two years ago after having lived 16 years in northern Israel. We left there in the course of (but not as a result of) the Second Lebanon War. Katyusha rockets fell in the dozens on my home town for the duration of the war. Much as been happening to towns within internationally recognized Israeli boarders near Gaza.
I actually consider myself somewhat moderate over here. It still seems to me that Israel has made an endless career of symbolic and real tangible gestures to a people that just continuously throw it back in our faces. Over 3000 missiles and rockets have been fired into Israel from Gaza over the last two years since our departure from there. After all of our gestures the Palestinians (not even the moderate ones) have taken the trouble to:
1. Remove from their government charter the imperative to destroy the ‘Zionist Entity’.
2. desist from educating their children towards hatred of Jews (see their educational textbooks)
3. Include Israeli boarders on any map in textbooks or news agencies.
The list goes on. The point is, there has been no real bidirectional peace process over here, just the Israelis giving for nothing in return.
I feel that the paper you summarized is yet another oversimplification of an extremely complicated situation that just glazes over too much history to be taken seriously.

By: Lilian Nattel

Lilian Nattel — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 19:44:54 +0000

Fascinating and timely. I am seeing this same sort of division played out right now in various discussion formats online, blogs and list-serves, both political and ostensibly non-political, in which the mid-East situation is being vehemently discussed. Often conflicts are talked about in terms of pragmatics and the underlying beliefs about self & other are never exposed and examined. In a much less violent context, for example: lawns. Beliefs about what it says about yourself and your community underpin environmental conflicts but the discourse often hides those underneath the issues of jobs, crime, vermin, health--whether those are factual or not. If only we could understand each other's beliefs, sympathetic gestures might eventually lead to the possibility of pragmatic solutions.