Intent to Kill

>> But different cultures react to constant threat differently. <<

There is some variation, yes. It's also worth remembering that certain responses have been found across a wide range of populations -- there are assorted ways that constant stress can change the human body, like alterations in brain chemistry. I suspect those cluster more tightly than the outward manifestations.

>> That's the worldview that I, and most Jews, grew up with. <<

*nod* It certainly plays into the current situation.

Given that worldview, killing everyone who's against you actually makes sense.

>> The problem, of course, is that the worldview is wrong. At least partially. But that's what we grow up with, anyway.<<

You have put the problem very succinctly and colorfully. Prevailing and repeated evidence can very easily seem to be uniform and complete evidence, if one is not aware of the tendency for that to happen and willing to put some work into countering it. That is not easy. But if you don't do it, you wind up with this blind spot, and at any time something could fly out of there and cream you because you weren't watching for it, you were watching for this other thing that is usually the danger ... until it wasn't.

My grasp of history, among other things, has left me with a lingering distaste for Germany (among others). But about the third or fourth time I ran across something conspicuously clueful from that part of the world, I thought, "Well, crud, I can't just go on ignoring this -- what if something really important is happening over there?" So I had to start watching for repetitions, and indeed a pattern began to take shape. I'm too much of a world-watcher and pattern-senser and scholar to let it slide indefinitely. It's still uncomfortable, although it's getting less so as the scales start to even out somewhat (to say nothing of my intermittent tendency to piss off German and German-friendly readers). I don't always have the energy or patience to do it, but I keep trying, because I'm considerably less comfortable with too big of a blind spot. I have the advantages of having been knocked around by the world rather less, and an education that also included examples of blindsided disasters.

So then, the question loops back around to, how does a traumatized culture teach itself -- or learn from others -- how to become healthy? How do they do that in a way that revives or grows anew their culture, without simply copying from somebody else a version that may not fit well for them? Because right now, what they've learned is mostly stuff from people they hate, who hate them, who abused them ... and they're repeating the cycle by abusing others in extremely disturbingly similar ways. The cycle of oppression and abuse is terribly difficult to break for precisely that reason: it's self-perpetuating.

That is very similar to another vicious circle, child abuse. How does an abused child who grew up with few or no healthy role models, for whom authority was always or almost always a threat rather than a support ... grow up to become a healthy adult and a nurturing parent? Usually, they don't. The rates of suicide, self-harm, domestic violence, substance abuse, child abuse, and other disasters are notably higher in that population; and the number of "survivors" who are fully functional is very small. Part of that is stunted personality from growing up in a toxic environment; part is lack of skills; and part is physical harm down to very subtle biochemical and brain wiring levels. Some of that can be repaired, sometimes, with a great deal of work; but sometimes the damage is just permanent, beyond any current culture's ability to mend. I'm not sure all of it is treatable even if you assembled all the best options from every culture's trove, and nobody does that. So there the problem is, rolling down the slope of history and crushing people in its path.

I am of two minds on the topic of "helping" other nations or individuals. One premise is that, if someone tells you firmly to leave them alone, you do so, because invading someone else's life usually does more harm than good and can deprive them of necessary learning opportunities. Another is that there's a level of doom beyond which it is not moral to let things continue to get worse, because the damage from unwanted intervention is less than that of what is already happening. I'm not sure where Israel really is on that scale, which means I tend to default to "don't mess with it" if asked. The fact that Israel demands both favors and autonomy alternately ... muddies the water there, and is another symptom of dysfunction.

Two things that are fairly clear in my mind: 1) When an individual or nation is being persistently violent and destructive to self and/or others, outside of self-defense prompted by immediate assault, it is a bad idea to give them more resources for causing further harm. That may not stop them, but it will at least slow them down and maybe buy some time for a more positive outcome to occur. By not contributing to the problem, one also avoids sharing the moral burden for the mayhem. 2) When an individual or nation that's having problems, or has had problems, actually does something right and decent, it is a good idea to shower them with praise in hopes of encouraging further growth in that direction. (YMMV.)

In order to change the people, you have to change the context, i.e. the world. But the world of humanity is made of people; in order to change the world, you have to change the people. Chicken and egg. And the stakes are too high to let that situation continue, forever, without trying to change it -- even if all you can do from where you're at is poke at the complicated steaming mess and ponder how the bits go together, in hopes that someday somebody will think of something.