The difficulty with that thought experiment is that it entirely relies on your intuition about the parties involved. All it really tells you is who you like better.
The difficulty with that thought experiment is that it entirely relies on your intuition about the parties involved. All it really tells you is who you like better.
Saying that you are relying on intuition to answer this question is the same thing as saying you just don't know the answer. That's fair enough - if you really don't have anything else to go on, then it's not a helpful experiment at all.
But there is often evidence to go on. Was there peace recently that was broken, where the circumstances were clear? If it was 50 years ago it's probably not much use. If there are credible accusations that the breaking of peace was provoked, then it's not much use. But sometimes it's fairly clear who broke the peace and why. Sometimes they tell you!
You can try taking each side at their word. In Northern Ireland, the UK government always claimed that they only wanted peace and the rule of law. On the other hand, the IRA made no such pretence - their stated goal was the removal the UK government from the island. Were both sides telling the truth about their goals? Hard to say, probably not 100%. But saying that you would have nothing but intuition to go on here would be ignoring some pretty strong evidence.
Then make the case with the evidence rather than an appeal to your, or others, imagination.
If we look at this specific instance, we find copious evidence of Israel making war on the Palestinians if they resist, and using racist violence under a brutal apartheid regime to slowly strangle them if they collaborate.
Israel has invaded every neighbor it shares a border with multiple times, and violated those borders innumerable times. But the people appealing to imagination are not thinking, and do not want their readers to think, about any of that. They want you to think the brown people are savage and fanatical, and the white people in suits are sane and reasonable and just want to be left alone.
The difficulty with that thought experiment is that it entirely relies on your intuition about the parties involved. All it really tells you is who you like better.
Saying that you are relying on intuition to answer this question is the same thing as saying you just don't know the answer. That's fair enough - if you really don't have anything else to go on, then it's not a helpful experiment at all.
But there is often evidence to go on. Was there peace recently that was broken, where the circumstances were clear? If it was 50 years ago it's probably not much use. If there are credible accusations that the breaking of peace was provoked, then it's not much use. But sometimes it's fairly clear who broke the peace and why. Sometimes they tell you!
You can try taking each side at their word. In Northern Ireland, the UK government always claimed that they only wanted peace and the rule of law. On the other hand, the IRA made no such pretence - their stated goal was the removal the UK government from the island. Were both sides telling the truth about their goals? Hard to say, probably not 100%. But saying that you would have nothing but intuition to go on here would be ignoring some pretty strong evidence.
Then make the case with the evidence rather than an appeal to your, or others, imagination.
If we look at this specific instance, we find copious evidence of Israel making war on the Palestinians if they resist, and using racist violence under a brutal apartheid regime to slowly strangle them if they collaborate.
Israel has invaded every neighbor it shares a border with multiple times, and violated those borders innumerable times. But the people appealing to imagination are not thinking, and do not want their readers to think, about any of that. They want you to think the brown people are savage and fanatical, and the white people in suits are sane and reasonable and just want to be left alone.