Continuing with the thought from the recent post ...
This is what makes this a really challenging and "hard" issue.
In addition a right view on "the primary issue" needs must includes the long, agonizing history of attempts at reconciliation.
It's important to recognize this challenging aspect -- the issue is highly interdependent and surrounded by a thicket of views. So in all this context I don't accept one-sided seeming views of the particular situation and the meaning of the precepts or dharma as applied to that situation as antiquate to a right view
of the situation.
The wise and compassionate would ask: is this what is called a 'wicked problem'?
The word "wicked" here denotes resistance to resolution, rather than evil.
A wicked problem is a social or cultural problem that is difficult or impossible to solve for as many as four reasons: incomplete or contradictory knowledge, the number of people and opinions involved, the large economic burden, and the interconnected nature of these problems with other problems.
Characteristics of wicked problems include:
* There is no complete template to follow when tackling a wicked problem, although history may provide a guide.
* There is always more than one explanation for a wicked problem, with the appropriateness of the explanation depending greatly on the individual perspective of the designer.
* Solutions to wicked problems can be only good or bad, not true or false. There is no idealized end state to arrive at, and so approaches to wicked problems should be tractable ways to improve a situation
rather than [completely] solve it.
-- https://ssir.org/books/excerpts/entry/w ... th_solving
I believe the author was thinking of a "idealized end state" in the context of it being "hard, maybe impossible, to measure or claim success with wicked problems because they bleed into one another, unlike the boundaries of traditional design problems that can be articulated or defined. "
Which raises the question of this thread and Charbel's insistence that:
Unless this refugee issue is resolved, the agreement with the UAE means nothing from a Dhammic perspective. Buddhism does not support murder, theft, covetous and supporting the lies & denials of evil-doers.
Even through the narrower lens of what Charbel describes as the "the primary issue" harmony with surrounding countries is more than nothing.
Charbel seems to propose a "all or nothing" view which in my judgement is not supported by Buddhist teaching or practical wisdom.
Going further. The assertion about what Buddhism does or doesn't support is troubling.
I'm not sure what the relevance of the last sentence is to the first. Even if the refugees are seen as being free of all murder, theft, covetous, lies etc why would better relations with a neighbor mean nothing?
From a Dhammic perspective it seem that in the immediate situation, the views expressed in this thread, might be tainted by covetous and denial or influenced unduly by lies of others.