Answer by Mario Savioni:
I think “analytic philosophy” specifically is not available to most members as a phenomena. But, the idea of analyzing the conflict, in terms of its origin and our values might reveal a debate, likened to Chomsky’s that would allow for positions on the circumstances. Perhaps, like Chomsky, I believe that the arrival en masse of Israelis ultimately caused the conflict. This is not to say that I am against Israelis. I am not. I understand the horrible events that lead to this reconversion. But, it reminds me of the American Indians and the Colonists. Might should not make right.
In the end, the American Indian will have been vindicated and we will, if we survive as a species, have to integrate ourselves into the biosphere as non-destructive. The other value is that aggression rather than response is the less virtuous. I believe that the Palestinians are fighting for their lives, just as Israelis are causing their own problems.
I left Hawaii because I felt like I didn’t belong, out of respect for the Hawaiian people. I also understand that just as there is racial strife, there will always be racial strife because one’s natural inclinations or dominant traits lord over those who have to adapt or change their natural behaviors. One’s skin color, for example, is not something one can change readily and they shouldn’t have to, but it has been used as an element of differentiation. So, it is human nature to attack those who are perceived as a threat to our way of doing things.
I do not agree with you that, “Analytic philosophy” would get us on the same page, per se, but when we talk about our positions we may see that there are better arguments than others, that, “Cut to the heart of the issues,” schooling not-with-standing.