Writer's Block: Love or be loved?

[Error: unknown template qotd]

I've seen so many different relationships and relationship dynamics that I can only conclude the following to be true.

"To each their own".

People are different, they are all unique individuals. What each person seeks in a relationship is unique to them and to their situation and to that stage of their life and to so many different factors that attempting to guess even a fraction of those would be impossible.

If one individual is so infinitely variable in needs and desires, then compound that by combining two individuals...


Long story short, that question is staggeringly meaningless. The idea that a relationship is an adversarial contest, or that both partners are competing for the same thing (in this case dominance/control) or even seeking the same thing...all of that is just a stereotype that barely fits even a minuscule fraction of relationships.


My advice would be to look at each relationship without obscuring it with others, and look at it in light of the individuals involved. No stereotypes, no analogies, no simplifications...just look and just think. There is no guide book or score card.

Musings from about a quarter of a century ago.

When I was a child, my family had a tradition of going for a fortnight of camping on the coast. Part of that tradition was talks around the campfire. And naturally part of such discussions was solving world problems, probably call that "armchair diplomacy" much like armchair coaches.

Anyway, one topic that cropped up more than once was the perpetual conflicts in Gaza. Israel and Palestine, at each other's throats, generation after generation.

Roughly a quarter of a century ago, I offered a child's perspective on the entire issue. "It's wrong for military forces to target civilians, anyone who does it is wrong, there is never any excuse."

Now, immediately people advocating various sides started offering their justifications for armed forces deliberately targeting civilians. Like "it's OK for palestinian freedom fighters to kill Israeli citizens because Israel's army kills so many Palestinian civilians" and "palestinian terrorists hide among palestinians citizens and use them as human shields...so the civilians harbouring the terrorists make themselves legitimate targets". "Israel are an occupying force so their civilians deserve to die" and "palestinians support the terrorists so they deserve to die" and so on...the inhumanity of the people advocating either side is one of the two things they have in common. That and the desire to wipe-out the other 'side' be they armed or non-combatants.

This stance of mine that I am on the side of the non-combatants puts me in the unusual position of being frequently criticised and insulted by both sides. Ironically, that's the same problem the Palestinian non-combatants and Israeli non-combatants face. They both want an end to the fighting and any attempt at peace is opposed by the militant factions of both nations.

But, no. Simply put, no. It is never acceptable for military forces or paramilitary forces to target civilians. It doesn't matter what lame excuse someone uses to justify it, what inhuman arguments or what casual disregard for the value of life...no. It doesn't matter if it is indirect-targting or direct targeting either.

It comes down to this one simple fact. It is never acceptable for any military force or paramilitary force to target civilians. Sadly in the last quarter century nothing, absolutely nothing, has changed. I just felt the need to set the record straight on that matter.


P.S. To all the pro-Israel or pro-Palestine advocates out there...I have no interest in how you justify the atrocities committed by your chosen side upon the innocent civilians of the other side. If you don't oppose the targeting of non-combatants, then you have nothing to say that I need to hear or haven't heard before.