Modern laws may be more humane in terms of the absence of torture and very strict regulations on the death penalty, but laws exist and are quite severe in terms of years of freedom deprived. Why the need for laws if it wasn't for our immoral tendencies.

Just for the sake of argument, suppose that evil isn't our default moral stance. That would imply that the law and the police are redundant but they're not. Ergo, as I said, evil is a natural tendency. — TheMadFool

For one, laws often account for the outliers and not the mean, because it has to account for a great deal of insecurity. For example, because maybe 0.1% of the population are potential murderers, 100% of the population needs to be subjected to laws against murder, since we don't know who the potential murderers are.

Secondly, I don't see how your argument proves evil is an innate or natural tendency. At most it proves it is a tendency under specific circumstances.

I don't think humans have a natural or innate tendency towards evil.

In the words of Plato; All men desire the Good.

Every person desires what they think is best for them.

The problem is that people's perceptions are hopelessly deluded, for which I think the biggest culprits are upbringing and societal factors.

To respond to your original question;

Pushing too hard generally means to go against the flow of the universe. There's nothing wrong with relaxing and being content to just 'go with the flow'. You may even end up being happier that way!

People don't like to see others give up, maybe because they care for that person and they believe it is in their best interest to push forward.

However, when it is not about empathy it is probably about herd behavior. Many are taught from an early age to start running for the finish line with the promise of a reward at the end. When people notice others have stopped running or have started to run into a different direction that tends to freak us out.

Seems to me that everyone wants to be happy; but, doesn't know at what price that comes. — Wallows

I think most people have no idea what happiness is. It remains some vague idea in their heads, usually related to the possession of material things. Not that they can be blamed too harshly; this is what society teaches us.

If happiness is sought in external things, it truly becomes the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

If happiness is sought internally, suddenly happiness starts looking a lot more like a choice.

I have no disdain for your viewpoint.

I am interested in why you consider those things to be premises of life, which I consider to mean either inescapable or so important that the lack of it results in death.

Are those things really inescapable? Do they really result in death when they are lacking? Or is this what our perceptions, mostly influenced by the sort of society we live in, are pressured into believing?

To respond to your original question, I think it's important to ask oneself whether any of these premises are self-imposed. It may or not may not apply to you specifically, but I have noticed a lot of people who struggle with depression, suicidal ideas, etc. are withering away in a prison of their own construction.

If everyone would just calm down we would breathe slower and put less CO2 in the atmosphere.

Reason.

If you're interested in this topic, which I assume you are, I would really recommend this lecture by Pierre Grimes: The Eleatic School of Parmenides, Zeno, and Melissus

He goes into further detail about the meaning of these texts, and also some of the concepts that need to be understood before one can make sense of them. Time and being, for example.

It's a bit lengthy, but, just like all of Pierre's lectures, well worth it.

Are you suggesting that we may be experiencing other people's thoughts and therefore we cannot definitely state that "I think, therefore I am"? If that's the case, I'd say it depends on one's definition of I.
Even if you were experiencing other people's thoughts, there still must be an entity that is experiencing. A consciousness, not necessarily a physical body.

Maybe I misunderstand the point you are trying to make.

the implication here is presumably that israel needs to kick out its minorities for it to become acceptable in your eyes and only allow jews to become citizens. — BitconnectCarlos

How on Earth did you read my words and come to the conclusion I must find it acceptable for Israel (or any other country for that matter) "to kick its minorities out"? There is no such implication. It's pretty much the exact opposite of what I've been arguing.

If this is the level at which this discussion continues I'm out.

You find the basic laws of israel to be racist. the basic laws set out the very idea, the very concept of the state. they define its purpose and basic ideas. — BitconnectCarlos

The controversial "Nation State Law", also called "Basic Law", is not quite the same as the "basic laws of Israel". The piece of legislature I linked to has been passed in the Knesset in 2018.

could you tell me your version of an acceptable jewish state? — BitconnectCarlos

A state in which minorities are treated with respect and dignity. State practice and law should reflect their presence is legitimate, and not undesirable. Their rights should be the same as any other citizen. I consider such things to be the basis of any proper state.

edit: you admitted earlier that you don't accept the idea of an ethno-state regardless of whether its armenia, kurd, etc. if there's minorities living under it so the implication here is presumably that israel needs to kick out its minorities for it to become acceptable in your eyes and only allow jews to become citizens. — BitconnectCarlos

If that's what you think I'm implying you are an absolute fool.

Just to be clear here, you're saying that the mere existence of a Jewish state constitutes oppression and discrimination. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm not saying that at all. Read again.

In any case, if Jews were to lose power then the Arabs would take control and Jews would once again be second class citizens as they are in other Arab countries and open themselves up to the possibility of massacres as they have faced in the past. — BitconnectCarlos

In such a scenario, do you think it would help if Israel had a century of antagonizing Arabs under its belt? I think that only sparks more hate, making retaliation more likely, rather than co-existence.

"I can be mean to them because they would be mean to me" is a mindset that will never create a better future. It will only repeat the mistakes of the past.

In a "best" case scenario, the law I cited constitutes a institutional violation of fundamental human rights.

Article 1c)

"The exercise of the right to national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish People."

https://knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/BasicLawNationState.pdf

This clearly excludes Arabs and Muslims. 20% of Israel's population. Self-determination is a fundamental human right.

Also, you haven't answered my question.

How exactly would the oppression and discrimination of minorities contribute to that security?

There is no collective white identity. It's funny you choose white here.... what about black? Asian? How about Kurdish or Armenian? — BitconnectCarlos

This is irrelevant.

If kurdistan or armenia became a nation and it was focused on securing kurdish/armenian existence and the rights of kurds/armenians would that be racist to you? — BitconnectCarlos

If Kurdistan or Armenia included ethnic groups which are distinctly different from the other Kurds or Armenians then yes, certainly. Especially when they combine it with violating their fundamental human rights on a large scale.

Which (in the case of UN) have been a) at start been voluntarily accepted by them and b) not usually not de facto enforced if the state don't follow when the states have powerful backers and/or militaries, like in the case of Israel. — ssu

"At the start" is key here. The responsibilities may have been voluntarily taken up initially, today following international law is no longer voluntary, and breaking international law risks consequences, military or other. Enforcement is indeed a more complicated issue, though.

I would argue that basically nation states are far more powerful than they appear. They could opt for the route of North Korea and seclude themselves from the global community, but that would be catastrophic for their economies. But if they can control their territory, one basic requisite for being a functioning state, they would be left alone. One really has to be truly a dysfunctional country for others to intervene with force. The fact is that co-operation among peers is absolutely essential, starting from as obvious examples of trade and commerce. — ssu

Agreed.

Let's think about basics for a moment. National sovereignty comes from other states recognizing the independence of a state. If any other state doesn't recognize an independence declaration, there is no sovereign state. It really is a system of peers and 'peer-review'. — ssu

Well, there's a fair amount of debate about what constitutes a state. Within international law and international relations the definition of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States is commonly used. It states that a state must have the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Therefore, a state really only needs to be recognized by one other state in order to fulfill this criterion. Furthermore it states that the political existence of a state (including its sovereignty?) is independent of recognition by the other states, which complicates the matter further.

Though, I'm not sure where you're going with this. Cooperation generally leads to prosperity, sure.

Some would argue my question answers yours, and your question answers mine.

My use of the word "forfeited" was inaccurate, but its not integral to the point I'm trying to make, namely that there are rules that states have to follow. State sovereignty is no longer seen as merely a nation's right to handle its internal affairs.

This has been addressed in the document I linked earlier, which I had hoped you would read.

Under article 1.35:

"The defence of state sovereignty, by even its strongest supporters, does not include any claim of the unlimited power of a state to do what it wants to its own people. [...] It is acknowledged that sovereignty implies a dual responsibility. Externally - to respect the sovereignty of other states, and internally, to respect the dignity and basic rights of all people within the state. In international human rights covenants, in UN practice, and in state practice itself, sovereignty is now understood as embracing this dual responsibility."

And article 2.14:

"The Charter of the UN is itself an example of an international obligation voluntarily accepted by member states. On one hand, in granting membership of the UN, the international community welcomes the signatory state as a responsible member of the community of nations. On the other hand, the state itself, in signing the Charter, accepts the responsibilities of membership flowing from that signature. There is no transfer or dilution of state sovereignty. But there is a necessary re-characterization involved: from sovereignty as control to sovereignty as responsibility in both internal functions and external duties."

Further, under article 2.29:

"Secondly, the responsibility to protect acknowledges that the primary responsibility in this regard rests with the state concerned, and it is only if the state is unable or unwilling to fulfill this responsibility, or is itself the perpetrator, that it becomes the responsibility of the international community to act in its place."

http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/ICISS%20Report.pdf


In other words, nations have responsibilities and have to follow rules. If they don't, it becomes the responsibility of the international community to put an end to their malpractices. What states write in their constitutions is irrelevant in this matter.

If you were to point out that certain states are too powerful to stop, you would of course be right. However, this doesn't change the fact that the UN holds authority over these states. Some states are too weak to battle organized crime, but that doesn't make the criminals the new authority in a legal sense.

The real question is; what happens when we experience mind itself, turning observer and observed into the same object?

An authority that depends on the authorization of a council of the great powers does not seem to me to be independent. — David Mo

The activity of the UN is decided in the Security Council. The rest, words. — David Mo

I don't see how this is relevant.

A similar thing could be said about every healthy democracy.

... the UN is made of sovereign states that decide what to do with the organization. — ssu

I wouldn't put it that way. When the UN was created sovereign states forfeited a part of their sovereignty by becoming members. The UN has grown as time has passed and its authority now extends also to non-member states, meaning that leaving the UN does not necessarily return all of that sovereignty to the state.

Hence the rules are decided by peers called sovereign states. There is nothing illogical in that. There is a difference between: a) sovereign states agreeing on the rules and b) there being an universal authority that would say it represents all the people in the World and thus has power over the old nation states. — ssu

I would compare the UN to a democratic government, but a government nonetheless. The way you are describing the UN makes it sound like a form of multilateral agreement (a), when in fact the UN has become a supranational organization; an organization with authority over states (more like b).

I didn't say there was anything illogical about it, by the way.

The UN has the authority to intervene even if the intervened state doesn't agree. This would be considered a sanctioned breach of that state's sovereignty.

One of the documents in which this is written down and explained (including a paragraph about state sovereignty in the modern era) is the Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty on the Responsibility to Protect.

First of all, nations do not have rights over individuals. — David Mo

And just what institution would have the authority to say so? Nations have sovereignty, that is how they are defined. They can make agreements between each other (co-operate through UN etc), but that is more like a mutual agreement among peers, not an abdication of their sovereingty. — ssu

Unfortunately, universal authority is practically non-existent in international politics. — David Mo

I'd like to point out that the UN has a large amount of authority over nations. There's such a thing as state sovereignty, but there's also things like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the latter takes priority over the former in legal terms.

If a country is doing something that's illegal under international law, the UN has the legal authority to prosecute them and even invade them if the situation demands it.

Of course, the UN does not have an army and relies on other nations to provide troops. That makes the exercise of authority difficult in certain cases, but it does have that authority.

Its authority even extends to non-member states.

If you're mad about the wall then I'm sorry but that's what happens when you repeatedly blow yourself up at bars and repeatedly go on stabbing sprees against civilians. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, that's of course the excuse that is put forward. However, it is blatantly obvious that the West Bank Barrier is being used to 1) annex Palestinian territories, 2) bully Palestinians into leaving by making every day life impossible or simply by demolishing their houses.

You cannot explain the location of the wall, which is illegal in every respect where it is built on territory that doesn't belong to Israel, by pointing at security.

Furthermore, you cannot punish innocent people for the actions of a radical minority. That constitutes collective punishment, which is illegal under international law. And for good reason.

Oh, and the Israelis as well the US (the Palestinians won't directly deal with the Israelis) have offered self-determination the Palestinians many times among...I believe the past 3 administrations: Clinton, Bush, and Obama. The Palestinians have zero interest. — BitconnectCarlos

The Palestinian leadership is terribly inept. That much is self-evident. However, Israel has actively worked to make a two-state solution an impossibility and has been condemned for doing so by the UN.

"Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions,

Stressing that the status quo is not sustainable and that significant steps, consistent with the transition contemplated by prior agreements, are urgently needed in order to (i) stabilize the situation and to reverse negative trends on the ground, which are steadily eroding the two-State solution and entrenching a one-State reality, and (ii) to create the conditions for successful final status negotiations and for advancing the two-State solution through those negotiations and on the ground, ..."

https://www.un.org/webcast/pdfs/SRES2334-2016.pdf

You're a fool to portray Israel as a honest broker in this scenario.

No Israel isn't perfect, but Arabs are allowed to vote and have political representation in the government. They have freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Jews are arrested in Israel for committing crimes against Arabs. — BitconnectCarlos

.And they are actively discriminated against. Have you followed the recent law changes adopted by the Knesset? These further stipulate that Israel is a nation for Jews, not Arabs.

https://knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/BasicLawNationState.pdf

You realize how discriminatory this is? Imagine if the following was part of the United States constitution:

"North America is the historical homeland of white people, in which the United States was established."

"The United States is the nation state of white people, in which it realizes its natural, cultural, religious and historical right to self-determination."

"The exercise of the right to national self-determination in the United States is unique to white people."

"The State shall be open for white immigration."

Under "Connection to white people", article 6:

"The State shall strive to ensure the safety of white people and of its citizens, who are in trouble and in captivity, due to their whiteness or otherwise."

Under "White people settlement", article 7:

"The State views the development of white people's settlement as a national value, and shall act to encourage and promote its establishment and strengthening."

Lets imagine you're a black man reading this. Does that sound racist to you? It should, because it is.

If aliens were to listen in and go by the UN, they would believe Israel is by far the worst country on the face of the planet. — BitconnectCarlos

An unanimous vote by the UN equals the whole world, including many countries that support Israel, condemning something. I don't know what that means to you, and how you still manage to dodge the blatantly obvious: it is unacceptable.

If you believe otherwise, then please start explaining how violating human rights and international law can be justified and I will happily tear that argument apart.

Under Obama.

One example is UNSCR 2334 which was adopted 14 votes to 0 in 2016. The US abstained from voting instead of vetoing it.

An excerpt:

"... Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions, ..."

https://www.un.org/webcast/pdfs/SRES2334-2016.pdf

Read the whole thing. It is not very long, but it speaks volumes.

I'm not against Israel. I am against decades of human rights violations and breaches of international law. it is Israel who has impeded the right of self-determination of the Palestinians for decades through their military occupation, discriminatory laws and the construction of walls and settlements in territory that wasn't theirs.

And it isn't just me who is saying this. Virtually the whole world has condemned Israel's actions in this regard. UNSCR 1544, for example. Here are some passages:

"... Reiterating the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of12 August 1949,

Calling on Israel to address its security needs within the boundaries of international law,

Expressing its grave concern at the continued deterioration of the situation on the ground in the territory occupied by Israel since 1967,

Condemning the killing of Palestinian civilians that took place in the Rafah area,

Gravely concerned by the recent demolition of homes committed by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Rafah refugee camp, ..."

http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/doc/1544

Or the rapport of the UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. I recommend you read the conclusion. Page 21-25.

https://www.refworld.org/docid/4aeeba692.html

Or the rulings by the International Court of Justice on the topic of the construction of the West Bank Barrier. here's an excerpt;

"Turning to the question of the legality under international law of the construction of the wall by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Court first determined the rules and principles of international law relevant to the question posed by the General Assembly. After recalling the customary principles laid down in Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter and in General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), which prohibit the threat or use of force and emphasize the illegality of any territorial acquisition by such means, the Court further cited the principle of self-determination of peoples, as enshrined in the Charter and reaffirmed by resolution 2625 (XXV). In relation to international humanitarian law, the Court then referred to the provisions of the Hague Regulations of 1907, which it found to have become part of customary law, as well as to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, holding that these were applicable in those Palestinian territories which, before the armed conflict of 1967, lay to the east of the 1949 Armistice demarcation line (or “Green Line”) and were occupied by Israel during that conflict. The Court further established that certain human rights instruments (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child) were applicable in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

The Court then sought to ascertain whether the construction of the wall had violated the above-mentioned rules and principles. Noting that the route of the wall encompassed some 80 per cent of the settlers living in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Court, citing statements by the Security Council in that regard in relation to the Fourth Geneva Convention, recalled that those settlements had been established in breach of international law. After considering certain fears expressed to it that the route of the wall would prejudge the future frontier between Israel and Palestine, the Court observed that the construction of the wall and its associated régime created a “fait accompli” on the ground that could well become permanent, and hence tantamount to a de facto annexation. Noting further that the route chosen for the wall gave expression in loco to the illegal measures taken by Israel with regard to Jerusalem and the settlements and entailed further alterations to the demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Court concluded that the construction of the wall, along with measures taken previously, severely impeded the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination and was thus a breach of Israel’s obligation to respect that right."

https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/131

I could go on like this forever.

Throughout all of this, the United States has ensured Israel was able to continue its malpractices, for example through using its veto to block resolutions. However even the United States have forced Israel to stop its violations of human rights and international law on certain occasions. — Tzeentch

I'll take that as a "no."

Take it from someone who has studied and visited both Israel and Palestine as part of an academic education that Israel is nothing like the European countries you compared it to, and that standings on the Human Development Index are highly politicized.

Israel's laws have definitively made it an apartheid-state, to refresh:

"Apartheid refers to the implementation and maintenance of a system of legalized racial segregation in which one racial group is deprived of political and civil rights. Apartheid is a crime against humanity punishable under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court."

This also means Israel is no longer a democracy by definition.

The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights made the following statements about it:

"The Committee urges the State party to review the Basic Law with a view to bringing it in line with the Covenant or repealing it and to step up its efforts to eliminate discrimination faced by non-Jews in enjoying the Covenant rights, particularly rights of self-determination,non-discrimination and cultural rights."

Israel is far from okay.

I could go on citing examples, legal documents and statements by NGOs, but I'm not going to. If this doesn't get through to you, nothing will and I am wasting my time.

I have a hard time understand why any neutral third party would be so opposed to jewish self-determination. that's really all zionism is... it's not about being mean to the palestinians it's just about jewish self determination and in turn preventing these types of massacres. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm not against Israel. I am against decades of human rights violations and breaches of international law. it is Israel who has impeded the right of self-determination of the Palestinians for decades through their military occupation, discriminatory laws and the construction of walls and settlements in territory that wasn't theirs.

And it isn't just me who is saying this. Virtually the whole world has condemned Israel's actions in this regard. UNSCR 1544, for example. Here are some passages:

"... Reiterating the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of12 August 1949,

Calling on Israel to address its security needs within the boundaries of international law,

Expressing its grave concern at the continued deterioration of the situation on the ground in the territory occupied by Israel since 1967,

Condemning the killing of Palestinian civilians that took place in the Rafah area,

Gravely concerned by the recent demolition of homes committed by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Rafah refugee camp, ..."

http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/doc/1544

Or the rapport of the UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. I recommend you read the conclusion. Page 21-25.

https://www.refworld.org/docid/4aeeba692.html

Or the rulings by the International Court of Justice on the topic of the construction of the West Bank Barrier. here's an excerpt;

"Turning to the question of the legality under international law of the construction of the wall by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Court first determined the rules and principles of international law relevant to the question posed by the General Assembly. After recalling the customary principles laid down in Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter and in General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), which prohibit the threat or use of force and emphasize the illegality of any territorial acquisition by such means, the Court further cited the principle of self-determination of peoples, as enshrined in the Charter and reaffirmed by resolution 2625 (XXV). In relation to international humanitarian law, the Court then referred to the provisions of the Hague Regulations of 1907, which it found to have become part of customary law, as well as to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, holding that these were applicable in those Palestinian territories which, before the armed conflict of 1967, lay to the east of the 1949 Armistice demarcation line (or “Green Line”) and were occupied by Israel during that conflict. The Court further established that certain human rights instruments (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child) were applicable in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

The Court then sought to ascertain whether the construction of the wall had violated the above-mentioned rules and principles. Noting that the route of the wall encompassed some 80 per cent of the settlers living in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Court, citing statements by the Security Council in that regard in relation to the Fourth Geneva Convention, recalled that those settlements had been established in breach of international law. After considering certain fears expressed to it that the route of the wall would prejudge the future frontier between Israel and Palestine, the Court observed that the construction of the wall and its associated régime created a “fait accompli” on the ground that could well become permanent, and hence tantamount to a de facto annexation. Noting further that the route chosen for the wall gave expression in loco to the illegal measures taken by Israel with regard to Jerusalem and the settlements and entailed further alterations to the demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Court concluded that the construction of the wall, along with measures taken previously, severely impeded the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination and was thus a breach of Israel’s obligation to respect that right."

https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/131

I could go on like this forever.

Throughout all of this, the United States has ensured Israel was able to continue its malpractices, for example through using its veto to block resolutions. However even the United States have forced Israel to stop its violations of human rights and international law on certain occasions.

Things are quite OK for Israel. — ssu

Have you ever been to Israel?

immigration levels were at a relatively low level during that time (1929). — BitconnectCarlos

Compared to when?

there are plenty of massacres of jews that occurred before zionism even took force. the idea that the jews were pretty much safe and good until zionism started is just a blatant falsehood. — BitconnectCarlos

Incidents occur anywhere, between all kinds of societies. Again, it is the game that you play where you consider this sort of thing unique to Jews to justify Zionism.

Foolish or not, that is the line.

You could argue that it's also foolish to occupy a country, because a financial backer of a terrorist strike lived there (but otherwise the country's regime had no involvement in the terrorist attack). That only the numbers of killed made an otherwise police matter so different that the country eagerly went to war and later invading another country that had absolutely nothing to do with the terrorist strike (and no WMD project whatsoever). Yet that's the reality. — ssu

I'm not sure what you're getting at. In both cases things haven't worked out. The US has been humiliated in its failure to bring two third-world countries (Iraq and Afghanistan) to their knees, and Israel has been struggling with conflict ever since its independence, forcing it to take evermore draconian measures against its own population and the Palestinians.

It seems reality has a way of getting the last laugh.

Of all the excesses, shootings, demolitions of homes and etc. in the Occupied Territories, there still are Jews killed by Palestinians. — ssu

And there are Palestinians killed by Jews.
Every innocent killed in an act of violence is terrible, certainly. Keeping tabs with an 'eye for an eye' mentality will surely never result in a solution.

Now you are just ranting.

Here is why you are wrong in the way you frame the problem.

Firstly, you assume the violence was anti-Semitic in nature, while politics played a much larger role in it than you care to admit. Zionism was a large factor in the shape those politics took on, because it was clear that Jews were immigrating to Palestine with the intention of claiming it. Moreover, large amounts of weapons were being smuggled into the country and armed paramilitary organizations like the Haganah were operating to turn that dream into a reality.

Secondly, you assume that this must mean that Jews and Arabs hated each other during this period, which is false. There was unrest, but it was mainly the political leadership that used every incident as a way to vilify the other side. This was necessary, because they were preparing for their power plays. The Zionists wanted to claim Palestine and the Arab leadership obviously had their own plans for filling up the power-vacuum the Brits and French left behind.

You are playing the same game as the Zionists did during that time:
1. There is an incident.
2. That incident is labeled by the political elite as being ethnically/religiously motivated.
3. According to the political elite that proves coexistence is impossible and Jews need their own state.
4. That legitimizes Zionism.

The victims of the 1929 Hebron massacre would like a word with you.

Hundreds of arabs walked down a residential street with knives and tools and went from door to door murdering the jewish families - men, women, and children. the women were raped. it was deliberate and encouraged by the grand mufti of jerusalem, but i guess who really cares i mean they were zionists right? — BitconnectCarlos

The 1929 massacre is indeed a very popular incident which people refer to to justify Zionism. It has been notoriously exploited in pro-Zionist propaganda, and has been used ever since to drive a wedge between Jews and Arabs.

Zionism is much older than that, however, and in 1929 Zionist paramilitary organizations like the Haganah were already operating in Palestine. The shape Zionism took in that period is exactly what caused old tensions to reignite.

While the murder of innocents is a horrible thing, it is misleading to refer to this incident as a standard for Jewish-Arab relations during the period, nor should it be regarded as an act of random violence.

I argue that Zionism is a minor issue (as the state of Israel already exists) and that the implemented policies are driven by the security viewpoint, not by an ideology. — ssu

It's a foolish argument.

International law often leaves room when it comes to military necessity. As such, whenever Israel breaches international law, and it makes quite a habit of it, it claims there is such a necessity. They used to put forward other arguments, such as claiming sovereignty over territories that weren't theirs (like the West Bank), but these were taken apart over the years and military necessity is all that they have left.

These attempts at using military necessity as an excuse for human rights violations and breaches of international law have also been dismissed by the International Court of Justice on numerous occasions.

The Israeli government (the right-wing parts, of course) isn't concerned about security. They are concerned about painting Israel/Palestine in the colors of the Israeli flag. That's why they continually expand the West Bank Barrier to encompass more territory that isn't theirs. That's why they do not take action against the illegal Jewish settlements and instead use them to claim more pieces of the West Bank. Laws that discriminate against Palestinians and allow the Israeli state to put them in chains for however long it wants, without having to file any sort of charges and without giving them an opportunity to talk with a legal representative or even their own family, does that sound like a security measure to you, or does that sound like systematic oppression?

They make every effort to make life impossible for Palestinian communities, only to resettle those areas when they finally leave.

This is the policy of Likud, Netanyahu and his ilk. What happened when their enemy, Rabin, finally managed to take steps towards peace? They offed him.

Where should the Jews go, though? — Noah Te Stroete

I don't see why they couldn't live in Palestine/Israel. They have lived there alongside other religions in relative peace, until people starting getting funny ideas about who else was allowed to live there.

Sentiments such as "All white people are seeking to oppress me" or "all men are dangerous" are based on sweeping and dysfunctional generalizations and belong in exactly the same category as statements like "all women want is money". Such generalizations are indicative of a thought-pattern of someone who has emotionally been hurt or has an inferiority complex.

And I believe that's what we may be seeing in action, especially among the more fanatical of these groups. Self-hate often manifests as hate for the other. It is they themselves who identify very strongly with a specific group in society and have come to regard it as inferior. That's why "radical" feminists want women to be more like men. They admire men and their achievements, and regard women and women's achievements as inferior.

Why did an activist group like Nation of Islam seek to revise history to give black people a more prominent role? Because their perception was that black people's role in history was inferior to that of other societies. They were fighting themselves. Their own perception.

As you see there are two dimensions to this:
1. The subject identifies very strongly with a specific group, like male, female, black, or white.
2. The subject perceives the group they identify with to be inferior.
Notice, both are undertaken by the subject, and in both cases one can ask what exactly it entails and why it takes place.

Of course, the mind is masterful in playing tricks on itself. The last thing it wants to do is admit its own faults and would much rather project those on someone else. Thus, our present situation is born.

Propaganda is misinformation — Baden

Maybe I am nitpicking here, but this is not the case. While some propaganda certainly is false, much of it is true information framed in a certain way. In fact, the most effective propaganda belongs to this category, precisely because it does not convey falsehoods and often goes unnoticed. Infamous propagandists like Goebbels knew all too well about this distinction.

I would say that to the degree the rhetorician engages in honest, rational debate with his opponent, there is a clear distinction. The more a rhetorician uses linguistic or psychological tricks, or other kinds of manipulation, the lines between rhetoric and propaganda become more blurred.

The human rights violations perpetrated by the state of Israel are many and well-documented, in more than a few cases through resolutions being unanimously agreed upon by the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly.

There are very, very few countries who can make this boast. If anything, it should tell you that there's something very wrong with the way Israel conducts its business.

Protecting oneself isn't a moral question, but a function of life.

I don't think intervening when someone is about to be harmed is a means to "force morals upon someone", but rather stopping a person from doing so. Of course, there are many ways one could intervene, and certainly there are immoral ways to intervene.

Well this might happen More often than you think. Governments often make many moral decisions on behalf of their constituency: gay marriage, voting rights for blacks, for instance. And the pressure applied to South African over apartheid was certainly moral.

If seems to me that if you live in a democratic system then you are also required morally to go along with the decision. Though it might be debatable in those circumstances that a moral is being forced upon someone, because in those circumstances they’re in agreement with the system that applies the moral. — Brett

When one is in agreement with the morals being applied, I would not consider it 'forcing'. But yes, a lot of what governments do could be considered immoral according to the view I shared. When it is doing so in order to stop a 'greater evil' from occurring, I consider it a necessary evil at best.

So Alice is about to kill someone when Bob stops her because Bob thinks killings like that are immoral. Bob is therefore immoral, for forcing his morals upon Alice? — Pfhorrest

I don't think murder is a very good example to be used in this context. A person, or someone on their behalf, has a right to protect themselves when they are physically threatened. That can't be considered as "forcing one's morals upon another".