That's why I didn't understand why you mentioned March/April 2022 in relation to the Israel-Palestine issue. — Tzeentch

Ok, I got mixed up, I thought you were referring to this below, which you weren't. Case cleared.

Mabrlesheimer about Israel and Hamas conflict:

How he depicts Gaza is correct. He is also correct that the US isn't able to pressure Israel for a two state solution and Israel will never accept a two-state solution. Yes, that train has left the station. — ssu

Yes, and one way to look at this is the difference between a right and a legitimate interest. Interests can come into conflict and must be balanced, but we usually do not think of rights in that manner. So your example of eminent domain requires a settlement, a balancing of interests based on various contingencies. Both parties have a justified cause, and some sort of compromise must be reached.

a balancing of interests based on various contingencies. — Leontiskos

You may not see what I added:

Someone STOLE your olive groves! No amount of compensation will allay your indignation over this! If your great grandchildren rape and pillage those who you think STOLE your olive groves that is the Great Devastation, is something off with this myth? Does it even seem reasonable anymore or has it morphed into something else? — schopenhauer1

Thanks, I did miss that addition. Yes, and those entrenched spats make these political situations exponentially more complex. So I think you are right, but given that I am trying to avoid these "exponentially more complex" facets of the thread lest I get sucked in too deep, I will say no more on this issue of generational grudges. :razz:

Sorry did you have a response?

I don't see any difference between Israel and a country ruled by the Quran. — javi2541997

Of course you don't.

So I think you are right — Leontiskos

:up:

but given that I am trying to avoid these "exponentially more complex" facets of the thread lest I get sucked in too deep, I will say no more on this issue of generational grudges. :razz: — Leontiskos

Eh c'mon you can do it. You had a line of thought.. Follow it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/17jpxn5/israeli_tank_firing_upon_civilian_car_upon/

I would be naive if I thought Israel had any reasonable systems involved to hold these men responsible for shooting a rocket at people they knew were civilians. Maybe I'm naive in thinking they weren't ordered to do just that by their superiors.

Fuck this.

I think we are probably in agreement, but in order to argue for your position and propose mediation for the conflict of interests, I would need to descend into the various contingent factors of the situation on the ground. I don't have the time or energy for that descent at the moment. Do I think the Palestinians need to start putting the past behind them and stop justifying the unjustifiable? Yep. Am I willing to argue the details and extent of this with those who are strongly in favor of Palestine? Nope. Not every battle is mine to fight, even when I am in agreement. I wish you luck, though. :halo:

Maybe, just maybe, if the West stops interfering in all these countries enough stability will arise for them to actually make social progress? Just an idea. — Benkei

It's peculiar that the west, the very culture that invented "social progress", the only culture in history that has achieved any relevant sustaining success in matters of "social progress", is supposed to be the very thing preventing "social progress" in certain nonwestern cultures that despise and hate everything about western culture (including the idea of "social progress").

It is even more peculiar to think that if the so-called Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory was ended, the Palestinians would miraculously become concerned with the rights of women or LGBTQ's without some form of culturally oppressive intervention from the west.

So the left has a dilemma, it can either support the oppressed Palestinians against the tyrannical Israeli colonizers while dispensing of any concern for the evils of antisemitism or the rights of women and LGBTQ's within Palestinian territory. Or, the left can support a western culture that actively defends the human rights of classically oppressed groups within its very own territory while disregarding its occupation of a place that has a clear record of oppressing its own people (particularly women and LGBTQ's).

From what we've seen thus far, it appears that the left couldn't give two shits about the fate of women and LGBTQ's. I still hear no cry from the left over justice for the plight of women and LGBTQ's suffering under fundamentalist islamic regimes like Hamas.

the fact that living conditions in some of these countries is horrible for some people due to discrimination isn't exactly a justification to treat all of them like shit, now is it? — Benkei

Countries have no obligation towards any other (at least with which they have no treaty). Countries are only responsible for their own citizens. And how they treat their own people is generally indicative of that society's relative degree of humanity. Based on the way Israel treats its own people versus the way Hamas does, I would much rather be colonized by Israel than Hamas.

So there's no hypocrisy; it's entirely consistent. What's not consistent is not according human rights to people because they don't respect human rights. Not if we consider human rights something fundamental and inalienable. — Benkei

Not sure I can agree with that logic. Why would someone want to be accorded human rights if they despise the very idea of human rights? For those of us concerned for respecting the rights of the individual, it is our duty, out of concern for the respectability of the individual, to deprive human rights to those who do not want them, and to not unjustly impose our ethics upon them.

Tim, I promise that when I am debating with you, I type my arguments with passion and wholeheartedly. It is not an issue of error of thinking or 'logic', but belief. To be honest, I think it is scary that there are people who actually believe that this is a solution. It doesn't matter if I am wrong for defending Hirohito and his Bushidō Emperor's 'idea' or 'way of living'.
Come on, Tim. Do you really think that it is logical to use a nuclear weapon?

I don't 'wish' to prove that it was terrible to vanish Hiroshima and Nagasaki from the map. It was literally a disaster. This mess goes beyond any human understanding or philosophy. There was a historical war, where one country overused its force to another, and destroyed two cities where innocent people lived. The Japanese accepted the loss because they are an honoured civilisation and understood it was the best way to end the war after the shock. But this doesn't mean that they think that the nuclear attack was the best ending for their military aspirations...
Tim, they play pokemon and watch anime, but the Japanese are not stupid. They are very clever folks.

Whatever we want to say about Bob Jr's resistance, I do not think we can say it is immoral. — Leontiskos

Yes we can. Moral rights don't lapse. The reason legal claims expire, is because of economic reasons because the administrative burden and possibility of proof greatly reduce over time. This is why there's no legal argument in favour of equitable relief for descendants of slavery but there certainly is a moral one.

That doesn't mean Bob has no rights at all of course but to deny the claim in its entirety would be immoral.

This mess goes beyond any human understanding or philosophy. — javi2541997

Yes. 20,000,000 Chinese civilians died during their war with Japan. The Japanese put themselves at the top of the list of the most destructive nations that have ever existed. I'm sure you didn't mean to pass that over without comment.

Moral rights don't lapse. — Benkei

Even from generation to generation? What if the span of time is 2000 years rather than 200 years? I am a moral realist, but I am doubtful of the idea that Fred Jr. has an indisputable moral right to the land that was stolen from his family 200 years ago.

That doesn't mean Bob has no rights at all of course but to deny the claim in its entirety would be immoral. — Benkei

Right, I agree. I think these intractable political disagreements point to compromise.

Proportionality as a principle is a manifestation of the law of war’s delicate balance between the military imperative of defeating the enemy as quickly as possible and the humanitarian imperative of mitigating suffering during war as much as possible. Parties to a conflict must not only refrain from attacking civilians and civilian objects deliberately, but they must also make extensive efforts to minimize the incidental harm from their attacks on lawful military targets.

The point was that proportionality is not matter of minimising civilian casualties, but a ratio between maximising military achievements and minimising civilian casualties (nuclear bombing Japan was proportional in WW2?). And that minimising civilian casualties has to do with efforts like early warnings and precision weapons, but the situation is particularly challenging in Gaza, due to the density of the population, the hiding of Hamas combatants among civilians and, to a non-negligible degree, the complicity of the Palestinians themselves with Hamas.
There is an inherent risk in letting Hamas (which doesn’t care about civilians, Israeli or Palestinians) emotionally blackmail us, into isolating Israel. And again, the West is showing its weakness toward the Rest of the World at large. As far as I am concerned, humanitarian institutions are welcome if they manage to make their guidance widely shared, from the West to the Rest, or denounce Western abuses when the West is not significantly challenged by the Rest, not to harass the West which actually gives a shit about humanitarian concerns while the Rest which doesn't give a shit about humanitarian concerns is getting more and more confrontational by exploiting our (not their) sensitivity about human life.

not giving minimal humanitarian aid to over two million people is one troubling issue. — ssu

Over time Isreal has become more cooperative on this
https://www.timesofisrael.com/un-says-33-aid-trucks-with-water-food-medical-supplies-entered-gaza-sunday/
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-says-will-allow-significantly-more-humanitarian-aid-to-enter-gaza-from-egypt/

Then comes the question what to do to the southern part. How Israel will conduct the war when it comes to the southern part of the Gaza strip is the real breaker here. Civilians supposed to have gone there(in 48 hours), yet it has also has been bombed. — ssu

Why? If you are a Hamas terrorist, knowing that IDF will catch you in the North, you would flee in the South. Again if the logic here is that Hamas hides behind potentially complicit civilians [1] (apparently no pro-Palestinian here seems interested in promoting the narrative that Palestinians are hostage of Hamas, which betrays their pro-Hamas bias), there is no easy way to isolate Hamas combatants.
If that is the strategy, what’s the military way to get rid of Hamas’ current combatants and capabilities? More to the point, how would Hamas or Putin reason according to you if they were to choose? To me it doesn’t make much sense to apply one standard when your enemies don’t play by the same standard. It’s like boxing with a tied hand with somebody who can fight with both hands. You can do it if you are so strong that you have a good chance to win with just one hand. If not, then your approach is self-defeating.

[1]

Even from generation to generation? What if the span of time is 2000 years rather than 200 years? I am a moral realist, but I am doubtful about the idea that Fred Jr. has an indisputable moral right to the land that was stolen from his family 200 years ago. — Leontiskos

Maybe not the land but possible compensation if we can discover who benefitted from it. I'm not entirely convinced private property is the right legal framework to begin with though, which complicates these matters. Plus I think at some point reparing past injury isn't about obligation but more about taking responsibility. EG. I'm not responsible for the sins of my forefathers (slavery) but I do think I and the wider Dutch society can take responsibility without necessarily proscribing how (reparations, investments, acknowledgement).

So given the centuries of persecution of Jews in Europe and ME, I do think we have a collective responsibility to give them that piece of land for sovereignty. It would've been more of a class act if we hadn't foisted a huge problem on others though. Maybe Luxembourg.

At the same time, I don't see how the Palestinian issue can be resolved without a right of return. There's no issues of proof or ambiguity as to who is profiting from their displacement. It's more a question where to return and under who's government. And in that respect Israel cannot have its cake and eat it too. Either it's one state with equal rights for all and therefore no specific Jewish character, or a viable two states solution. And there decades of illegal settlements has fragmented the borders to such an extent that the Palestinian part isn't viable without significant land swaps also compensating for the loss of arable land and resettlement of illegal colonists.

So the left has a dilemma, it can either support the oppressed Palestinians against the tyrannical Israeli colonizers while dispensing of any concern for the evils of antisemitism or the rights of women and LGBTQ's within Palestinian territory. Or, the left can support a western culture that actively defends the human rights of classically oppressed groups within its very own territory while disregarding its occupation of a place that has a clear record of oppressing its own people (particularly women and LGBTQ's). — Merkwurdichliebe

You're acting like an idiot pretending this is about lgbtq rights or antisemitism while people are starving due to war crimes by Israel. As if we cannot be against discrimination and oppression at the same time! Or against Israeli occupation and against anti-semitism at the same time! Wow! It's mind-boggling! :scream:

Yes. 20,000,000 Chinese civilians died during their war with Japan. The Japanese put themselves at the top of the list of the most destructive nations that have ever existed. I'm sure you didn't mean to pass that over without comment. — frank

I agree. The Japanese Empire's behaviour and actions against China, South Korea and the Philippines were disgusting and totally bad. Nonetheless, which nation never had a bloody bellicose past? Whether you like it or not, that's how the past used to be, just before diplomacy and dialogue started to be more effective. In addition, I still maintain my position that Nagasaki and Hiroshima destruction were not really justified at all. It was the first time that a nuclear attack was used on a population. Your arguments are like: 'the ends justify the means'.

Following up your view, my country deserves to be nuked as well. Our past was bloody towards Latin America. Why don't the U.S. wipe us off from the map and do some moral justice to all of those civilisations which disappeared because of us?

You're acting like an idiot pretending this is about lgbtq rights or antisemitism while people are starving due to war crimes by Israel — Benkei

Sure, and your acting like a Nazi pretending like antisemitism and the oppression of women and LGBTQ's is justified in cases where alleged war crimes are being perpertrated.

As if we cannot be against discrimination and oppression at the same time! Or against Israeli occupation and against anti-semitism at the same time! Wow! It's mind-boggling! :scream: — Benkei

You still haven't shown how we can reconcile the fundamental and inalienable rights that belong to all individuals with the sovereignty of a state that openly oppresses and tyrannizes women and LGBTQ's. It really is mind boggling. :cool:

I agree. The Japanese Empire's behaviour and actions against China, South Korea and the Philippines were disgusting and totally bad. Nonetheless, which nation never had a bloody bellicose past? Whether you like it or not, that's how the past used to be, just before diplomacy and dialogue started to be more effective. In addition, I still maintain my position that Nagasaki and Hiroshima destruction were not really justified at all. It was the first time that a nuclear attack was used on a population. Your arguments are like: 'the ends justify the means'. — javi2541997

Javi, the Sino-Japanese war was 1937-1945. If you file away the deaths of 20 million people with which nation never had a bloody bellicose past?, then you have to give the US the same treatment. Oh well, who hasn't killed millions of civilians?

I agree that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a crime. But there was no imbalance of power. The USA did not destroy Japan's traditions. When Japanese warlords decided to go to war with the USA, the UK, the Soviet Union, and China, all at the same time, they were killing their own culture. I'm finished trying to explain this to you. Carry on. :razz:

I see you have problems reading so I'll just stop it here and not waste my time.

That is a fair post and I can agree with much of it. If I tried to engage the points of your last paragraph in detail I am sure I would quickly move beyond my competence, but if you have an article outlining the Palestinian case in more detail I would put it on my reading list.

At the same time, I don't see how the Palestinian issue can be resolved without a right of return. — Benkei

Citing the Wikipedia page:

The government of Israel does not view the admission of Palestinian refugees to their former homes in Israel as a right, but rather as a political issue to be resolved as part of a final peace settlement. — Wikipedia | Palestinian Right of Return

This seems correct to me, and it goes back to my point to @schopenhauer1 regarding the difference between a right and a legitimate interest. I think what is at stake is a legitimate political interest in need of settlement, not a right in the strict sense.

Incidentally, my Fred Jr. example was clumsy given that it is so close to the broader issue. I was only trying to illustrate the complexity of political disputes, where two opposing causes can both be justified. I was not attempting to make a point about Israel or Palestine's land rights.

sure, just abandon your argument. I don't blame you though...you make no sense, and your position is mired in contradiction.

Over time Israel has become more cooperative on this — neomac

Overtime? Well, here will be the really huge problems, which will be quite important. After this the open air prison of Gaza cannot be just excluded like before. No outside force will likely come to Gaza. Or perhaps it might be a fig leaf of a UN mission, and when criminal gangs etc. rule the ruins of Gaza, it's going to be an example of how Palestinians cannot take care of themselves (or something like that). The question what happens next should be on the agenda, but it might not be.

More to the point, how would Hamas or Putin reason according to you if they were to choose? — neomac

Hamas and Putin choose not to be Western, especially with all of it's decadent attention to human rights and democracy and the rights of peoples and minorities etc. Yet Israel isn't Hamas or Russia, but of course if they wish, they can go in that direction. Yet all the Israelis I've met are quite Western people and think of themselves as being West. They don't have the fear of their state as Russians do.

Hence that's not the issue. The issue is how a Western country handles this situation. Does it try to solve something or is it just more about revenge. Or is it just about "mowing the lawn" until the next Palestinian uprising happens. There are many choices.

To me it doesn’t make much sense to apply one standard when your enemies don’t play by the same standard. — neomac

Well, then I hope you are never put to be an officer position in war, or basically given a rifle and fight in a war. Because it does make sense for me to treat a the enemy as I have been taught in the army: you shoot to kill an armed enemy (before he shoots you) and you don't shoot one that has surrendered or civilians. Your enemy doing that doesn't change what my country ask of me. It all starts from as obvious things like if you have to kill something, then kill it and don't torture it.

Now I don't know what you really meant, but if you have an objection to the application of laws of war because of the actions of the enemy, that we have now, you are the problem if you will go to level as the enemy. So why on Earth didn't the Allies start exterminating all German men, women and children afterwards? Why not sent then the Germans to Auschwitz, since they had already built the infrastructure for industrialized genocide. Why apply them some other standard then and make them feel how untermenschen were treated, neomac? And afterwards, do you think Germany now (assuming you'd leave some spear) was as today?

To me it doesn’t make much sense to apply one standard when your enemies don’t play by the same standard. It’s like boxing with a tied hand with somebody who can fight with both hands. — neomac

And that's simply just Hollywood nonsense. Throwing to hell the laws of war doesn't help you, it helps your enemy and undermines your cause and justification.

To take the laws of war seriously is important, because it's just an ignorant fallacy that they really would "tie you hands in boxing". You can kill and destroy the enemy quite well. And if you think the laws of war are a hindrance, well, then when having the boxing match just come there with shotgun and shoot your opponent full of lead until the bloody corpse doesn't move. He was such a loser in the first place just waiting for you with those boxing gloves on and thinking you would just try to hit him. As if there would be rules... sucker!

(and about boxing matches and using firearms...)


This is still a political problem, that needs a political solution. Or then the solution is just same thing over and over again. I personally don't see a political solution, but naturally (hopefully?) I'm wrong.

Come on, Tim. Do you really think that it is logical to use a nuclear weapon? — javi2541997

You miss the whole point. Logic itself does not apply. You're not in some timeless abstract space demonstrating more geometrico that something is or is not the case - or if you are, it's irrelevant to this discussion. Rather you are considering how a foe determined to fight to the death, yours or his or both, can be most quickly brought to submission. And a decision has to be made.

I still maintain my position that Nagasaki and Hiroshima destruction were not really justified at all. It was the first time that a nuclear attack was used on a population. Your arguments are like: 'the ends justify the means'. — javi2541997

What you believe is justified is all yours. If you mean to argue it, then argue it in substantive terms. And "the ends justify the means": sometimes. The only way open to you here is to demonstrate that Truman made the wrong decision; i.e., that he had better options that he inexplicably dismissed. Good luck with that. But until you grapple with that, you're just a hose of ignorance. And you might consider getting back to the topic of the thread.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts

So given the centuries of persecution of Jews in Europe and ME, I do think we have a collective responsibility to give them that piece of land for sovereignty. — Benkei

I'd submit that no duty is owed by others to the Jews to give them Israel, but the duty is owed not to intervene in their right to their land. I can't think of any other group of citizens where the world feels it within their authority to decide who gets what land and under what conditions that land can remain in that groups' possession.

If that land is for sovereignty, then it is not subject to reconsideration nor international debate. It is theirs and the expectation should be that it will be defended as unforgivably as one would expect any other sovereign nation to defend their land.

I stopped caring about your opinion on this subject a while ago I'm afraid. But nice way of quoting out of context I suppose.

I'm not sure there's a specific one but this is one of my favourites setting out the case for a binational state while touching on many of the injustices the Palestinians have experienced. By Edward Said: https://www.nytimes.com/1999/01/10/magazine/the-one-state-solution.html

And in which religion murder wouldn't be a sin? Those religions with human sacrifices have dissappeared, and even they didn't that you can randomly murder anyone. You can have individuals, groups organizations and states that are murderous, not whole people. — ssu

I believe a people can be murderous, not inherently, but rather because their culture/what they are taught. According to Jewish tradition/theology the flood occurs because of the murderousness/bloodshed of humanity in the pre-flood era; in the Babylonian version it is because humanity makes too much noise and disturbs the Gods. Cultures have different ways of processing events.

- Great, thanks. I grabbed a pdf copy and will be sure to give it a read.