If they were underdogs would you support them? Maybe they pick a few random blacks to murder for no reason, but don't sweat it it's just David's slingshot against bloody Goliath.

If Black folks were oppressing Whites the way (e.g.) Israelis oppress Palestinians, hell yeah I'd support the White folks, and, if the Klan is their tool against the oppressor like Hamas is used against Israel, then I'd still support the oppressed (and question their methods only later once they are free!) The "underdog", however, is not just the "outgunned" one, you shit, but the one mercilessly kicked and beaten and murdered – none of which is happening or has ever happened to the fuckin' Klan, and your racist ass damn well knows it. Such blatant "moral equivalence" is merely the refuge of the banality of evil functionaries & rationalizers. G–F–Y. :shade:

hell yeah I'd support the White folks — 180 Proof

You'd condone white folks murdering black folks in a black-dominated society? Holy shit you actually bit the bullet on this one.

You're telling me that if your friends and family were targeted despite having no real involvement you'd shrug it off as David's rightful fury. Now I no longer think you're a racist you just have no loyalty to anyone.

Go troll yourself.

:rofl:

I was offended before because I thought you were only applying your perspective here to Israel, but now that I see you'd throw your own family under the bus I'm less offended and more bemused. You sure did bite that bullet. +1 for philosophical integrity.

This is not what any major religion instructs, by the way. Where are you getting these ideas? Source?

Anyway, while Bit is playing fantasy imaginarium, perhaps we can talk about how Israel classified all the civilians it killed in its little murder spree as combatants, including the children.

Note the MO btw: East Germany, Japan, Ireland, The US - literally anything to divert attention away from Israel's ethnic cleansing. Don't fall for it. He is incapable of talking about Israel. Because his sophistries simply cannot address the real life genocide at work; they only work - and even then transparently and impotently - in the realm of sheer fantasy and imagined history.

"Fantasy imaginarium" is a productive and useful exercise because it allows us to flush out ideas and rules and apply them to a variety of circumstances, something that you struggle with. Say what you want about 180, but the man has consistent principles that he's willing to apply seriously which is more than I can say about you.

I was offended before because I thought you were only applying your perspective here to Israel, but now that I see you'd throw your own family under the bus I'm less offended and more bemused. You sure did bite that bullet. +1 for philosophical integrity.

This is not what any major religion instructs, by the way. Where are you getting these ideas? Source? — BitconnectCarlos

Principles of justice resist favoritism. It's not just philosophical integrity, it's ethical integrity that the same rules apply to everybody equally. Your relationship to a perpretrator ought to be entirely irrelevant as to judging his or her actions. That's why we insist on impartial judges for instance.

Genocided Palestinians aren't exercises, except for the Israeli air force. Something you indeed 'struggle' to talk about.

And 180 indeed doesn't play identity politics, because he's not a moral black hole.

Principles of justice resist favoritism. It's not just philosophical integrity, it's ethical integrity that the same rules apply to everybody equally. Your relationship to a perpretrator ought to be entirely irrelevant as to judging his or her actions. That's why we insist on impartial judges for instance. — Benkei

Ok but civilians aren't perpetrators. 180 refuses to condemn any method used by the oppressed class to gain equality so he turns a blind eye to civilian murder. If you followed our discussion this goes as far as him theoretically refusing to condemn the race-driven murder of his own family if they're in the "oppressor" class.

oppressed class to gain equality — BitconnectCarlos

Imagine thinking Palestinians want 'equality' and not Israel to stop their ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.

Ok but civilians aren't perpetrators. 180 refuses to condemn any method used by the oppressed class to gain equality so he turns a blind eye to civilian murder. If you followed our discussion this goes as far as him theoretically refusing to condemn the race-driven murder of his own family if they're in the "oppressor" class — BitconnectCarlos

Ok, so you're arguing for guily by association where it concerns Palestinians, because Hamas' actions are the "method used by the oppressed class" but insist on there being innocent civilians on the oppressor's side - because...?

Uhmm... try again?

And before you try again, the "method used by the oppressed class" is a reaction to oppression. You cannot decontextualise what is happening from the ongoing oppression. The worst the oppression, the acquiescience by society at large, the looking the other way or just not caring about "the other" the more moral responsibility for the cause of such violence rests with the oppressor - which in this case is Israel.

If you actively and wilfully create a situation where you increase the likelihood of a certain outcome, don't feign surprise or moral indignation when you are confronted with such an outcome. And since Israel by far has the most influence on the circumstances and wilfully refuses to deal with the Palestinians as an equal negotiation partner for peace, it reaps what it sows.

Israel has no moral standing here, you cannot claim victimhood when you're the oppressor. It has no right to defend itself against a people resisting oppression even if their means aren't always legal and it certainly does not have a right to collectively punish a civilian population, which it has been doing for over 14 years now. It's as if you would repeatedly punch me in the stomach and then complain foul because I kick you in the nuts and then proceed to claim "self defence" as you start hitting me in the face as well.

Ok, so you're arguing for guily by association where it concerns Palestinians, because Hamas' actions are the "method used by the oppressed class" but insist on there being innocent civilians on the oppressor's side - because...? — Benkei

I've never said Palestinians are "guilty by association." This just isn't my position so I'm not going to respond in more detail. I don't have anything against the Palestinian people as a whole, but terrorist groups embed themselves within the population which puts Israel in a very difficult spot militarily.

You didn't say it but it's implied because you think it's fine to collectively punish them because "Hamas" and "terrorism" and "my brain just shortcircuited so I stop thinking when I hear these buzz words".

You seem to just refuse to acknowledge that this "terrorism" doesn't happen in a vacuum. What was earlier: Israeli occupation, annexation and oppression or Hamas? Tik tok.

Israeli oppression, occupation and annexation are what put Israel in a difficult spot and you're whining about having to deal with the consequences of Israeli war crimes and illegal acts. You don't have moral standing, Israel is not a victim, it does not have a right of self defence against the people it oppresses. Israel is a war criminal and every day the occupation, oppression and annexation continue, you don't have any right to complain about whatever the Palestinians do especially when what they do is a fraction of the violence perpetrated by the oppressor itself. I would start considering Palestinian violence an issue as a problematic means, when the numbers would be reversed and even then their cause would still be just. Israel has neither a just cause nor does it exercise just means.

You didn't say it but it's implied because you think it's fine to collectively punish them because "Hamas" and "terrorism" and "my brain just shortcircuited so I stop thinking when I hear these buzz words". — Benkei

Any nation has the right to sanction other governments that threaten it or wish it harm or fund terrorism. We do the same with Iran, and I don't hate the Iranian people. We sanction Russia, but I don't hate the Russian people. We've sanctioned a number of nations in the past and it has to do with the ruling body, not the people. In the case of Hamas the blockade is for security reasons.

You seem to just refuse to acknowledge that this "terrorism" doesn't happen in a vacuum. What was earlier: Israeli occupation, annexation and oppression or Hamas? Tik tok. — Benkei

Israel hasn't annexed Gaza. I'll admit to you that I need to do a deeper dive between the history in that region between '67 and '89 or so but it doesn't change the fact that if we want peace we need to be forward-looking as opposed to playing this game of X caused Y which caused Z, but X was a totally independent, free action undertaken by the enemy and that is the cause of all of our problems and that happened 50 years ago.

If you have any good, neutral resources on the history in Gaza between '67 and maybe '89 or so I'd be happy to watch or read. If you're seriously interested in peace we need to be looking forward.

you don't have any right to complain about whatever the Palestinians do — Benkei

Where does this come from? Which moral theory? Which great thinker? Maybe the New Testament, book of 180proof? Do not intentionally murder innocents, full stop. So I'm not suppose to complain as my people are getting murdered... I'm not even entitled to that privilege according to you.

If the Dutch military was overseas as they were in '09-'10 and one day a 5 year old Dutch boy was murdered by a terrorist should I tell you that you have no right to complain or be sad? Is it just reasonable blowback to be expected?

Israel is a war criminal — Benkei

What does this even mean? Isn't "war criminal" a label for an individual? It doesn't make sense to say that an entire nation is a war criminal. You're fighting a windmill here.

The globetrotter whatabouts again! Russia, the Netherlands - where will he go next that's not Israel? Find out next time on - avoid any discussion of Israel's crimes!

God's teeth. What a horrible law, or I suppose I should say set of laws, since it appears more than half of the states in our Glorious Union have adopted similar provisions.

Which is quite something, though, isn't it? What if there was no "Jewish homeland" in Israel? That would seem to make quite a difference. — Ciceronianus the White

Yes, it is quite something. However, there are plenty of backgrounds to which a Jewish homeland in modern day Israel likely sounds quite innocuous - after all, I wouldn't be offended at the idea of, e.g. a Kurdish homeland. Zionism is actually very flexible and you'll get different ideas about the extent of the state or the nature of the government so it certainly can be offensive if framed in highly discriminately, right-wing terms but it need not be.

It strikes me that without the assumption that the disputed land is the Jewish homeland, though, much of the claim that Israel was rightly created, and therefore is entitled to the land in question, isn't as defensible. Israel's existence and location would in that case have been imposed on a population opposing it--by colonial powers, in fact. Acquisition of territory by force and conquest is hardly unusual, of course, but I think the conflict considered as a case of a nation being created and imposed in a disputed area is one thing, and considered as a case of a return to a homeland is another.

God's teeth. What a horrible law, or I suppose I should say set of laws, since it appears more than half of the states in our Glorious Union have adopted similar provisions. — Ciceronianus the White

This is what happens when your glorious union is a pair of arms dealers and a hedge fund in a trench coat.

You're telling me that if your friends and family were targeted despite having no real involvement you'd shrug it off as David's rightful fury. Now I no longer think you're a racist you just have no loyalty to anyone. — BitconnectCarlos

That's interesting. For some, loyalty to friends and loved ones really does trump wider considerations, for others it doesn't. And some are conflicted, and reluctantly and ashamedly prioritise loved ones over doing what they feel is right.

We can cut through all the distractions. Is it ok to bomb civilian populations in which so-called terrorist operatives are embedded when these operatives present a threat (though a relatively low-level one compared to said bombings) to civilian lives on the opposing side? If it is, it should be OK in the case of both the IRA and HAMAS and their respective communites of origin. If it's not, it shouldn't, right? — Baden

I think war is morally dubious and those that only look at the moral justifications typically are the culprits for the war in the first place. Bombing civilians isn't an OK thing and counterproductive...if your objective is to find a solution to the conflict, that is. Sometimes that isn't the objective.

IF you want to win a counter-insurgency, you first HAVE TO UNDERSTAND that no matter how successful you are in military operations, to win YOU NEED A POLITICAL SOLUTION in a counter-insurgency. Or then just wish that the other side utterly dismantles itself by alienating it's supporters from the cause. (Or then there's the Algerian example) Sounds simple, but some people really, really, don't get it. They just assume that talking about a political settlement is just political window dressing for liberals or so. They believe the war propaganda. Yet counter-insurgency is totally different from a conventional war where one side might choose a diplomatic settlement if it is clearly loosing. Insurgencies typically don't go that way.

These people who favour a military solution only, usually the so-called "hawks", become fixated on simply the warfare aspect, getting the "murderous" terrorists, creating lists of targets and military sounding objectives. The "no-nonsense" approach in their minds. Largely this is to uphold the "hawk" image typically for domestic reasons. Yet they really think that killing or jailing every member or supporter of the movement will solve the problem. Well, that might succeed if the "terrorists" or the so-called "insurgency" is a small alienated cabal of 17 members of a death cult that is so mental that people cannot understand why the 16 follow the leader. Yet that doesn't apply to an insurgencies we are talking about. Especially when you create the reasons for the insurgency by an apartheid system in the case of Israel. You might kill and jail every leader and activist, but then that leads just to a new generation coming after that.

The reason why this is so difficult to understand is a) people don't think it through or b) they either support one side or are so morally outraged of some action that they cannot fathom a political solution. Hence they think they that the other side can be and ought to be bombed into submission. By dehumanization, you can get people to think like this.

And of course then there are c) those politicians who have as their objective not to stop conflict, but gain power and political success personally by perpetrating the conflict. Their objective is to make any enemy equivalent to the "alienated death cult cabal" or, at worst, to create one, if the insurgency otherwise could find international and domestic support and understanding.

Still in the end, you need a political solution.

:up: This is the thing that was understood from the start by the British. Even by right-wingers like Thatcher. They talked tough but were always keeping lines of communication open and looking for compromises. Eventually they found one. Israel's strategy is baffling except as an attempt to maintain the conflict for as long as possible as cover for expansions of settlements, expulsions, and further encroachments.

Israel's strategy is baffling except as an attempt to maintain the conflict for as long as possible as cover for expansions of settlements, expulsions, and further encroachments. — Baden

It is. But they can only get away with these "wars" in so far as the US allows it. For the US, the settlements aren't aren't much of a problem, occasional rhetoric aside.

It is somewhat curious that they pound Gaza every X amount of years. By now, popular opinion is very much against them. And regardless of anti-BDS laws or propaganda campaigns, I think they've essentially lost the PR war. They can't get that back anymore.

But the situation in terms of the massacres, not the occupation necessarily, may only change if the US becomes firm with Israel and tells them to stop these massacres or we cut out military aid.

And even then, given how nationalistic Israel is right now, it's not clear that they would acquiesce on settlements, though they would have to give up on Gaza assaults.

Samson option and what that implies may become a factor. Hopefully not.

My one sided description of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? I've never pretended to be a neutral bystander. I'm an American Jew with family in Israel and historical ties there.

If someone wants to claim neutrality that's their own delusion. What news sources do they watch? Who do they listen to? Who's story have they heard? Do they understand the region and its history and not just imposing their own cultural attitudes on Middle Eastern people? — BitconnectCarlos

I do not get something here. I know Israeli's who actually served in the Israeli military and they do not defend the Israeli bombing raids. Not that you cannot defend Israel, but this argument above is rather silly right? Isn't the point of ethical debate that based on argument you establish a certain position and not based on heritage? If that is not possible we can do away with rational discussion or law altogether. Any defendant may come up to me and say "yeah I committed this or that crime but you do not know what it is like to be brought up in this or that neighborhood go to this or that school".

I do not see what your heritage has to do with the position you take. You basically seem to hold the position that your heritage compels you to side with the members of your community against its enemies. You just appeal to heritage as a source of community in which only friends and enemies exist. Now, who else made such a claim?

I do not see what your heritage has to do with the position you take. — Tobias

Hey Tobias, if a gunman told to choose between saving your mother's life or the life of a complete stranger, would you pretend to be an impartial observer? How about if it was your son? Would you reason "oh well, two humans both have equal moral value etc. etc." At the end of the day you choose to save your mother/family (right??). There's nothing wrong with that. You have duties to your family.

In just the same way, the Israel-Palestine conflict isn't some abstract philosophical thought experiment to me; it's deeply personal and I have family living over there that I visit. My position isn't entirely due to my heritage and in the past I had a phase where I was anti-Israel.

Of course we can talk about the ethics of the conflict and I'd agree that Israel has certainly fallen short some times. You'll find plenty of depravity on both sides. I don't think it's an evil entity however that deserves to be wiped out which is a common view in the Middle East.

Hey Tobias, if a gunman told to choose between saving your mother's life or the life of a complete stranger, would you pretend to be an impartial observer? How about if it was your son? Would you reason "oh well, two humans both have equal moral value etc. etc." At the end of the day you choose to save your mother/family (right??). There's nothing wrong with that. You have duties to your family. — BitconnectCarlos

No I would not, I can also make some ethical sense of familial duties, but I would not confuse ethics and affection. Let's say there is an ethical debate whether the king or my son deserves to be treated for corona first. I would obviously shout "my son my son"! But no one would debate with me because what I am talking about is affection. My opinion would actually carry no value in the debate. If such is the case for you in this conflict than we need to talk no further. Your capabilities to reason are compromised by affection, just as mine would be in the scenario you present to me.

In just the same way, the Israel-Palestine conflict isn't some abstract philosophical thought experiment to me; it's deeply personal and I have family living over there that I visit. My position isn't entirely due to my heritage and in the past I had a phase where I was anti-Israel. — BitconnectCarlos

I hope the best for your family. No it is no thought experiment it is an actual conflict. As a lawyer I would in such case advise you to withdraw and not pass judgment., because you cannot be impartial. The second part of your sentence is difficult to grasp. Your position isn't entirely due to your heritage, you were anti-Israel and now you are pro. But I'd think in a thread where a normative judgement is required one leaves their affectionate ties at the doorstep. Or one gives the caveat that the opinion presented is compromised by affective ties. I would say, lay out your pro-Israel arguments without recourse to your own personal commitments. Those arguments can be considered. For the other part, the writers will not pass judgment I would think because they realize your arguments are not ethical but personal and there is no point in arguing about one's personal commitments.

Of course we can talk about the ethics of the conflict and I'd agree that Israel has certainly fallen short some times. You'll find plenty of depravity on both sides. I don't think it's an evil entity however that deserves to be wiped out which is a common view in the Middle East — BitconnectCarlos

I think you misinterpret the position of your adversaries in this thread. I do not think anyone holds Israel to be 'an evil entity'. What they criticize are the actions and policies of Israel. Even a good entity may find itself on the wrong side of the (moral or international) law. That there is plenty of depravity on both sides I agree. the point is that superior weaponry brings superior responsibility. I rather have a depraved person opposite to me wielding a potato peeler then one wielding a smith & Wesson. I am allowed by law to use less force against the person with the potato peeler than I am against the one using a Smith & Wesson.

As a lawyer I would in such case advise you to withdraw and not pass judgment., because you cannot be impartial. — Tobias

Alright, so lets let the "impartial" observers handle it then. And who would those be? Americans? Europeans? Which ones? Do Indians have a say? How about the Chinese? If Israel obeys some in the West and loosens security, who pays the price when blood is spilled? It's all very well and good to say that Israel shouldn't blockade Gaza, but who pays the price when heavy weaponry is imported from Iran? In any case I'm fine with the West stepping in to help with the process and make suggestions, but we'd like a say too.

I have the self-awareness to admit that I'm partial; I just wish that that the West would realize that they approach the issue through their own biased cultural lenses as well. The Middle East geopolitically should not be treated like Europe. It is not analogous to the struggle between the British and the IRA. It is an extremely complicated issue with a very long history, intense hatreds, constantly shifting borders, and religious fundamentalism thrown in the mix. The stakes are extremely high and I don't have the luxury to take a step back from my own people. If your people were being attacked and under constant threat, I would not tell you to take a step back.

I do not think anyone holds Israel to be 'an evil entity'. — Tobias

Israel's neighbors have used this type of language constantly since Israel's inception. It's luckily simmered down a little now and progress has been made, but historically this was a very big concern. The environment in the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s - Israel's formative years - was different from today (but how much have things really changed? Who knows.)

Consider that during the Eichmann trial of 1961 there was a huge outpouring of support for Eichmann in the Arab press and that many Arab nationalists were close with the Nazis during the war. You think these attitudes just go away? The Middle East is today the most anti-Semitic region on the planet with 93% of Palestinians holding some degree of anti-Semitic views. I simply can't take it for granted that modern Arab nationalists don't share these historical sympathies. So sure maybe most Westerners are fine with Israel existing but that attitude is hardly universal.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/26/ireland-israel-de-facto-annexation-palestinian-land

"Ireland’s government has supported a parliamentary motion condemning Israel’s “de facto annexation” of Palestinian land in what it said was the first use of the phrase by an EU government in relation to Israel.

The foreign minister, Simon Coveney, backed the motion on Tuesday and condemned what he described as Israel’s “manifestly unequal” treatment of the Palestinian people. The draft will be debated on Wednesday evening.

“The scale, pace and strategic nature of Israel’s actions on settlement expansion and the intent behind it have brought us to a point where we need to be honest about what is actually happening on the ground ... It is de facto annexation,” Coveney told parliament.

“This is not something that I, or in my view this house, says lightly. We are the first EU state to do so. But it reflects the huge concern we have about the intent of the actions and, of course, their impact.”
...
Coveney also insisted on adding a condemnation of recent rocket attacks on Israel by the Palestinian militant group Hamas before he agreed to government support for the motion, which had been tabled by the opposition Sinn Féin party. “The acts of terror by Hamas and other militant groups ... should not ever be justified,” Coveney said."

:up:

It is an extremely complicated issue with a very long history — BitconnectCarlos

But this is where many disagree. It's not complicated at all. The facts on the ground are there for everyone to see. The Apartheid laws are there for everyone to read. It's complicated for you because you're conflicted which is a result of your affection.