You're repeating questions I've answered several times in this very thread. Maybe start paying attention. I'll ignore this post as a result because I'm not in the mood to ieper myself.

Implicit in Nazism is racial hierarchy. — BitconnectCarlos

Implicit in Zionism is an ethnic-religious hierarchy.

Caveat: History shows that sooner or later every ethno-state that systemically oppresses – murderously dispossess – out-groups, especially via deliberate and explicit policies of sabotaging "peace", forfeits its 'right to exist'.

So you can keep getting back to all the horrible attacks on Jews but I'm not committing them so don't have anything to do with it and don't need to apologise or make any statement about it because it's irrelevant with respect to Israel. — Benkei

Israel as an idea predates Israel as a modern nation state. In a sense, attacks on Jewish spaces are attacks on Israel. Israel is supranational as is the conflict.

And to be fair the bloodied victims were almost certainly zionists. So you should support it, perhaps. There's confusion about what makes one a valid target? Only Israeli Jews living on occupied land? Or all Israelis living on occupied land? Or perhaps all zionists everywhere.

Implicit in Zionism is an ethnic-religious hierarchy.

Caveat: History shows that sooner or later every ethno-state that systemically oppresses – murderously dispossess – out-groups, especially via deliberate and explicit policies of sabotaging "peace", forfeits its 'right to exist'. — 180 Proof

Is any state/community allowed to preserve/codify its ancestral traditions? Or is it all just supremacy?

???

I can't tell what your specific complaint is.

"Jews should have a homeland" (Zionism) is no different than the idea that e.g. Armenians or Kurds should have a homeland.

Supported by the US, the fucking State of Israel repeatedly commits war crimes / crimes against humanity every day with impunity as the military application of it's official "Greater Israel" colonizer-settler ethnic cleasing, apartheid, terrorism policy against the Palestinian populations in the Occupied Territories, West Bank & Gaza ... nonstop since 1967. My/the world's "specific complaint" is that Israel needs to stop this Zionist scheiße NOW. :brow:

Israel fights a greater evil. Perfection exists nowhere in this world especially during war. In politics the question is often which power is less bad.

Jingoism is nationalism in the form of aggressive and proactive foreign policy, such as a country's advocacy for the use of threats or actual force, as opposed to peaceful relations, in efforts to safeguard what it perceives as its national interests. Colloquially, jingoism is excessive bias in judging one's own country as superior to others – an extreme type of nationalism (cf. chauvinism and ultranationalism).

Ultranationalism or extreme nationalism is an extreme form of nationalism in which a country asserts or maintains detrimental hegemony, supremacy, or other forms of control over other nations (usually through violent coercion) to pursue its specific interests. Ultranationalist entities have been associated with the engagement of political violence even during peacetime. The belief system has also been cited as the inspiration for acts of organized mass murder in the context of international conflicts, with the Cambodian genocide being cited as an example.

In ideological terms, scholars such as the British political theorist Roger Griffin have found that ultranationalism arises from seeing modern nation-states as living organisms which are directly akin to physical people because they can decay, grow, and die, and additionally, they can experience rebirth. In stark mythological ways, political campaigners have divided societies into those societies which are perceived as being degenerately inferior and those societies which are perceived as having great cultural destinies. Ultranationalism has been an aspect of fascism, with historic governments such as the regimes of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany building on ultranationalist foundations by using specific plans for supposed widespread national renewal.

Israel fights a greater evil. — BitconnectCarlos

Bullshit. Since 1948, Israeli occupier-oppressor terrorism has killed & dispossessed more Palestinian noncombatants than Palestinian occupied-oppressed terrorism has killed & dispossessed Israeli noncombatants. You shall know "greater evil" by its fruits. :death:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict

Israel approves legislation of five West Bank outposts, says Bezalel Smotrich

It appears this bit of news was surpressed by search algorithms, because it received little attention outside of Arab news outlets and was difficult to find through Google searches.

Perhaps it is not unimportant to know that amidst the chaos and carnage, Israel blatantly continues its illegal settlement policies, which it uses as a method of slow ethnic cleansing of territory it illegally occupies.

If anyone wonders where the animosity towards Israel comes from, this is it. Israel continues to be hell-bent on annexing territory that doesn't belong to it. When it encounters international resistance, its answer is to fall back on the barbarism it so readily condemns. Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity.

And more German non-combatants were killed by the British than British non-combatants killed by the Nazis. Guess the British are worse than the Nazis. And obviously the US is much, much worse than Imperial Japan.

And Palestinian identity doesn't exist in 1948. It's just Jews and Arabs. And some Arabs are Jews. So Jews and Muslims, really. Jesus is described as a (Jewish) Palestinian. So apparently Jews can be Palestinians too.

:eyes: :roll: :rofl:

You have serious difficulty grasping the idea that evil can also be weak. I think we've been over that this is a blind spot for you.

You vilify the strong and adore the weak.

pretty sure your morality can be summed up as a reflexive hatred of the strong. the weak can do whatever and remain in your favor insofar as they oppose the strong. in comparison they can never be bad - because they are weak.

:lol: Go troll yourself, BitCunt.

You're equivocating strong and weak with oppressor and oppressed. Which really is silly.

The stronger side will have the higher kill count in conflict thus, in a way, it is the oppressor/villain/bigger murderer.

It's not about the kill count. It's really sad that after so many pages of discussion you reduce the position of people on the other side of the debate to strawmen, kindergarten arguments. Maybe a philosophy forum isn't for you.

Maybe a philosophy forum isn't for you. — Benkei

:smirk:

I get his position. He opposes oppression. But the powerful will virtually always oppress more than the powerless, so the position just basically ends up opposing power everywhere.

Show me examples of when the weak are more oppressive than the strong.

Show me examples of when the weak are more oppressive than the strong. — BitconnectCarlos

The unintelligent (i.e. weak-minded) often, occasionally even ubiquitiously, oppress the intelligent ... with (e.g.) pseudo-scientific nonsense, religious dogmas, conspiracy theories, ethno-nationalist demogoguery, PC/Woke-identitarian ideologies, etc. And afflicted by D-K as you seem to be, BC, you're obviously oblivious to the prevalence of such insidious forms of oppression. :mask:

Seeing Benkei and 180 Proof in a thread together, - hot damn! - I feel like I'm 20 years old again!

evil — BitconnectCarlos

It's much easier and more tempting for the strong to be evil. Moral culpability can only attach to the strong. If it attaches to the weak, it is only because the weak use what little strength they have to cause harm.

Weak resentful men are often the most dangerous and are quite capable of evil.

Weak resentful men are often the most dangerous and are quite capable of evil — BitconnectCarlos

Only to the extent that they have the power to. If a person is wholly weak, no matter how resentful they are, they are not dangerous at all.

If one is wholly weak then one is neither good nor evil. Then one is not a moral agent -- but rather more like a vegetable.

The ICJ brought out a report on the legal status of the occupation of Palestinian territories by Israel, (once again) concluding it is illegal under international law, and thus confirming that Israel is a belligerent occupier to several million Palestinians.

Note that an illegal occupier cannot claim a right of legal self-defense against resistance from the people it occupies.

It once again condemns Israel's attempts to colonize the Palestinian territories via its settlement policies and:

Restitution includes Israel’s obligation to return the land and other immovable property,
as well as all assets seized from any natural or legal person since its occupation started in 1967, [...]

As regards the prohibition of the acquisition of territory by force, the Court notes that the
Security Council has declared on several occasions, in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force and has determined that

“all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic
composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories
occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof have no legal validity”
(Security Council resolution 465 (1980))

In a nutshell, roughly half of Israel is not theirs.

Nothing we didn't already know, but since there are many people, including some on this forum, who are still in denial about the legality of Israel's actions, here it is.

In addition, jurisprudence like this functions as opinio iuris.

The first big difference is the Russians aren't committing a genocide in Ukraine, as I just explained. — boethius

But again, mainly, the most important thing, is that Russia isn't carrying out a genocide whereas Isreal is. — boethius

Legally speaking, allegations of genocide. And there are allegations of Russia committing a genocide against Ukrainians too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_genocide_of_Ukrainians_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War

Russia is following the law of armed conflict pretty well: extremely far away from starving whole civilian populations to death. And this is born out in the stats of civilians killed during the conflict and in particular children. — boethius

Some more allegations, that one can find in the Ukrainian case too:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/24/war-crimes-dossier-to-accuse-russia-of-deliberately-causing-starvation-in-ukraine

The second big difference is that Russia is not implementing apartheid system and occupying parts of Ukraine without giving those occupied peoples any rights. — boethius

Allegations of discriminatory policies from Russians against indigenous people, you have aplenty:

https://www.coe.int/en/web/kyiv/-/human-rights-situation-in-territories-of-ukraine-occupied-by-russia-committee-of-ministers-gravely-concerned

https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/EUR5078052024ENGLISH.pdf


People involved in the Crimean Tatar civil rights movement repeatedly noted strong similarities between the conditions suffered by designated "special settlers" and victims of apartheid as well as Palestinians under Israeli occupation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatarophobia

Third, the territories occupied by Russia have large portions, arguably a majority, of ethnic Russians that actually want to join Russia (hence the separatists fighting for 10 years), so there is not only an element of self-determination in the Russian speakers taking up arms against Kiev oppression of their language and culture, but also no one really cares all that much whether Russian speaking Ukrainians become Russian speaking Russians. Russia isn't conquering territory and then keeping Ukrainian speaking Ukrainians that don't want to be occupied by Russians in a giant ghetto with zero rights and lot's of murder, sexual abuse and so on, for the foreseeable future. Of course there will be exceptions, but in general there has been no insurgency against Russian occupation nor Ghettoizaton of conquered territory. — boethius

There is no need to ghetto anybody if forced displacement can do the trick. Mearsheimer has argued that’s the intent of Israel, cleanse territories to dodge the accusation of apartheid.
There is a recognisable historical pattern. Indeed, when territorial disputes are triggered by people aspirations to build a nation-state as for both Israel and Palestinians, cleansing and genocide are likely consequences. Western countries in Europe (https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/35457/) and overseas like in the US , Austrialia, Canada are not immune from this phenomenon either (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_genocide_in_the_United_States, https://nwac.ca/media/2023/06/is-a-genocide-taking-place-in-canada-short-answer-yes, https://kooriweb.org/foley/resources/history/genocide.html) .
The appeal to self-determination sounds more compelling to me when it’s matter of people aspirations against political leaderships imposing their rule by authoritarian means (inspired by devine mandate?) or against foreign imperialism, less compelling when it’s matter of conflicting national aspirations between different ethnic groups over the same land, or a minority over a majority within the same nation state.

In otherwords, Russia is implementing a "one state solution" in their occupation of new territory. The one state solution is one of the two solutions that everyone agrees solves these kinds of problems, therefore all is well and you can rest your pretty little head.

The situation in Gaza is simply not similar at all to the situation in Crimea or the Donbas.

Israel does not offer Gazans citizenship and equal rights.

There is not one state or two state solution, but oppressed stateless people in a ghetto that have a right to fight the forces of oppression.

Now, Ukrainians in territory occupied by Russia would have the same right of insurgency against an occupying force (just it's less palpable because they are offered equal rights) — boethius

It’s not up to me to decide for the oppressed ones what is palatable. I do wonder if all Palestinians in occupied territories find it palatable to convert to Judaism, which would bestow them a right to join Israel and definitely have their own nation-state without spilling a single blood drop.
Anyways, Russia is annexing territories AFTER forced cleansing, colonization and russification in the occupied areas, so I wouldn’t be surprised if the majority of people in the occupied areas (arguably ethnic Russians) would be fine in being part of Russia (however I don’t think they have the ultimate decision on this matter, that’s all) and Russian would welcome it.
For Israel, the situation is different and the comparison to immigration in Western democracies can help understand why. No Western democracy (ESPECIALLY with a regime supporting populist views) would accept mass migration (ESPECIALLY from alien ethnic groups) that would dramatically alter the demographics of a State, for security and economic reasons. Discrimination and oppression of stateless people are very common conditions in the West for illegal immigrants (apartheid state, here too?).
So it’s politically questionable to expect Israel to accept a one state solution altering its demographics in favour of the Palestinians minority. Besides there are Palestinian living as Israeli citizens and enjoying the rights which the Palestinians in the occupied territories do not have. So the problem for Israel is not the civil/democratic integration of Palestinians per se, but how to deal with those Palestinians that are pressing outside its borders. Which is even worse than the case of the illegal immigrants for Western countries, since those Palestinians pressing on the Israeli boarders are fighting for their right to same land and they are led by Hamas (with the support of foreign powers hostile to Israel) into an asymmetric war against Israel and Israelis. So security concerns are in order and no state is expected to intentionally sacrifice the security of its own citizens at large for humanitarian concerns over alien people perceived as hostile at large.



To me, Western priorities in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should not ideologically withdraw from historical tragedies and people’s nation-state aspirations , but take hard decisions informed primarily by ideological proximity, political-economic-military cooperation and common challenges.
Try to address the points I’m making (wording and phrasing included), not the ones you wished I made.

Cannot get over how formatting is most of 180's posts.