As for "Arab Christians", I mean, okay. This is like someone debunking racism in the US by saying "Asians are doing alright", I don't want to respond to this kind of logic seriously, you're smart, give me a break. — Judaka

There's a huge difference between one country just hating all minorities as opposed to just having an issue with one minority group in particular due to a troubled past. A country which just hates all minorities is bottom of the barrel. There is a big difference here. Of course racism exists in Israel just like it exists everywhere else.

What's your point anyway? — Judaka

My point is that different groups of people have their own traditions and histories and ways of understanding things and that you, as a westerner, do not get to tell others how to govern unless some serious moral boundary has been crossed. this should come from a sense of humility: you are from but one culture, one group of people among many, and even the west does not have all the answers. I'm honestly amazed at the level of confidence you have in telling Israel - a country that you've presumably never been to or studied in depth and lack cultural exposure to - that they must assimilate their Arab Muslim population, full stop, no questions. How on Earth do you have such confidence?

EDIT: Just to be clear there are obviously efforts made to integrate the Arab Muslims and make things easier for them, but no one should be telling them to lose their history or their background. That's ultimately up to the Arabs.

The West learned its lesson, ethnic histories are barely talked about — Judaka

But this is changing, don't you see? The old "melting pot" idea is on its way out and "lets talk about our culture and our people" is on its way in. Surely you've been noticing this in the West.

Oppression can be applied to many different circumstances and we adjust the "resources" to match the setting but it's always based on control and abuse of power. — Judaka

Do stereotypes or prejudices qualify as 'oppression' to you at all? You really don't think that a standard, like a beauty standard, for instance... can be oppressive? What if we only defined beauty as "whiteness?" Beauty standards, social standards... can definitely be oppressive. They can exclude certain groups purely on their identity.

I don't like your definition, I doubt you would even accept describing anything unfair as "oppression". A guy cheats in a race, is that "oppression"? Injustice is oppression? No... nono, I can't. Even you can't possibly use the word oppression as you've described. — Judaka

I'm just going by the way that I've seen it used (generally by leftists) so I'm going along with that.

The left does make a point though...is it fair that we as men (you're male, right?) immediately judge attractive women more positively? Is it fair that we make snap, unconscious judgments on the clothes people wear and how they look? Everyone oppresses other people in a billion different ways... we can't even count all the ways that just through existing and thinking and living we oppress others. We are all complicit in upholding unfair standards. Trust me, I work in a disability community and these judgments and little looks/facial expressions do have real consequences. Nobody is innocent. You can call this "not oppression" but then we're just back to the definitional issue again.

As mentioned I don't usually spend time thinking about all the ways that oppression exists or that I oppress others or that others oppress me, but if those on the left want to waddle into that territory I'm happy to talk.

Just a quick aside, have you seen this sweet JBP mix?

Anyhow, I'm broadly defining 'oppression' as injustice, but it could also just be anything that isn't fair. Often this unfairness is beyond one's control, or beyond anyone's control for that matter.

So I think we're just defining it differently and that's okay because no one has a monopoly on the definition of the word... it's vague. You make solid points and all I can do at the end of the day is state my position and give my take and it's okay if we disagree.

I can't imagine what definition of oppression says it's oppression that people don't want to sleep with you. — Judaka

Would you call just a general social undesirability (e.g. someone who is ugly and socially awkward) a form of oppression? If I were to be totally honest, I would. I think people who struggle socially are quite limited, generally speaking.

EDIT: I don't generally process the world in this way, but if we are going to talk oppression then I've got a lot to say. Dark thought: Disability only exists because non-disabled people exist. Everybody is both oppressor and victim.

a) Yes, I agree here. The Arab-Israeli issue is an ethno-religious problem and persists along ethno-religious lines. [first question]
b) I would like to know who Israel is deporting. In any case, Arab Christian and Druze minorities in Israel have always been welcomed and Arab Christians are doing quite well - they're the most educated group in Israel and they out-do the Israeli Jews on some measures so please stop accusing Israel of being racist. Arab Christians are a model minority. The problem is with the Arab Muslims. It's not that we "assimilate" the Arab Christians - Israel acknowledges their own culture and perspective and caters to that. We don't try to make the Jews, but if they want to then they're welcome to.

Second question, if a Western nation, explicitly tied their culture to an ethnic or racial group, how do you think that would be received by the other Western nations? — Judaka

Very poorly, but in other parts of the world it's the standard. India is for the Indians, China is for the Han Chinese and Japan is for the Japanese. Somehow Jews have been living in India for thousands of years and it's been a great experience for us despite not being the dominant culture or group. The Indians never tried to "assimilate" us/make us more like them, we just dealt with them as equals and respected their traditions. That made for peace. Jews and Indians have never fought. Relations between the two groups are very good.

Good call - I'm reading Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem right now and it's an amazing account on this phenomenon. She makes the point that these people - these functionaries somewhere in the chain of command -- always had some independent decisions to make that influenced how quickly or efficiently the process went. The main point she makes is that moral responsibility is pervasive at every level throughout these kind of events.

But man does she give it to those Jewish community leaders. But also the fact that distinctions were able to be drawn between foreign and non-foreign Jews and distinctions like these were able to go unquestioned. It's just a fact of life that when people's lives are at stake you should not expect the best from them - some, absolutely... but most, no.

The obvious questions this raises: and how do you measure which is the strong and which the weak? — coolazice

Even the "weak" have responsibility and can be atrocious, sometimes even rivaling levels of the "strong" abusers -- Jewish policemen during WWII, for instance could be quite brutal. Weak does not mean good; strong does not mean bad. Yes, there were truly innocent victims in the Holocaust but all too often the reason these people became victims was because of decisions made by numerous authorities at many different levels of the decision-making process who let the orders pass down because "they had no choice" because they were simply "victims." Hitler personally murdered no one. The Holocaust could not have occurred with the cooperation of those at lower levels.

Those who consider themselves powerless victims are often the most vicious and the least inclined to accept responsibility. If you don't believe me consider look into the story of Chaim Rumkowski who led the Lodz ghetto, and there were other Jewish community leaders like that.

What security procedure requires annexing more and more of Palestine? — fdrake

What would you like to talk about in particular: The original birth of Israel (which the Arabs consider annexation)? The expansion of '48? '67? A current proposal to annex area C of the West Bank? These are all different issues and deserve their own treatment.

Israel's borders with 3 of its Arab neighbors are either formally settled or de facto settled... the only flexible border is with Syria which has not recognized Israel but there's no Israeli settlers there. Borders with Egypt and Jordan have been fixed. AFAIK Israel has no plans to annex Gaza and I would certainly be against that.

Your analysis here is accurate.

The problem stems from the Independence War of '47-'48 when David Ben-Gurion expelled some of the Arab communities in the area, but not others. I will have to look a little more deeply into why he did this, but regardless the repercussions of this policy are clear. Israeli Arab Muslims frequently call themselves "Palestinians" or "Israeli Palestinians" and many have family ties to Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza as well as elsewhere. Israel is absolutely a country divided.

It's been difficult. I know for a fact that some participated in the second intifata and other violence and relations between Israeli Jews and its Arab muslim minority have been strained.

Note that the Christian Arabs have been much easier to integrate and assimilate than the Muslim ones. Christian Arabs are one of the most educated groups in Israel. Socio-economically, they're much more similar to the Jews than the Muslim Arabs. They're a model minority that's doing better than Israeli Jews on some important metrics.

The Druze are another group that also do well in Israel. The Israelis have good relations with the Druze and 94% of Druze describe themselves as "Israeli-Druze." No violence here.

Some people will never change the way they view the world. Some may lessen the intensity of such feelings over time. — Manuel

Do you consider fighting oppression as something that's more about changing other people's attitudes, or do you see anything in yourself or your peers that maybe contributes to the issue in the form of reinforcing or upholding certain standards?

If a person has a low sexual market value and nobody wants to date them, that's a form of oppression? Oppression requires a group with power to abuse that power to restrict the political and economic resources of others. — Judaka

I think there's a strong case to be made that being low SMV or just being socially undesirable in general is a form of oppression by society (as well as arguably nature.) Socially undesirable people certainly face discrimination across a wide number of areas.

Jobs and positions in society represent political and economic resources, so that fits nicely into my explanation of oppression. — Judaka

Alright, but those in powerful positions in society can also set or change standards, agree? Beauty standards, fashion, etc. Art can refashion messages and help people view issues in new ways.

So your beliefs, traditions, holidays, mannerisms, language, clothing - whatever you would describe as Jewish culture, it all what, disappears without an ethnic history? — Judaka

Majors holidays that we'd lose off the top of my head if we abandoned ethnic history: Passover, Hanukkah, Sukkot, Purim. We'd also lose all the Jewish/Israeli national holidays like Holocaust remembrance day, founding of Israel day, and a few others.

Jews came to understand God through our interactions with him as detailed in the OT. If you take away those interactions or you don't link yourself to those people then everything fails. The Jewish people formed a covenant with God in the OT and that covenant is extremely important. It's a promise between God that extends to all modern Jews. You need to make that link and the importance of making that link to one's ancestors is repeatedly made in Judaism.

Other cultures have similar links to their ancestors. This is hardly unique to Judaism.

Without the link it's basically "well these people did these things and had these experiences but nothing applies to me."

Maybe some forms of Islam can't stop being anti-LGBTQ, but you'll join me in saying they need to change, same shit here. — Judaka

Of course.

Do you at least see the problem with ethnic histories? — Judaka

I see a problem in "my people's ethnic history makes my people better than yours." I don't see a problem in "this is my people's ethnic history and I think it's pretty cool and it has something to offer to the world and can help others."

People can keep their culture, their ethnic histories gotta go. — Judaka

The problem is that the culture is derived from the ethnic history. Take away the ethnic history and the whole structure collapses. There is simply no Judaism, and in turn no Christianity, if just decide to abandon ethnic histories since the foundational document of Judaism is the ethnic history of the Hebrews.

[delete]

Bitconnect, is this forum turning you? This sounds like something banno or streetlightx would say...

How do you define oppression? What does it mean to be "oppressed" by attitudes and treatment? And are you calling social convention a system of oppression? — Judaka

Standards exclude certain types. Whether it's standards for a job, beauty standards, standards for a parent, for a student... all of these roles carry expectations. The expectation is that you meet those standards and that you don't drop below and there can be real social costs to dropping below. Do you see how standards and attitudes could be said to "oppress" in this way? They create pressure, fear, anxiety, psychological consequences.

I can't condemn the practices of cultures? Why not? You won't condemn things provided they're part of someone's culture? — Judaka

You can condemn cultural practices, but when you say

Why wouldn't you tell the Palestinians or Arabs to cease believing in ethnic, cultural or religious histories when you're aware that the middle east is being torn apart by sectarian violence?

You're asking millions of people to renounce a large part of their identities and how they understand themselves and history... including everything that informs their values. What are you trying to replace it with? Are you sure you'll be able to effectively make that transition?

No offense, but it's also enormously arrogant in practice. Are you going to honestly just tell Arabs to stop practicing Islam or observing certain cultural rituals that have developed outside of Islam? What on Earth gives you that position as an outsider? Are you just so sure that everything they do and how they process and understand things is flat out wrong? Ok.

Your DNA gives you a special history that people without your DNA don't have. Isn't that right? — Judaka

So does yours.

How can someone look at the middle east and say ethnic histories are making the world a better place? What about the WW2 examples you love so much, what about the role ethnic histories played there? — Judaka

You said you were a pragmatist earlier. Ought implies can. We have also seen some very, very bad things happen when we, especially as outsiders, try to erase people's history and culture. Do not do it. You can try to change bad practices and you can question, but do not erase.

How can you actually be practising the culture of Jewish merchants or farmers thousands of years ago when you're living in an advanced economy in the 21st century? — Judaka

Cultures change, technology changes... ways of living were never intended to be preserved at all costs. Jews do however preserve plenty of rituals and practices that have extend that far back though - thousands of years.

There are no "Jewish" people, and it is about you, these are your arguments. The Jewish people don't share possessions, they don't share a history, they don't share a religion, they are a loosely defined ethnoreligious group of individuals who barely have anything to do with each other. — Judaka

would you deny the existence of a group such as, say, the han chinese? do uyghurs exist in your world? it doesn't matter because they exist in our world.

Why wouldn't you tell the Palestinians or Arabs to cease believing in ethnic, cultural or religious histories when you're aware that the middle east is being torn apart by sectarian violence? — Judaka

Because it would be like telling the Russians to stop drinking vodka or the Indians to stop doing yoga.

Why not? I'm a pragmatist, why should I care about "ah but check my DNA, I have a long history and belong to a special people who have done all these things over thousands of years" when I know it's 1. stupid and 2. destructive? — Judaka

I would never phrase it like that.

All I'm saying is that I was born into a culture & a group and I believe that that culture and history and those teachings have something to offer to the world -- value. I think expressing and sharing that can help others solve their problems and I think people from different cultures with their own unique experiences and judgments genuinely can offer different, valuable insights that can broader one's horizons and make people and society better. And that starts with a knowledge of who you are. People should have some sort of roots or identity.

What concessions/restoration do you feel Israel owes the people it oppresses, then? Should it at least stop expanding its territory? — fdrake

The blockade and the checkpoints are for national security. I'm aware that this is every abuser's excuse, but let me ask you this: If people from northeast England had a history and a culture that painted the Scots as the enemy and in their attacks consistently made an effort to maximize civilian casualties, how much protection would you place on your border if you were in charge assuming such measures were practically feasible? Imagine that the people of Scotland elected you. These procedures have uncovered weapons and dangerous materials.

Security procedures are always unpleasant, but so is the cost of not implementing them.

I feel like the very idea of giving a nation credit for not being the worst human rights abuser on the planet is beyond the point of parody. But if you're willing to say that it really is an abuser of Palestinian human rights and that ought to stop... — fdrake

It's actually a surprisingly big deal since humans have an unfortunate tendency to demonize others (the Jews know this all too well), and by singling out one group for condemnation above everyone else you embolden bigots and you reinforce Israeli distrust/paranoia to much of the rest of the world.

I agree that the Palestinians are oppressed and that certain Israeli policies and actions make life worse for the Palestinian people.

Here lies the fundamental problem: Israel views itself as the homeland for jews, and that one group of people have conscription while others have not tells of a problem.

Getting conscripted by the IDF would put a lot of Arab men in compromising positions with their families and communities. It would be the same way if Jews were drafted into Arab armies to fight against Israel -- it is considered backstabbing one's own people.

Oppression is created primarily through the deprivation of resources, be they political or economic. Complete oppression would mean no political or economic resources, which could be observed in slavery. The greater the access to political and economic resources, the more free someone is and therefore the less oppressed they are. To measure whether someone is oppressed or not, we should evaluate their resources. To be clear, by political resources, I mean things such as rights and protections. Economic resources could mean access to wealth, employment, and so forth. In the case of the Palestinians, they are oppressed because Israel restricts their access to many fundamental political rights and protections, through their poverty and disproportionate lack of resources. Some people will talk about oppression in smaller environments than the state level, don't know how I feel about that. — Judaka

Why is oppression only about access to political and economic resources? What about the disabled? They get oppressed by people's preconceived attitudes and treatment. Nature oppresses the sick or those with various conditions. Societies place standards on jobs and behavior and that can oppress the disabled. Standards oppress.



Sure black, gay, and jewish does beat out only being gay on the oppression scale. How about the guy's family though? How about wealth? How does someone who grew up black, gay, jewish and wealthy compare with someone who grew up middle class, hispanic, and straight and cisgender? Who is more oppressed? Moreover, what does it mean for the more oppressed party: should we be taking some sort of action in response?

I am amazed that you can frame it this way with a straight face! It's discrimination against Israel in the international theatre that's causing the UN to issue resolutions against Israel's continued history of human rights violations? — fdrake

Is Israel the worst human rights abuser on the planet? Because thats the impression you'd get from the UN. Organizations like the UN need to be able to fairly distribute their criticism. It is imperative for the integrity of an organization.

It's a regional power for sure and I've never claimed Israel to be anything more than that militarily. It's not anywhere close as strong as the US, China or Russia.

Maybe that was true in its past when Israel was beginning, but today Israel has quite a few partnerships with several big powers and it's not out of a sense of paternalism. The IDF is a professional, well-organized force in its own right and they help train other militaries. The support given to it by America does not make or break the IDF.

Israel's military budget is around $20-21 billion, and the US will give around $3.8 billion.

I don't expect the world to be sympathetic to Israel. There's almost 2 billion Muslims and only 15 million Jews. 50 Muslim majority nations and 1 Jewish majority nation. Whose story do you think is going to get told more? If you were to go purely by UN resolutions you would think that Israel is worse than China or North Korea. I'm serious on this one: UN resolutions against Israel far exceed the number given to any other country.

With that last question you're just throwing way too many issues at me without the appropriate framing. For instance you ask me to condemn Israel's "expansion into Palestine" but according to the Palestinians/Arabs the existence of any Jewish state in that region is an "expansion into Palestine." The birth of Israel was the original "expansion" aka "the nakba" - the "humiliation" of the Muslims.

Obviously I condemn any racism full stop, but some of the accusations against Israel on this front are lies or propaganda to make Israel look bad. I catch one of these lies here. I don't deny that Israel has racial problems as would any nation that has been in a conflict with another group over a long history.

If you want to speak realistically, Israel's claim to the land is backed by its ability to defend itself - just like any other state.

You share basically nothing with your "Jewish ancestors", no history, no culture, no religion, nothing. — Judaka

This isn't about me, this is about the Jewish people. The Jewish people have the Torah, countless prayers, numerous holidays which have been celebrated for thousands of years that signal their connection to the land.

Of course I don't expect this to serve as a complete justification. A major reason for Israel's existence is security - Israel exists to protect its citizens and provide for their welfare.

Ethnic, religious and racial histories promote and justify racism and tribalism, that's why they need to be delegitimised as valid ways of viewing history. — Judaka

They absolutely should not justify racism, but tribalism - yes, to some extent. These two things are very different: one is disgusting, the other to an extent is a part of life. You can have your own thoughts on this type of thinking but it's really just a fact of life, especially in the Middle East. I'm not going to tell the Palestinians or the Arabs or anyone else for that matter that they don't have a right to their own ethnic or cultural history (or to view things in that way.) I just wish they would tell that story in a different way, one that isn't so hostile to the Jews.

— Judaka

The political entities that you're referring are ruled by autocrats, who act in accordance with domestic and geopolitical goals, profits and their other individual political objectives. 99.99% of the people referred to by these group names are peons in political apparatuses which don't care about them and over which they have no control. — Judaka

You do know that the Israeli government is based on a parliamentary democracy? Everybody has the right to vote, even Arabs. Arabs have prominent representation in Israeli government. Israel has a legislature, executive branch, and judicial branch. This description may apply to some Arab countries, but not Israel. Israel is far from perfect, but at least it tries to balance and include these western ideals.

I understand that the middle-east, in particular, subscribes to this way of thinking, but far from that being a justification for you to do it — Judaka

I feel ties to the Jewish people and Israel - sue me. I'll present a religious/cultural justification, sure, but I would never expect everyone to be convinced by it. If that case works, great, but if not I'll fall back on principles of general statehood that would apply to any other country or group. I would never tell you that you're not allowed to engage or relate to your ancestors or ethnic history. It's all about how you do it. If you don't want to that's fine too, but don't act like no one else has a right to connect to their people's past.

I would never claim that the Palestinians are irrational or illogical for wanting what they want. I would also not say that they "don't have the mandate to fight for it." The Palestinians, like the Jews, have their own history in the land as well as their own cultural and religious traditions that are based in the region. I can object to the means that they use to attain their goal, however. Their tactics are more extreme and violent than the IRA's or the Jewish underground's ever were. I can also reasonably object to how the ruling party treats its own citizens, as should anyone who has done even cursory research on Hamas and Fatah especially in regard to human rights and corruption. These parties are not Israeli puppets and they do make important governance decisions for the Palestinian people.

Never mind that this was like, I don't know, the fifth point in that list so you read at least four others. That doesn't feel like propapanda but just straight up dishonest. — Benkei

It would only be dishonest if I committed myself to the position that I know everything about Israeli history and law and there is 100% no racial problem.

I have never said this. I 100% acknowledge that I don't know Israeli law like the back of my hand and that there may very well be racial problems. In fact, I'm positive that Israel does have racial problems we're only discussing here the extent and nature of them. Is it more the population? Is it the laws? Informal practices? These details matter. America has obvious racial issues but we don't call it apartheid... right? maybe?

Hey Benkei, I found an online article with the title "30 reasons why Israel is awesome." I'd like a response to all of them... maybe by the end of the week? Could I get it double spaced as well? At least 8 pages please.

Let me know when I can copy and paste the article here. :smile:

So Arab Israelis aren't Israeli enough to defend their own country because their "brethren" are fighting with Israel. Except, of course, you're all semites so... eh...? — Benkei

Wait, what? Are you actually arguing in favor of conscripting Arabs here into the IDF?! And I'm the insensitive one?!?! Cultural context, man.

Not at all out of place. Quite necessary I would think from the point of view of 'just war' theory. On a smaller scale it is a matter that lawyers and judges need to deal with very frequently. — Tobias

Alright we can try our best here. I'm not saying that moral judgement is impossible in this area, only that it's more difficult and needs to be considered among other factors as well. Throughout this thread I've tried to introduce morality probably dozens of times and have tried to bring up just war theory.

By definition the suicide bomber is dead and the threat has dissipated. What sort of 'security' does bulldozing a family house bring? — Tobias

Have you considered that Palestinian authorities in the past will greatly reward the families of suicide bombers providing them with an economic incentive? Maybe bulldozing property could be considered a way of dissipating that incentive. Everything isn't about morality and a narrow focus on morality excludes other important factors.

Probably not, but if you want to attack Americans for their black pages in history the genocide on the Amerindians (or native Amercans whichever term you prefer) is an easier target. However, two wrongs do not make a right. So Israels actions do not suddenly become moral because those of the Americans in preceding centuries were immoral. — Tobias

I intentionally cited a more morally ambiguous event. Moral criticism always occurs in a context - it is not ahistorical, absent of culture - although I suppose it might be in a philosophy classroom.

The broader question is how the story of, say, the American civil war is told and how we come to understand it. That matters and it carries real-world repercussions. A set of facts of moral facts, say - X, Y, Z might be true and philosophically sound but this is an entirely different issue from how the bigger picture should be presented and processed and understood.

For instance, while its true that Uyghurs conducted terrorist attacks against Chinese civilians, to present overriding importance to these attacks as opposed to China's ongoing genocide is awful.

If that argument flies no one can judge anything. However, it does not fly. If you are mugged in the subway the perpetrator will provided he is caught, be punished irrespective of his intractable historical circumstance. We punish him because we think mugging you is wrong. We recognise each other's pain and are capable of discerning suffering from pleasure. A historical situation makes behaviour understandable, maybe even excusable, but not right or justified. — Tobias

I agree with your point, but I do still believe we need to be careful going forward. I'm perfectly content condemning certain actions or historical events, again I'm just stressing the importance of viewing certain actions and policies in a broader historical and cultural context which historically some philosophers have ignored.

Whatever moral theory you might like and presents a cogent argument for your position. — Tobias

Who are we talking about in particular? The morality of the ground soldiers? How about NCOs or junior officers? Or maybe we could talk about the morality of senior officers like Colonels who may be the ones behind, e.g. a raid? Or are we talking about morality for the entire state of Israel?

I do not think I need to expand much. When you say "well I have family in Israel and so that is why I embrace the position that Israel did not commit war crimes" you do that. You apparently hold the position that whether or not country X committed war crimes is dependent on whether the parties have relatives on country X. — Tobias

Just to be clear I meant to deny war crimes in this current flare-up, not across Israel's entire history. I of course acknowledge certain crimes committed by Israeli forces - Jish and Deir Yassin, for example.

Yes of course there is a difference. Being evil is a characteristic of a person or entity and doing evil is judgment passed on an action. — Tobias

You're not wrong, but when I approach subjects like politics or practical action the language that I use is different from the language that a philosopher would use in a philosophy paper. If you want to you can spend time harping on this fairly irrelevant issue but I'm just going to drop it. I don't see any meaningful difference between what other posters have described Israel as and "evil."

We need to draw a distinction here between the proper actions and policies of a state and abstract moral judgments. When it comes to political discussions, we are talking about the former. The central function of a state is security - the protection of its own citizens. Morality may be one factor in decision-making, but it should not be the whole picture. Thus, even if your argument is sound it does not carry overriding prescriptive force for what Israel ought to do.

I do have to make one more gripe:

Who deprived the Palestinians there? The state of Israel, so they ought not have...What about the sense of historic? — fdrake

Read what I wrote earlier - the majority of Palestinians according to historians like Benny Morris were not deprived due to Israeli actions, but rather fled on their own volition due to fear of war. That would make the Arab aggressors responsible for the disenfranchisement.

Ok, where do we start? — ssu

You cite 10 different detailed claims which is just too much for me to respond to. It's information overload and I don't have the time or effort to respond to all 10 in detail in one post. There was one that struck me as very, very egregious that I wanted to address here which does make me seriously question the author's intentions:

• Absorption of Discharged Soldiers Law (1994) Amendment No. 7: Benefits for Discharged Soldiers (2008): Allows the use of military/national service as a criterion for the allocation of benefits in higher education.The vast majority of Palestinian citizens of Israel are exempted from military service and do not serve in the Israeli army for political and historical reasons.

Yes, Israel exempts Arab citizens from conscription because Israel does not believe it civil to force Arab Israelis to fight against their own brethren as Israel is often at war. However, Arab Israelis are free to join the military if they wish in which case they receive the same benefits as any other soldier.

This point is really just condemning Israel for providing benefits to its veterans when more Jews serve than Arabs (because Jews are required to serve.) It's incredibly dishonest to present this as racism and if this claim is in the same vein as others it feels like propaganda.

EDIT: The author has transformed Israeli cultural sensitivity (via excluding Arabs from consciption) and Israeli's ability to provide veterans with educational benefits into an act of racism. That is vile and it speaks directly to the author.

I think most would agree that the conditions under which Israel attained statehood were far from ideal. I heard that part of the reason the process was rushed was that the Jewish population at the time was facing a large amount of displaced Jews from Arab countries and they needed a central governing body. In any case I think your approach is right: What's done is done, and we need to be looking at the future to best deal with the situation. At the end of the day the statehood comes down to security and logistics, and sure some case can be made about ancient claims and ancient ties but many will surely be unconvinced here.

I think it's clear that Jews have been the victims of bigotry and oppression for thousands of years, and that Christians or those who called themselves Christians were largely responsible for their plight. Certainly the Holocaust was a peculiarly European phenomenon. — Ciceronianus the White

Yeah, the key here is "called themselves Christians." To be fair there is/was plenty of Muslim anti-semitism as well and as a Jew I'm not going play this game of "which religion oppressed us more?"

Jewish history should not be described as a history of victimhood. I think that's a terrible way to describe it. We're just a minority who was essentially forced into a socially undesirable trade (money lending) in the Middle Ages which often made us targets. However, Jews certainly had their share of instigators & powerful, influential figures and its patently dishonest to make out our history as one of sheer victimhood at the hands of more powerful groups. It also ignores so many other accomplishments and victories and only reinforces Jewish paranoia.

Especially in the modern age and under John Paul II relations between Jews and Christians were probably the best they've ever been. Looking forward, I'm much more optimistic about Jews' relations with Christians, particularly religious Protestants, than those with Muslims or the secular world.

Also, you do realise the right of return is a human right? So you want to deny Palestinians human rights because it would be a logistical nightmare? I really don't give a shit that the consequences of crimes are inconvenient to the perpetrator. — Benkei

If RoR is a human right then Israel has a right to Gaza and the West Bank because that's what the original Hebrew kingdom encompassed before they were kicked out.

In any case if we're going to go with this we can begin discussions when the Arab nations agree to compensate the 600-800,000 Jews that were expelled and dispossessed of their property between '48-'72 as well as all of their descendants. Do they get their homes back? How about their property? Is England or Spain going to compensate us and give Jews their land back when they were expelled centuries ago? Why should Israel fall on the sword and destroy itself when virtually no other nation has done this? Make no mistake about it, full RoR means chaos and destruction of Israel. It means over 5 million moving back a country of 9 million. Arabs are now the majority and can shape the country as they want, and if that means killing or subjugating Jews so be it. Maybe at that point you'd be sympathetic to the Jews and the Jews become the "oppressed minority" but as a Jew I'd rather not take that path even if it is truly "righteous" or whatever.

It's like if you and your neighbor got into a fight and both of you were at fault and you appeared before a judge and the judge only ordered one side to compensate, but not the other and said: "this discussion is only about your wrongs, stop trying to change the subject."

As an analogy, if I kill your daughter or attempt to, you get to kill me without any problem. What you're not allowed is bomb my family and neighbours. — Benkei

Alright, I'll respond to this analogy. I ignored it at first because it's a little vague so I'll attempt to clarify.

If we were both US citizens I would absolutely not be entitled to kill you if you killed my daughter. You would just be charged with a crime.

But if it's a conflict between two groups then, yes, ideally we only target the murderer/attacker but in reality this is simply not possible. Even if we struck a legitimate military target such as base, there are still plenty of civilians living and working there. There is simply no way to avoid civilian casualties in war and that's a universal fact about war/conflict.

As an analogy, if I kill your daughter or attempt to, you get to kill me without any problem. What you're not allowed is bomb my family and neighbours. — Benkei

If our tribes were at war and I was launching missiles from my home or a school don't you think that puts you in kind of a tough spot when it comes to a retalitatory strike? What I'd be doing, by the way, I believe is a war crime.

No, I don't agree. It's quite clear the 1967 borders are acceptable to a majority of Palestinians, even Hamas hardliners, which already includes plenty of land stolen through conquest. There's a difference between wanting and compromising. — Benkei

Hamas asked for '67 borders + right of return. '67 borders by themselves are a reasonable request, but any mention of right of return is not. RoR = end of Israel plus a logistical nightmare.

The majority of Palestinians are not simply satisfied with '67 borders if there's no RoR.

That's no justification for a war crime. — Benkei

If the Belgians started launching missiles at the Netherlands & killing the Dutch are you not allowed to respond? It's a question of how one responds, not whether response is permissible (which it obviously is.)

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) published reports documenting racism in Israel — Benkei

The data is a little old and was taken not too long after the second intifata but I'll let it slide. In any case, I can play this game as well -- and you know I can -- simply by citing data on the Palestinians' attitudes on Jews. It goes both ways, agree? I cited earlier that 93% of Palestinians hold anti-Semitic views and trust me I could go further. Does this surprise you? It shouldn't.

I've never denied racism in Israel.

One group is oppressed the other isn't. — Benkei

Israel cannot impose peace. It is not possible. The leadership of both parties must sign on to the agreements. It must come from both sides. The attitude that all of Palestine must be reclaimed for the Palestinians is widespread among Palestinians and serves as a significant obstacle for peace, do you agree? It is not just the Israelis.

[/i]

The latest attacks on Gaza was collective punishment, which Israeli does almost every time in an escalation. — Benkei

The latest attacks on Gaza were in response to Hamas launching thousands of rockets at Israel.

Every time they collectively punish Palestinians, every time they annex land. In other words, more or less continuous. — Benkei

You frequently throw dozens of potential issues out there for me to address and it's just not worth it for me. When I address one you just move onto something else.

Lasting peace is not established under the heel of a boot. Israel could be the saviour of Palestinians too and have true lasting peace and an ally in the region - if it would concern itself with a just solution. Since that will never happen in a country where over 50% think non-Jews are inferior, we'll be stuck with this unless the international community intervenes. My hope is there and the Irish statement is a good beginning. — Benkei

Israel could be the savior of the Palestinian people if it packs up and leaves or agrees to subjugate themselves under Arab rule. You don't get it - this isn't about Gaza. This isn't about the West Bank. The majority position of the Palestinians is that they want all of Palestine, from the river to the sea. Why can't you understand that the problem doesn't solely lay with Israel?

Also source on the 50% figure?

And of course the real issue is that these Palestinians, who officially aren't even called Palestinians but Arab israelis, do face discrimination in the country even if citizens. — ssu

What sort of discrimination and who is it coming from? There's a difference institutional racism and racists acts by individuals. I never noticed Arabs being banned from certain places or services when I was in Israel. Arabs have strong representation in government (20%) in Israel and are allowed to vote and I believe should be equal under the law. There are tons of Arabs in high positions in Israeli society. That said I don't know anything about, e.g. the housing industry over there.

Passing judgment on situation X is something different then solving situation X. In a philosophy forum the purpose is to discuss the ethical merits of a given situation or solution, not solving that situation. — Tobias

Alright fair enough - I think we could do both though.

It can be sometimes difficult to apply a moral lens to this sort of low intensity warfare & actual warfare but we can do our best.

When it comes to matters of national security, e.g. whether Israel was justified in their pre-emptive strike on Egyptian airfields in '67 applying an ethical analysis of the issue seems out of place. If an enemy mobilizes and surrounds your camp are you allowed to strike? Is that "ethical?"

but the question remains whether Israeli actions are right or wrong. — Tobias

There are somethings I can certainly say are wrong - massacres, for instance. Security measures such as house raids or bulldozing suicide bombers homes are not so clear.

You could crucify any group or any country like this. Was the North in the American Civil War squeaky clean morality-wise? Of course not. Sure, we can talk about what they did wrong but to only focus on their wrongs and not the crimes of the South does seem dubious. You'd get a very slanted picture of the Civil War if that's all you were presented with.

Part of the problem is also that philosophers like to conceive of morality as ahistorical and this results in 21st century people sitting on their nice couches or chairs behind computer screens judging individuals in an environment and historical circumstance that they just do not know and will never know. I guess this is a question of responsibility or blame which is different from morality. These issues are obviously closely related though.

And even beyond this - which morality are we to judge them by? Utilitarianism? Ethical Egoism? Whether the country is "being nice?"

What you tell us to do is entirely uninteresting because you do not matter one bit. (neither do I). What might be relevant is whether you are right in your advice or not and if so why / why not. You seem to have some odd idea that the truth value of an argument is dependent on who utters it.
— Tobias

Could you expand on this a little? I know that I've gravitated towards a certain relativism here. I wasn't sure that I went that far but I might have so please let me know.

"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." — Tobias

There are posters who have waddled into that territory. In my mind there's no real difference between "constantly does evil" and "is evil." There are plenty of posters who have described Israel as being essentially a constantly evil force. Posters here have accused Israel of genocide constantly which is the epitome of evil in my book. Scroll back a little and you'll see plenty of these Israel-Nazi comparisons.