Right. Never spoken to a Palestinian, and yet here you are excusing crimes against humanity perpetrated against them.

It's a bit rich, don't you think?

To be clear: removing hundreds of thousands of settlers to create a Palestinian state is something you consider realistic, correct? — Tzeentch

Yes, give or take, — schopenhauer1

And on what basis do you make that judgement, given that the UN has consistently pointed at Israel's settlement policy as a purposeful obstruction of the peace process?

You keep using this word "oppression" but oppression, from the Arab-Muslim perspective, is any Jewish self-determination on that land when it ought to be Muslim land. — BitconnectCarlos

Yet, the Israelis have had their state for nearly a century, and the Palestinians have been living under a brutal Israeli oppression since 1967.

A recurring pattern seems to be that you value your own constructs of what Palestinians are like over the very real atrocities that are being committed to by Israel as we speak. Have you ever spoken to a Palestinian?

That was in 2005, and the numbers involved just weren't anywhere in the ballpark of what would be required for the creation of a Palestinian state.

Also, the disengagement from Gaza turned into another domestic crisis, with riots, gunfights between the IDF and settlers, and people setting themselves on fire in protest. Gnarly stuff.

To be clear: removing hundreds of thousands of settlers to create a Palestinian state is something you consider realistic, correct?

Of course Israel couldn't remove the settlers. We're talking about literally hundreds of thousands of people (in many cases armed and militant), when Israel could barely remove a couple thousand from the Sinai without a full-blown domestic crisis. It was after the Sinai debacle that Israel actually vowed never to conduct such a removal again, so you'll have to contend with Israel's own words as well.

And the corresponding UN Security Council resolutions make exactly this argument - that Israel was making any peace deal impossible by creating facts on the ground that are basically irreversible. That was exactly the goal of the settlement policy.

But if you are under the impression that removing settlements was something the Israelis were actually prepared to do, then at least it's clear where the disconnect happens.

At some point, you take a deal because it's good for your people to move forward. — schopenhauer1

Again, what deal are you talking about? There was no deal to be had. Or do you think Israel would have started removing settlers based on whatever borders were agreed?

The 2000 one.. where 92% of land was contiguous. — schopenhauer1

Do you expect me to believe you don't understand the meaning of those maps?

Those settlers were never going to go away. Israel could promise 100% of the West bank; it sure as hell wasn't going to remove hundreds of thousands of settlers after the Sinai disaster.

They were deliberately positioned to break up any would-be Palestinian state into a field of little islands. The point was to create facts on the ground that would pre-empt any peace accord, and Israel was called out on it in UNSC resolutions.

This is not, and never was, a feasible basis for a state and you know it.

A Palestinian State was never feasible, because Israel since 1967 worked extensively to make it unfeasible via their settlement policy.

That's the point of the settlement policy, and this very criticism at Israel's address is made in several UN Security Council Resolutions, condemning it as a purposeful obstruction of the road to peace.

I don't understand how willfully blind you have to be as to not acknowledge this.

Here, this is what the effects of Israeli settlement policy looks like:




No American president can change this now, and that was of course exactly the point. Note the situation at the start of Clinton's presidency in 1993.

What realistic prospect of a Palestinian state are you even talking about?

Interestingly, the Kremlin offered a cease-fire and granted Ukraine an opportunity to return to the negotiating table with the March/April 2022 Istanbul accords as a basis.

Personally, I think Ukraine would be crazy not to at least take a seat at the table. But I know better.

I think we ought to read this latest offer by the Kremlin as a "last chance" type deal, before they will ramp up the pressure on Ukraine another time and this time probably with the intention to definitively cripple it until they can impose their desired conditions unilaterally.

However, I get the sense if you talk to Israelis, even liberal/moderate ones, they would ask you what a moderate Palestinian might be, as they haven't seen one? — schopenhauer1

Probably because they have never visited the West Bank.

Take it for what it's worth, but while I was there I did not hear a single Palestinian express they believed violence was the solution.

You know who are radicals? Israeli settlers. Those people can rightly be called radical, and yes I met them too.

True, and I doubt whether this makes a two-state solution any more likely.

But that's not the reason why I believe this is significant.

The more diplomatically isolated Israel becomes, the more it turns into a strategic liability to the US.

When US support for Israel starts waning, that's when this ball may finally start rolling.

:ok:

A while back I mentioned the 'climate grift', and how it undermines the credibility of environmentalism.

Well, here you go:

Rich nations are earning billions from a pledge to help fix climate

Ireland to recognise Palestinian State

Norway recognises Palestinian State

Long overdue, but a positive development that will put further pressure on Israel.

Other countries are reportedly following suit.

My eight wives and I find our polyamorous relationship perfectly natural.

For example, how can one understand the "ethics" of "war" or "commerce" or "economic policy" AS APPLIED to individuals. These are inherently things only applied to state apparatuses and institutions. That is to say, "governmental entities". That is why I would split government or political ethics as a different domain than individual ethics. — schopenhauer1

Ok then.

What are the rules of these ethics that apply to states?

Since states do not exist and are merely abstractions, does it mean we can discuss other things that do not exist?

I guess there's a reason this thread is in The Lounge. :razz:

It's not based on individuals but actors on behalf of states. — schopenhauer1

What other actors are there besides individuals?

These individuals can be liable for acting poorly on the state, but war itself is considered a legitimate form of conflict (however ironic that sounds), between state actors. — schopenhauer1

This sounds like international law, and not like ethics.

You're right; within international law war can be legitimate.

But, and correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think you or anyone in this thread is primarily interested in a discussion about international law.

You were talking about a different form of ethics that applies to states. For transparency's sake, I don't think such a form of ethics exists, because the state is an abstraction and personifying the state has no basis in reality. It's just a handy tool we use for communicating broad ideas.

Now, on an ethical basis, when talking about ethics-proper, I agree with you that the individual is the locus of ethics. However, this is why I've always separated government and ethics. I do NOT think that ethics can in a 1:1 way ramped up to large social levels. That is because this a discontinuity at some point when actions can no longer be controlled at individual levels. — schopenhauer1

So what is this non-proper ethics that apparently applies to states?

It’s a war of self-defense. — schopenhauer1

This isn't often explicitly discussed, but there is a fundamental difference between an individual acting out of self-defense, and a state (an abstract idea) "acting" out of self-defense.

In my opinion, what constitutes genuine self-defense from a moral angle, is when the individual in question has no alternatives.

If we assume for a moment the state seeks to act purely out of self-defense by proxy (and not for example to protect its territorial integrity, national identity, etc.), this fundamental prerequisite of there being no alternative options is not met, because that is simply not how states function.

An individual can choose to flee from war. A state can't, nor will a state suggest that its people try avoiding the violence by fleeing.

A country on that is on the verge of being invaded may claim it is acting in defense of its citizens (self-defense by proxy), but in fact those citizens have an option open to them: flee.

Therefore it is not an act of self-defense, and practically speaking wars of self-defense do not exist.


Debunking the idea of a "war of self-defense" from a more practical angle: morality must be analyzed on the appropriate level - that of the moral agent, which is to say the level of the individual.

So even in war, determining the moral nature of actions must happen for each individual and each action seperately. Just because many individuals are involved does not mean we get to use special shortcuts by which a war can be labeled as just as a whole.

What incentive is there for the Kremlin to agree to such terms?

Ok, but what about my question? — RogueAI

I'm not going to play games answering your loaded questions.

If you have a point to make, make it.

If your point is that Israel commiting crimes against humanity is morally equivalent to people opposing Nazism or slavery, you're obviously off your rocker.

As usual, Mearsheimer manages to deliver a lucid take on the Israel-Palestine conflict.

I have echoed similar sentiments in this thread: Israel is paving the way to its own destruction, and apologizing for its misdeeds or cheering it on is simply going to expediate that process.

Israel needs a radical change of course.

This begs the question of whether laws should always be followed, [...] — RogueAI

That's what I'm trying to point out.

One ends up in a moral debate about which laws are good and which aren't.

Apparently there is some confusion about this, with people trying to invoke selective interpretations of international law, which is foolish on many levels.

International law offers a very simple answer to the question in the OP: No.

A war crime is by its very definition against international law.

Involving international law just serves to muddy the waters. Besides, arguing in favor of Israel on the basis of international law is not very credible. They've ignored literally decades worth of (legally binding) resolutions and rapports coming from the highest bodies in international law.

The writer does not understand the nature of international law.

International law is a method of communication between states, and first and foremost a matter of credibility.

One can interpret international law to fit their agenda all they want; given the amount of grey area and tension between articles that is hardly a challenge.

The real question is whether the rest of the world finds that interpretation plausible, and in the case of Israel that is overwhelmingly not the case.

It's not like "the police" would come and invade Israel to "arrest" Israeli politicians, even if they were convicted of war crimes. That's simply not how international law works.

The rules and stakes in an international court are completely different. Contrary to a civilian court, what's at stake here is not punishment but credibility.

Arguing technicalities and producing skewed interpretations of the law may save one from the former, but won't produce an iota of the latter.

Does the Western world have the moral fortitude to allow Israel to take the bloody but ethical steps to defeat Hamas? — Shlomo M. Brody

This sentence from the article reads like a bad joke.

Anyone who speaks of moral justification while excusing the intentional of bombing refugee camps is a joke, and probably doesn't know what the term means.

Some call this period the Dark Ages. What changed the direction Europe was going? — Athena

When Rome fell, Europe was first sacked and then taken over by barbarians tribes that eventually settled and became the inheritors of the civilization.

Near the tail end of this process, the Viking age started, which roughly coincided with the creation of Islam which posed yet another round of grave threats to Europe from nearly every direction.

It is only around the 11th and12th century that the aforementioned inheritors manage to stabilize the situation and European society could start to flourish again.

But before it truly could, the bubonic plague and the Mongol invasions started.

All in all, it's not so strange Europe entered a Dark Age.

Nationalism doesn't exist, and we're just one big happy family?

You're starting to bend yourself at fascinating angles.

Morality according to Churchill was doing the best he could for his country. — Sir2u

Which is clearly a nationalist sentiment, and Churchill was clearly a nationalist.

I'm not sure how that isn't obvious.

You seem to be unaware of the nature of the things you're arguing and now you're trying to compensate with snark.

It depends on the scale really. Perhaps its possible to run a small village ("society") morally. But the larger the scale, the less realistic that seems to me, even for so simple a reason that virtually every modern state has to rely on widespread coercion (law) to maintain order.

That would - or should - also apply to war? If you behave in such a way as to make enemies, or force other people into untenable positions, sooner or later you will have to defend yourself by killing your erstwhile victims. — Vera Mont

I'd say that makes sense. Though, I don't believe in modern war as a form of "collective self-defense". The nature of war is simply too diffuse for that.

↪Tzeentch, so, homicide to defend your loved ones is :up: then? — jorndoe

To any sane person homicide is :sad:.

But as a last resort, it might be rightfully be labeled a tragedy.

Self-defense can be excused as last resort, even for so simple a reason that most won't be fully in control of themselves if they are in a real self-defense situation.

But the best form of self-defense is running away, or simply not getting into situations that might require one to defend oneself.

Self-defense might be extended to other persons, but the same principles apply.

If one doesn't have the spine to make hard moral choices, one should not get into politics. Wouldn't you agree? — RogueAI

If one wishes to be moral, one probably should avoid politics altogether.

That's what makes it immoral and cowardice to abdicate responsibility when the going gets rough. — RogueAI

I disagree.

Leaving would still be the right thing to do - better late than never - but there is an element of immorality in the fact that Winston foolishly took upon himself such responsibilities.

All this would have done is caused a reshuffle and Anthony Eden would have had the same decisions to make. — Sir2u

Morality isn't about Britain.

What would have happened if all of the people in line for his job with exactly the same circumstance bowed out saying "I don't want to get my hands dirty and I don't want to be responsible for losing the war"? — Sir2u

Who knows what would have happened?

Perhaps the world would have become a better place with so many people wisening up and taking the high road.

Answer: The world would probably now be trading in Deutsche Marks instead of dollars. — Sir2u

Probably not.

Morality according to Churchill was doing the best he could for his country, [...] — Sir2u

Morality is nationalism? What a profoundly silly opinion. That's probably why he stayed in politics.

It's moral to quit one's post and provoke a crisis in leadership on the eve of a Nazi invasion? How is that not cowardice? — RogueAI

As I explained earlier, Winston made the crucial error of taking up responsibilities that he would not be able to carry out without breaking moral principles.

But be that as it may, the moral thing to do would be to cut one's losses and make the right decision anyway. Better late than never. Let the people who want to play that game figure it out among themselves.

Cowardice has nothing to do with it, because one extracts themselves not out of fear, but out of moral principle.

He could abdicate and go to the English countryside, and a few weeks later him and the undesirables of his countrymen will be rounded up and likely murdered. — BitconnectCarlos

He could go anywhere, really. And so could his countrymen.

Someone must lead, even if there are no states this remains true. — BitconnectCarlos

So?

Why should I, an individual interested in making moral decisions, have any interest in leading something that cannot be led morally?

But by all means be "moral" and go frolic away in the countryside while stronger organized forces seek domination. — BitconnectCarlos

:ok:

I agree that extreme examples tend to turn into situations in which no moral outcomes are possible, and that such examples tend to be unrealistic and not very helpful.

On the other hand it does provide an opportunity to view the dilemma critically and test one's principles.

While the powerful villain "forcing" one to act is a common concept, I think we should remain critical about whether there is actually any forcing going on.

Winston for example is perfectly free to leave office. He's not forced to do anything.

There's a perfectly moral option available to him: extract himself from this rotten game of states, and search for greener, less homicidal pastures.

And then came the actions that Russia took, which forced even Finland and Sweden to change their course. You had to do a lot to change the stance these two countries had, actually. — ssu

Washington worked very hard for it. And they got what they wanted: a new set of lambs to sacrifice on the altar of American geopolitics.

Even rarer when there's a villain we can point to who manoeuvred us in that situation (in which case we actually no longer have moral agency because this villain controls and constrains both choices). And even if it did exist, there's always the option not to choose. It's not up to me to condemn innocent people because of the crimes of others. — Benkei

Personally, even if we suppose the situation is this clear (ignoring for example Britain's part in causing WW2), I wouldn't let Winston off the hook so easily.

Why does the mere existence of a villain remove moral agency?

The villain, Hitler in this case, wasn't preventing Winston from extracting himself from the situation.

What was preventing Winston from doing so, was the fact that he had taken upon himself a responsibility as prime minister. That is something he did to himself, voluntarily.

Is that based on MORALITY or convenience? — Sir2u

IHL is based in law, ergo, a set of rules that parties have agreed upon should be followed.

It is underpinned by, among other things, moral reasoning, but pointing at IHL is not a moral argument. It's a legal argument.

Also many gangs around the world should therefore be tried under these rules, [...] — Sir2u

That would be a matter for criminal law, not IHL.

Is there a difference between moral justification and plain ordinary justification? — Sir2u

Sure.

A moral justification is (or should be) based on an exhaustive argument, preferably all the way down to first principles, as to why a certain action is good.

A "plain ordinary justification" is a fancy word for an opinion.

I ask these questions because if I had to kick your dog to death to save you I would not consider it a moral choice but one of convenience. If the dog killed you I would probably have to wait until the cops arrived to give evidence. If the dog died I could just walk away and let you clean up the mess. — Sir2u

Killing animals, not a moral choice. :brow:

Ok then...

I guess I was right when I said we would probably have too little common ground for a fruitful discussion.

For example, it is immoral from my point of view to kick a dog, but I can justify my kicking the shit out of your dog when it attacks you. And I doubt that you would bitch about me doing it if the action saved you from harm. — Sir2u

And this is what you would term "justice"? :chin:

Instead of Churchill using gas to repel the invaders, he fills the water where they will cross with thousands of mines and steel cables to tangle the propellers and rudders of the boats. Then he sends all of the planes they have to bomb the boats and submarines to torpedo them. Then he has miles of machine guns, land mines, spiked pits, moats filled with electrified water, barbed wire and little old ladies with umbrellas waiting for them on the beach.
Thousands end up dead,maimed or missing. About the same amount of enemies that would have died using gas, but thousands more on the side of the defenders died as well.

Were Churchill's actions justified? Or were the systematic methods he used against the enemy war crimes. — Sir2u

The term "war crime" refers to international humanitarian law.

If you're asking me whether war of any kind can be morally justified, my answer would be no.