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.

What is the actual difference between Palestinians and Israeli Arabs than a passport?

Haste try to divide et impera? — ssu

From a legal standpoint, one is an Israeli citizen entitled to Israeli legal rights and the other is not. The Israeli Arabs were just the ones who stayed in Israel during the Independence war.

So, while Jews may feel they have a special claim to or association with the region, others may reasonably feel that they don't or that they themselves have a similar claim. For me, as I don't think God conveyed real estate to anyone, it follows from this that the claim it is the Jewish "homeland" isn't persuasive and forms no basis or justification for the existence of Israel. Therefore, it shouldn't be a consideration in any conflict between Israel and anyone else. Do you think it should? — Ciceronianus the White

Well what grounds the justification for other types of states, e.g. non-religious ones? I guess I would say, ultimately, security.

In the case of Israel I've always felt the real reason for the state was security - to protect the Jewish people against various enemies. The religious claim may or may not be true, who knows. Others will have their religious claims too.

Nothing in that post is in any way shape or form a justification for Israel committing war crimes. — Benkei

Which war crime do you want to talk about in particular? I have nothing against condemning war crimes when they actually occurred: Deir Yassin, for instance -- I condemn that fully.

Jews were returning well before WWII, and didn't need to kill, oppress or annex land to do it. — Benkei

The Jews back in the 20s and 30s didn't have the means to kill, oppress, or annex Arab lands. On the contrary, they were the ones being murdered in Arab lands through pogroms during a time (1930s) when many Arabs openly supported and sympathized with the Nazi regime. Look into the 1929 Hebron massacre where Arabs went house-to-house killing Jews with household items and gardening tools.

The main, practical intention of the state of Israel is simply to prevent things like this.

If deprivation of your people's historic home is the benchmark for being justified to return there, it applies equally as well to the Palestinians ousted or displaced by the policies of the state of Israel. — fdrake

I think most Palestinians actually fled in '48 and for good reason - they thought the Arab countries were about to make a graveyard out of the place. Some were expelled by Israel, but others were advised or ordered by their leaders to flee.

Maybe Israel can begin a discussion about compensation when Arab countries agree to compensate the 600-800,000 Jews who were expelled and dispossessed of their property between '48-'72 (and lets not forget compensating all the descendants.) Or when the Palestinians apologize for attacking Israel in '47-'48 with militias before their Arab neighbors. They could also compensate Israel.

What about 1948 for the people of Palestine ? Completely asymmetrical application of principles. — fdrake

What I was trying to demonstrate with my example was that you can't really draw a proper cut off year for when a claim stops being valid.

No, I just don't acknowledge religious claims or ancient ones for that matter. — Benkei

So when's the cut off year? Maybe year 1500? That sounds like a good number. In any case, I'm not expecting you to care. It's a purely religious-cultural issue and it's a big one in Judaism. If your people were expelled 1000 years ago or so from their homes and were trying to migrate back why should I care? Even if it was more recent like 200 years ago would you expect the rest of the world to care? What would you say if I told you the cut off was 150 years and anything before that was too far back and doesn't matter. I don't know much about Dutch culture, does the land you're on mean anything to you?

Jewish culture and religion is centered around the land of Israel, particularly Jerusalem.

Yeah, useless religious crap I really don't give a shit about. As if any of that would even remotely justify anything happening now. — Benkei

I don't expect you to give a shit about it because it's not your people. The issue just begins for you, suddenly, in 1947 or so (or even '67 for some!!). You're like a 5 year old who wanders into a giant toy store wondering how it all came to be and comes across two older children fighting over something (what are they fighting over exactly? many westerners don't know.) I'm not trying to be mean here it was just best analogy I could think of for how many Westerners approach the issue.

You're tell me that many disagree that the question of a Jewish homeland is complicated and long lasting? Maybe many Europeans who have no personal or familial involvement, but ask any Arab or Jew and the timeline becomes in the thousands of years because that's how long there's been a Jewish presence in the area which began with a Kingdom in around 1000 BC. The Muslims built the Dome of the Rock on the ruins of the Second Temple.

Just to be clear, are you applying the apartheid point to the treatment of the Palestinians or the treatment of Israeli Arabs?

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.

I'm not interested in defending the definition; only in bringing it up as one definition that's been floating around. I think the more interesting question is how one's responsibilities & attititudes towards ones community - which is often one's ethnic group - compare with responsibilities & attitudes towards outsider groups.

It might help to define racism first. In the US a fairly common definition you'll see is simply power + prejudism = racism. So if you're a white person who is prejudice you are a racist.

I do think there's an interesting discussion to be had here concerning to what extent one ought value their community or family above others though, if at all.

I would say anyone stating that oppressed minorities cannot be racist are deluded. — I like sushi

I agree, but those who disagree will simply define the term differently. These talks are difficult to have because definitions have changed so much over the past few decades.

When it comes to racism I go by: the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.
"theories of racism"

I'm definitely not a racist under this definition, but others on this forum would call me (or anyone) a racist for personally valuing their family or community above those of a complete stranger.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

: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?

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.