Why are you angry again? The facts on the ground can be read about if you take the time and interest to study it. Which I have done. Instead of learning from it, you just lash out because the truth makes you uncomfortable.

What exactly is false about my account?

I'll ignore the comment about the Netherlands as irrelevant as usual. Why don't you start a thread about it?

Judaism is not a race nor are Arabs. It makes no sense to call Israel racist against Arabs. If Israel is apartheid why do Arab Christians do quite well in Israel? — BitconnectCarlos

No, they're ethnicities and racism is a social construct, which is why discrimination of ethnicities is called racism, just like blacks are an ethnicity and when those are discriminated against, we call it racism. A rather silly point to make but I'm happy to explain what's apparent to everybody else. The comment about Arab Christians is rather funny. You really have no idea about the facts on the ground do you? For instance, it's illegal for Christians to preach to Jews (but of course not the other way around). Several benefits are reserved to Jewish Israelis. School funding is limited for schools that aren't state schools or orthodox Jewish schools. Non - Jewish Israelis have their passports issued on different days than Jewish ones, which coincidentally is exactly the type of registration that made murdering Jews in WWII so effective in various European countries and why any modern democracy doesn't register it anymore.

Edit: I forgot, administrative detention of Palestinian Israelis.

You don't care. So why should I? — Foghorn

Lots of projection there. So you're here arguing in bad faith. Good to know. Since you have no argument I guess we're done.

If we don't actually care that much about the innocents, that's irrelevant to an outrage based conservation about those innocents? If it's true that we don't really care, then wouldn't it add additional clarity to honestly brand this conversation as a form of casual entertainment? Isn't adding additional clarity kinda what philosophy is supposed to be about?

I agree that a claim that we don't care is debatable, which is why I keep asking for evidence to the contrary.

I've tried to explain the relevance. If we are locked in a repetitive pattern of addictive conflict behavior in political threads here on this forum, that at least raises the question of whether the same phenomena is at play in the MiddleEast. Here's why. We're human. So are they.

To the degree participants are fighting because they enjoy fighting, then any solution we might cook up is not likely to be very helpful. If true, it would add clarity to know that. If false, it would add clarity to know that too. — Foghorn

Were the quotes correct or not? Is Israel guilty of collective punishment?

Of course we'll have that because our position is the correct one. As happened with South Africa. Once everyone agreed it was a racist, Apartheid state and was prepared to sanction it, South Africa had to change. The same thing will happen with Israel. One way or the other. It's a question of whether Israel will wake up on time to that fact or not and avoid sanctions.

If your entire goal is to bash one side, sure you'll take material or arguments or facts from anywhere -- doesn't matter. All ammo is good ammo. — BitconnectCarlos

Also, this is quite telling. You assume my goal is to bash one side and think arguments and facts are "ammo". Seems a rather belligerent attitude. Arguments and facts are either true or false.

I'm in this because for as long as I remember almost every news outlet has only been concerned with the "security" problem of Israel as were attempts to solutions of it, without taking a closer look at the atrocities Israel commits. The context requires a lot more focus on Israeli crimes because most of them were never reported or aren't reported due to an overwhelming bias. This is slowly changing and it's no wonder that on a philosophy forum, where people on average are better educated, the position is evidently anti-Israel because it's by far worse, both in number of crimes and victims, than anything the Palestinians manage to do. The latter, including Hamas, is a consequence of what Israel has and continues to do, which means "it has made its bed and has to lie in it". Palestinian terrorism was a reaction to Israeli oppression and annexation not the other way around.

It all depends on the framework that you approach the conflict with. If your entire goal is to bash one side, sure you'll take material or arguments or facts from anywhere -- doesn't matter. All ammo is good ammo.

If your approach is to find a solution, then these other personal ideas do matter as they can contribute to the conflict. — BitconnectCarlos

There is no solution to be had if both sides don't agree on the facts. You need to be talking about the same thing. That's an important issue here too because both parties have different definitions of the West Bank for instance.

My point is that it's always irrelevant not just because we're on a philosophy forum. That's like dismissing Putin's argument that a land-grab is illegal because of Crimea. He'd still be right and a hypocrite.

It's irrelevant from a purely philosophical standpoint, but in the world of practical action something like this is very relevant. The problem with political issues like this is that they're not purely philosophical issues and cannot be with all of their complexity and real-world messiness, but since we're on a philosophy forum we typically try to stick to a philosophical framework which creates tension especially when the discussion at hand is by no means purely philosophical. — BitconnectCarlos

No, this is not true from purely a philosophical standpoint, this is simple logic. My personal background is irrelevant to the argument forwarded. It has absolutely zero bearing on the veracity of the claims or the argument based on them.

This is basically what you're suggesting:

1. Benkei forwarded claims from the UN report
2. Benkei doesn't complain enough about Assad to my liking
3. Therefore he and, by association, the UN report must be ignored

It's mindnumbingly stupid.

If my post was indeed just an inaccurate personal attack, then it should be easy to prove that by linking to your Syria threads. If such threads exist, then I'm wrong about my evaluation of your behavior here, and will be happy to say so. — Foghorn

Sigh. Even if it was an accurate personal attack it is still irrelevant. You complain about standards but aren't even capable of constructing an argument.

What part of the quoted UN report is false? Or do you agree with it? Why insist, three times in row, to bring up irrelevancies?

A couple of years ago when I was working at the ministry of finance, there was a reasonable likelihood a right wing racist party would supply the minister of finance. I provisionally tendered my resignation if that happened as I refused to work for a person who looked down on about half of my colleagues just for having non-Dutch ancestors.

It raised an interesting discussion in my team and my manager. From an institutional point of view, the ministry is supposed to do what the minister says and the minister is accountable in front of Parliament. My problem with that was that this only concerned political accountability, which is not even remotely the same as moral accountability. There were those that argued combating excesses from the inside. I always thought that unrealistic for several reasons. Anyhoo, it never came down to it but having the discussion with people who would otherwise be a silent majority quickly changed them into a not-so-silent majority where they were thinking about how to sabotage a possible racist minister.

I think if you know it's wrong, you need to speak up or quit; anything BUT do your job.

As stated above, I think your declared interest in the welfare of Palestinians is false, a forum pose, whose primary purpose is the enhancement of your relationship with yourself.

I could be wrong, and one way to demonstrate that would be to show us the threads you've started which express extensive outrage at the Assad regime, which has oppressed, tortured and killed innocent Arabs with far more unjust ferocity than anything Israel has done.

If you truly do care about the fate of innocents, and are truly logical, you will be directing most of your outrage at those who are doing the most killing of innocents, and the most deliberate killing of innocents. When I see you doing that, I'll begin to take you seriously. Until then, have fun with all the clever little quipy thingies. — Foghorn

Nothing to add, I see, but an attempt at character assassination. Pathetic.

Which comment has zero bearing on the veracity of the claims quoted. But nice attempt at poisoning the well. It's always nice to see so little is offered by way of substantive arguments.

What part of what I quoted do you think is false? If you think it's not false, why bother replying with an irrelevant smear?

Israeli collective punishment:

Collective punishment is an inflamed scar that runs across the entire 53-year-old Israeli occupation of Palestine. Over these years, two million Palestinians in Gaza have endured a comprehensive air, sea and land blockade since 2007, several thousand Palestinian homes have been punitively demolished, extended curfews have paralyzed entire towns and regions, the bodies of dead Palestinians have been withheld from their families, and critical civilian supplies – including food, water and utilities – have been denied at various times. Notwithstanding numerous resolutions, reports and reminders critical of its use, Israel continues to rely upon collective punishment as a prominent instrument in its coercive toolbox of population control.

A fundamental tenet of any legal system – domestic and international – which respects the rule of law is the principle that the innocent cannot be punished for the crimes of others. A corollary of this tenet is that the collective punishment of communities or groups of peoples for offences committed by individuals is absolutely prohibited under modern law. Individual responsibility is the cornerstone of any rights-based legal order, as explained by Hugo Grotius, the 17th century Dutch legal philosopher: “No one who is innocent of wrong may be punished for the wrong done by another.”

Throughout history and in contemporary times, belligerent armies, colonial authorities and occupying powers have commonly employed a spectrum of collective punishment methods against civilian populations hostile to their alien rule. The methods used have included civilian executions, sustained curfews and closures of towns, food confiscation and starvation, punitive property destruction, the capture of hostages, economic closures on civilian populations, cutting off of power and water supplies, withholding of medical supplies, collective fines and mass detentions. These punishments are, in the words of the International Committee of the Red Cross (“ICRC”), “in defiance of the most elementary
principles of humanity.”

The logic of collective punishment has been to project domination in order to subdue a subjugated population through inflicting a steep price for its resistance to alien rule. Punishment has been imposed on civilian populations for practices ranging from having knowledge of fighters and refugees in the vicinity, to offering passive opposition and noncooperation, and to merely being related to, or neighbours of, resistance fighters. Yet, not only are these punitive acts profoundly unjust, they invariably backfire on the military authority, as the 1958 commentary by the ICRC on the Fourth Geneva Convention stated:
Far from achieving the desired effect such practices, by reason of their excessive severity and cruelty, kept alive and strengthened the spirit of resistance. They strike at guilty and innocent alike. They are opposed to all principles based on humanity and justice, and it is for that reason that the prohibition of collective penalties is followed formally by the prohibition of all measures of intimidation or terrorism with regard to protected persons. — UN 15 July 2020 report

a) The murder of Palestinian children is not permitted. 180 took one statement out of context. — BitconnectCarlos

But it quite clearly is. Every time the "right to self defence" is exercised by killing children as "collateral damage". Every time they reinforce "Palestinians children today are terrorists of tomorrow", when Jewish Israelis overwhelmingly buy into the racist idea they are superior to Arabs, when they try children in military courts, hold them in administrative detention, rob them of a future, expel them from their homes etc. they tell the world it's fine to kill Palestinian children.

b) Even if the intentional murder of palestinian children was condoned by the Israeli government (which would obviously make the Israeli government illegitimate and evil) even then the intentional murder of Israeli children would remain a deep moral crime. — BitconnectCarlos

If your were to defend the former you would have to defend the latter. You now refuse to defend it but have been doing precisely that for 61 pages by pointing to countries that are worse than Israel or highlighting Hamas' crimes. This is self-evident to everyone except, apparently, you.

The moral equivalence holds, either it's both wrong, or it's both right.

At no point where 5-year old children of Nazis "valid targets." — BitconnectCarlos

Said the same guy defending killing Palestinian children as collateral damage.

It's a rule of moral equivalence you dolt. If murdering Palestinian children is permitted then obviously the murder of Israeli children would be too or Dutch ones for that matter. The consequence of your position and defence of Israel is that you must accept terrorism as a valid reply to Israeli crimes, because those crimes are terrorism too. In your failure to condemn Israel, it becomes impossible to condemn Palestinians. At no point has 180proof said he condones the murder of children.

Fuck off mate. The hubris of your last post as if you're an arbiter who gets to decide what is and isn't part of the discussion. :lol:

Must be a slow thread but this is the clearest answer so far.

For those who like geometry puzzles, try Xsection. It starts off really easy but quickly becomes quite difficult. I'm proud to say I managed to complete it after 6 months and now in hindsight it has become really easy. So it trains your geometric thinking and imagination too.

Benkei, but in any case it's the same thing with you - the refusal to condemn the "victim." — BitconnectCarlos

Then you've quite clearly not paid attention.

If only you could manage just 1% of that for Palestinians, instead we get idiotic analogies about abused women.

:yawn:

Here we go again. Another Western European crying about how things are in America, when the country they live in is less diverse and has more whites in positions of privilege percentage-wise than the country they are whining about. What are you doing to fight white privilege in your own country, Benkei? — idiot

Personal attack and a leading question. Where I live, what's happening here and what I do about it, are totally irrelevant to my post.

How is All Lives Matter an opposing view to BLM? It includes the idea that black lives matter, not opposing it, but doesn't make a distinction about race or skin color, like racists do. — idiot

Misrepresentation of my post. You'll notice the quotation marks and me reporting on the news? Yes? Not my words or my interpretation. As usual you're incapable of reading because an idiot like you let's his reading comprehension be influenced by his apparent dislike of me.

Funny how BLM got all bent out of shape when others asserted that All Lives Matter, but when Asian Lives Matter and Jewish Lives Matter started, no one said a word. So it turns out that not only black lives matter, but others do as well. Leaving out certain people because of the color of their skin, as if their lives don't matter, is racist, period. It's the very idea that BLM is supposedly fighting against. It's fighting racism with racism. — idiot

Irrelevant to my post.

So that post demonstrates as usual, that you're an idiot, who continually assumes meaning and tries to poison the well by suggesting where I live and what I do have any bearing on the veracity of my comments or claims.

So yeah, nothing hilarious here but an unfortunate idiot who doesn't realise he's an idiot.

What has the UK suggested?

Ah. More ad hominems. That skit is getting old. — Harry Hindu

It's not an ad hominem if it's a statement of fact. Your reply, as usual, was a misrepresentation of what I said and a personal attack as well. It, like your latest, doesn't deserve my time because arguing with an idiot etc. Etc.

ah, the idiot speaks again by calling anti-racism racism. That skit is getting old.

It's like the liar stressing the word "honesty" too often which is how you know he's lying. We can rest assured that anything Donald Trump complained about his opponents did, he has done himself.

So within a week from each other a yearbook was cancelled because it had an article about BLM but not its "opposing" views, blue lives matter and all lives matter and in Florida critical race theory was prohibited in school.

These are the same people who cry "cancel culture" every other day right? :chin:

Trump Jr.

Now that Biden's in town maybe we'll see some progress. If the US manages to separate the issue of the NI protocol from the Good Friday agreement he may soften his pro-EU tone. Whether the EU will accept climbing down from the letter of the protocol to help NI may depend on their accepting their hardline stance is causing loyalist unrest and so jeopardising the peace.. — Tim3003

Why does the EU have to back up from a deal where it's the UK breaking a promise the UK willingly signed up to? I'm not saying there aren't alternative solutions but it's up to the UK to offer an alternative that effectively meets the concern for which the original promise was made. If the EU just moves that is tantamount to inviting the UK to break more promises to get concessions from the EU.

Yeah, I get it. You'll cry "existential threat!" when someone picks up a rock.

By the way, I'm not making this shit up, unlike your suggestion Palestinians living Gaza have autonomy. Maybe you should sign this: https://www.amnesty.org/en/get-involved/take-action/lift-the-blockade-on-gaza/

And then continue to read the well-documented reports from B'Tselem, Amnesty and HRW.

Another tu quoque from the ethically impaired I see. Open a thread on Tutsis and Hutus if you like. We're talking about Gaza right now. Gaza is basically an open air prison. So don't talk about "total autonomy" as if you have any remote understanding of what those words mean.

Ah. Victim blaming. Nice. Gaza isn't "within Israel" but nice slip of the tongue. Not that we weren't aware of your uncritical support of Israel.

And let's not forget that when they exercised "autonomy" and elected Hamas, they were punished for having the audacity of voting against Israeli interests. But yeah, total autonomy. What a joke.

I guess in your view of the world, prisoners have total autonomy within a prison yard.

The Palestinians already have total autonomy within Gaza. — BitconnectCarlos

:rofl:

On the Wadden Sea. North of the mainland of the Netherlands but south of the islands there.

No problem. I had two days sailing on sea. It was fantastic.

So you think that if you experience such an event you'd still rationalise it like that?

When I was younger I had the experience of seeing auras around people. That stopped around the time I went to university. I never had a decent explanation for it. To this day I'm open to there being more than just what we'd expect from what science would predict because if those experiences. As a result, I can imagine that at a personal level such experiences can be received as proof for those who had such experience.

That would be a great social experiment. More popcorn I guess.

Now what do you think is the effect on the 74,216,154 Americans who went to the polls and voted for him in 2020? Wouldn't they be even more upset than they are already? How about the citizens and legislators in the red states? In the red counties of the blue states? How exactly would your scenario "save America?" Or are you going to imprison the 74 million as well? Curious to know how this is supposed to play out. You put Trump in prison. What next? How does this bring peace and harmony to the US? — fishfry

They'd vote for someone less idiotic and criminal.

Possibly but I think plenty of people voted against the Democrats instead of for Trump, so most won't care.

Business as usual.

That you don't have a president with fascist and autocratic interests in power.

Idiotic question.

Up to the US.

You still have a functioning society, don't be a drama queen.

The only two things that will save the USA is if the GOP splits or if Trump ends up in jail before elections. The latter can be frustrated through delaying tactics and the former is looking less likely every day.