I know you hate Palestinians because you're conditioned by the idiots you surround yourself with but that was a really dumb reply.

You cannot base a culture on the notion that one is entitled to use whatever means necessary to rectify a historical injustice. — BitconnectCarlos

This describes Israeli culture much better and you don't even realise it. Funny as fuck really.

I'll have to take your word for it because it's not clear from the article. I also note that what Benny Morris wrote at the time about the Oslo accords was factually incorrect. He often repeats that the deal would create a Palestinian state and provide them with sovereignty. This is in fact false as any one who had actually read the text would know.

https://peacemaker.un.org/israelopt-osloaccord93

This is why you should read Said’s articles, who's much more critical and skeptical in his interpretation. And as a result he was accurate and predictive.

you mean the Israeli illegal occupation, land grab, violence, oppression and hate has conditioned many Palestinians to hate their oppressors in turn? Shocking.

This is all Barak talking in the article and not Morris, since it's an extract from an interview of Barak. But nice try.

Everybody who thought the Oslo accords were decent ought to start here: https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v15/n20/edward-said/the-morning-after

But should really just read the whole collection: https://www.amazon.com/End-Peace-Process-Oslo-After/dp/0375725741

Yes some things are non-starters. If the religious right demanded that all Jews have right of return to their ancient homeland of Judea and Samaria you’d probably say that’s a non-starter. — schopenhauer1

They already have this right of return under Israeli laws. They don't have a right to displace existing populations though.

No Palestine has blocked their own progress because they never accepted a Jewish state in any variation since the Peale Commission..lost every war that would make it a reality, and then from a position of having lost make demands 45 years later to effectively dissolve the current contingent demographic majority of a Jewish state. The Palestinian leadership certainly failed big time at negotiations..They had Clinton backing them, everything set to get their nation states, compensation for refugees, ln and exchanges, East Jerusalem, etc. they had a prime minister who was bending over backwards based on the politics of the time. — schopenhauer1

You don't know what those accords proposed to think that would be remotely acceptable. It was "sold" in the West as a fantastic peace deal but it wasn't.

Right of return is off the table. — schopenhauer1

Who decides this? Why is it off the table? Because Israel says so? It's a negotiation. Nothing is off the table. The whole point is that everything is on it and you negotiate. And that's how Israel usually blocks every progress by putting demands on the table before negotiations even happen. And you happily go along with it because you obviously have zero experience in negotiations.

And that's why Netanyahu supported so eagerly Hamas, those Palestinians that are against a negotiated two state solution. — ssu

There was legitimate criticism about this peace process though. You should check out Edward Said his interviews at the time. And it was dissatisfaction with how the PLO was relinquishing self-determination that made Hamas popular in the first place and that shitty deal pushed PLO into political irrelevancy.

Quite frankly, I don't think that peace process would've gone anywhere even if Rabin had lived.

Negotiation with the intent of not conceding the hard stuff is relatively easy hoop to jump through. — schopenhauer1

Giving up the land you legally have a right to is not conceding the hard stuff? Why don't you explain to people who actually lose their homes, families, community and culture what else they should give up on to really get to the "hard stuff"?

The internal Israeli justice department memo in the 70s clearly stated the settlements would be illegal. Bibi lied about that as he's the one who refuses the two state solution. In fact, he greatly contributed to the atmosphere that got Rabin killed.

A legitimate war is if you are attacked, you can justifiably defend yourself. Even the Old Testament in the Bible says so (not the New Testament, and not surprisingly). Nobody can say that you were the aggressor, however times the aggressor will declare "that he was forced to do it". Many would also see as legitimate an intervention to some heinous genocide or civil war. Like Vietnam isn't accused by the World community in ending Pol Pot's reign of terror. — ssu

And yet this is still too vague as who attacked who and what concerns an attack is subject of discussion. And what about pre-emptive self-defence. As usual, it's not so simple in real life.

Happy for your to explain it again. Saves me the time.

I'm not discussing international law though but simply applying the rules developed as part of the just war tradition. I'm also not interested in discussing unrealistic hypotheticals. You will not understand just war through thought experiments.

It's quite obvious some people entered this discussion to defend Israeli atrocities. We can talk about those or pick other events less heated to see how these principles should be applied.

based on what borders? Legally, only the 1948 borders were ever recognised.

I'm afraid this is still mostly symbolism. 140 other countries already recognised Palestine without any effect. It's good as a signal but without explicating which borders you're referring to there's very little to take a stance on.

I meant by that, in a sort of Kantian way, you are completely undermining what it means to be a close relation with someone, if you treat them JUST as any person, and not someone who has special significance in your life. It would be crazy for a father to not feed his family, or his invalid mother, because an anonymous person is starving in Ethiopia... Or to make it more stark.. IF one must decide to protect one's family or another's family, one from a side that has a government causing the damage, that he is thus equally obligated to protecting both in the same due caution. — schopenhauer1

I'm not undermining anything. You insist on filial relationships being morally relevant. I show that they aren't because they say nothing about moral worth. Not my problem you don't like the outcome but that's the consequence of principles: they tend to be difficult to stick to.

Just that we could be swayed by emotions to make different choices doesn't mean that choice all of a sudden becomes moral.

But self-defense doesn't look like Rambo, taking place in isolated areas against clear enemy targets...

So what are we admitting where we say countries have a right to a self-defensive "war"? And if you say, "Not this that or the other tragedy".. noted, and no one wants that.. but then, what are we "admitting" of it, other than we both agree it is not this idealized Rambo kind of situation.. as that is not reality.. — schopenhauer1

That's already established if you stop pretending I disagree with everything. I'm very clear about what I disagree with with respect to the article you cited. All non-combatants are equally innocent and therefore ALL of them need to be taken into consideration without weighing them because of their presumed affiliation when deciding on a military course of action, irrespective what side of the border they're on. Then it becomes abundantly clear plenty of historic and current violence is entirely disproportionate.

Also, it's entirely possible within the just war tradition to reach the conclusion that it's more just to not defend against armed force. Some reasons could be:

1. There's no chance of winning
2. Or it won't lead to a better peace
3. The price in human lives is too high
4. The armed force itself was a just exercise of force

Again. Nobody argues against a right to self defence so if anybody is raising a straw man, then this is it.

What I take issue with is the idea that the lives of enemy non-combatants are less than your "own". This is not supported in any historic tradition, law or indeed sensible moral thinking for the reasons I've repeated twice. Everything else you pull into your Rambo fantasies are entirely yours.

This could be true in Canada but I know it's not the case in the US.

I loved that serie as a kid. Don't know why, it wasn't hip in the 90s at all.

in cases of child abuse, intention of harm and or a court order for any of several reasons, client privilege is nullified. — Vera Mont

Yes, this concerns probable future events. A well-known exception. I think we need one for past events as well which doesn't exist in Anglo-Saxon countries as far as I know and doesn't exist in the Netherlands either.

Retitle this thread to: "How dare these people survive beyond my expectations"

Intense annoyance:

populist politics
people taken in by populists

And this reminded me of two more:

Soundtracks so loud you can't hear the dialogue. — Vera Mont

Movies so dark, you can't see anything but it's "gritty".

Righteous deservers People that think that their rights go over and above the rest of humanities. Just stop oil, over zealous trans people, car parking space hoggers, queue jumpers, anyone that thinks they they deserve more just because they are who they are. — Sir2u

Rich people

Also, this is a living document.

Attention spans are down to 5 seconds.

Being interrupted or talked over.

No one reads anything greater than 3 or 4 sentences. — Mikie

I stopped reading.

Smart daughters... I love my kids but I have recurring doubts whether I did the right thing having kids, considering the extremist right wing politics, ecological degradation and increased inequality that grips most of Europe.

Yes, your grand-grand kids will have to live like cavemen but at least they're not dead!

But you do agree that depending on the role the outcome of an ethical decision may be different?

I personally think, which is also why I didn't become a lawyer, that client confidentiality goes too far. If I would represent a client for murder A and as a result he also confesses murders B and C from 5 years ago to me then as a lawyer I'm prohibited from disclosing B and C. I think disclosures should be permitted as long as it doesn't frustrate the defence of murder A since B and C is gratuitous information that is in principle irrelevant for my defence and therefore continues to protect the principles of due process (there could be a timing issue to avoid bias during trial, so a lawyer would have to sit on the information until after trial and appeals are exhausted). In other words, the client should've paid more attention and kept his mouth shut about B and C.

Unfortunately, this would get me disbarred in no time.

That seems unethical. You are not allowed to defend yourself now if someone does you harm? I think that is a universally accepted notion... And again, the issue then becomes about collateral damage, not waging a war against an aggressor who wants to see your people, state, or both destroyed, and are actively and repeatedly doing this. Should FDR have declared war against Japan? Perhaps he should have waited for other Pearl Harbors... — schopenhauer1

This doesn't make sense based on the exchange we had. I said the moral case is clear "we're all people". You say "Hamas doesn't think that way". I say "It's irrelevant what others think to decide what is moral". Obviously I meant that with respect to that moral case and you start about the right of self-defence, which is not at all in question.

Noticed I said "close family member" and not just named a family member. So yeah, that already was not my argument, and thus a straw man.. — schopenhauer1

How is that a straw man? As if close family members cannot be assholes or immoral people? Or is there an implied point that your close family members are saints? The point is, it is hubris to claim you can weigh one person's life against another when you don't know them. And in armed conflict, we don't know.

But the main argument one might make is that the state is obligated to its own citizens more than protecting other citizens. This doesn't mean they are COMPLETELY devoid of considering other country's citizens. The author stated as such. Rather, that the balance is weighted more for one's own citizens in the state's obligations above other countries when weighing decisions of life and death.

And as I've tried to clarify, this point is irrelevant in an ethical discussion. State borders, the luck or misfortune being born one side of the border, are not moral facts and therefore shouldn't be part of moral consideration. Nothing in the just war tradition takes this into account other than the obvious requirement that governments actually represent the people over which they've been established.

It's also problematic because through incorporation in the state you should not be able to create more rights than people would otherwise individually have. Because that would obviously put the door open for all sorts of abuse.

https://www.btselem.org/
https://www.adalah.org/en/law/index

It's nice how you equate the right wing extremists (aka Zionists) with the entirety of Israel and therefore keep trying to pretend I make an argument in not making. It's also nice you can pretend because you don't see it that therefore it isn't there ("Member of dominant ethnicity doesn't notice discrimination of minority", no shit sherlock). It's also nice that the token Arab in "high positions" is a good enough reason for you to ignore the actual apartheid, as well documented by various human rights groups.

But please, ignore the facts in lieu of your feelings which are so important you're willing to excuse war crimes and apartheid for it. You remind me of a jellyfish. No spine and hasn't evolved in the last billion years.

Again with the comparisons that are ahistoric. Just deal with the facts as they are now.

Additionally, the charge of "apartheid" means zero if the entire West is "apartheid" for not kneeling to Islam. :roll: — BitconnectCarlos

Clearly, you have no clue how segregation is established in Israël. Despite this having been shared multiple times in this thread you don't read it. Second, your own disgusting racism is clear for all to see with your vile rhetoric about "not kneeling to Islam".

Q. E. D.

red herring. There's no clearer condemnation of Israel than the weakness of replies that only aim to distract.

If the goal is to remove all Palestinians from Palestine then that would mean purging Israel's own Palestinian civilians. Why hasn't Israel done this if that's its goal? Where is Israel going to send them? Are there plans? Will they be building death camps where Ashkenazi Jews will run the selection process regarding who gets to live and who goes to slave labor? — BitconnectCarlos

Your interpretation makes no sense because you simply want to disagree. I said "and". Both these things will happen unless Israel's extreme right wing idiots and their apologists are stopped. So those Palestinians that are not removed will be subject to Apartheid in Israel proper.

Excellent.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/article/2024/may/20/icc-prosecutor-seeks-arrest-warrants-israeli-pm-netanyahu-hamas-officials-war-crimes

The same aim as it has always been: remove all Palestinians from Palestine and create a greater Israel from the river to the sea with Apartheid in its borders; where non-Jews will have less rights than Jews and Mizrahi, Sephardic and Ethiopian Jews will be discriminated against by their right wing supremacist AshkeNazi "brothers".

Hamas doesn't think like that. They want to cause harm. The point of a self-defense war like this is to take out the people doing the repeated harm to your citizens. And my point then still stands: — schopenhauer1

Irrelevant. What other people do is no argument for any type of moral decision.

No doubt you would let your close family member drowned to save the stranger it seems. Some people disagree there. — schopenhauer1

Why don't you try to make a coherent moral argument why a close family member's life is more valuable than another's. Maybe my mother in law is a real bitch, maybe my dad a rapist. Filial connections are morally irrelevant.

So I am not saying these are proof that there is now justification, but that these considerations along with merely "We are all people" when in a conflict of an enemy that wants to see you harmed or destroyed, is something to consider. — schopenhauer1

Only interesting if you're not interested in morality. The moral case is clear, "we are all people" and those lives are all equal. That's why the just war tradition sets out to find objective criteria and random squiggly lines on a map ain't it.

No. I'm talking about the article. The idea that morality gives a shit about borders is dumb as fuck. There's no difference in the moral value of innocent Israelis or innocent Palestinians and it's an affront to the just war tradition to pretend it has room to be interpreted that way.

Edit: the argument for opportunity is the article's author BTW.

There's a glaringly obvious philosophical point which I made and you chose to ignore.

It's not a war of self defence. It's conquest and has been for decades.

As to weighing one group of civilian lives above others or even your own soldiers, this goes against everything any universal morality would stand for. So, I don't find it interesting at all. Just glaringly an argument for the sake of opportunity.

which highlights your own ignorance and shows you just squarely walking in the trap of acceptance of the premise that Israel is on the just side of this war. It isn't. As a result all military action is tainted by the unjust cause and there cannot be just military action to begin with. It's therefore supremely relevant: it needs to be resolved before you can even get into this debate. But you need to actually know about the just war tradition to realise this.

That's why I shared my own analysis of the just war tradition because it's an analysis entirely separated from any actual conflict and doesn't have an axe to grind for any international actor.

This is all irrelevant because they don't have a just cause. If you really want to argue that war crimes are permitted then Hamas did the right thing since everybody is equating them with Palestinians which are an oppressed group.

That's clearly not what I said. Silly "gotcha".

A dumb analogy. I can shoot without killing plus the other guy is clearly not innocent. With a nuclear bomb, death is certain and killing innocent people as well.