Ok, I got mixed up, I thought you were referring to this below, which you weren't. Case cleared.That's why I didn't understand why you mentioned March/April 2022 in relation to the Israel-Palestine issue. — Tzeentch
Mabrlesheimer about Israel and Hamas conflict:
How he depicts Gaza is correct. He is also correct that the US isn't able to pressure Israel for a two state solution and Israel will never accept a two-state solution. Yes, that train has left the station. — ssu
a balancing of interests based on various contingencies. — Leontiskos
Someone STOLE your olive groves! No amount of compensation will allay your indignation over this! If your great grandchildren rape and pillage those who you think STOLE your olive groves that is the Great Devastation, is something off with this myth? Does it even seem reasonable anymore or has it morphed into something else? — schopenhauer1
I don't see any difference between Israel and a country ruled by the Quran. — javi2541997
So I think you are right — Leontiskos
but given that I am trying to avoid these "exponentially more complex" facets of the thread lest I get sucked in too deep, I will say no more on this issue of generational grudges. :razz: — Leontiskos
Maybe, just maybe, if the West stops interfering in all these countries enough stability will arise for them to actually make social progress? Just an idea. — Benkei
the fact that living conditions in some of these countries is horrible for some people due to discrimination isn't exactly a justification to treat all of them like shit, now is it? — Benkei
So there's no hypocrisy; it's entirely consistent. What's not consistent is not according human rights to people because they don't respect human rights. Not if we consider human rights something fundamental and inalienable. — Benkei
Whatever we want to say about Bob Jr's resistance, I do not think we can say it is immoral. — Leontiskos
This mess goes beyond any human understanding or philosophy. — javi2541997
Moral rights don't lapse. — Benkei
That doesn't mean Bob has no rights at all of course but to deny the claim in its entirety would be immoral. — Benkei
Proportionality as a principle is a manifestation of the law of war’s delicate balance between the military imperative of defeating the enemy as quickly as possible and the humanitarian imperative of mitigating suffering during war as much as possible. Parties to a conflict must not only refrain from attacking civilians and civilian objects deliberately, but they must also make extensive efforts to minimize the incidental harm from their attacks on lawful military targets.
not giving minimal humanitarian aid to over two million people is one troubling issue. — ssu
Then comes the question what to do to the southern part. How Israel will conduct the war when it comes to the southern part of the Gaza strip is the real breaker here. Civilians supposed to have gone there(in 48 hours), yet it has also has been bombed. — ssu
Even from generation to generation? What if the span of time is 2000 years rather than 200 years? I am a moral realist, but I am doubtful about the idea that Fred Jr. has an indisputable moral right to the land that was stolen from his family 200 years ago. — Leontiskos
So the left has a dilemma, it can either support the oppressed Palestinians against the tyrannical Israeli colonizers while dispensing of any concern for the evils of antisemitism or the rights of women and LGBTQ's within Palestinian territory. Or, the left can support a western culture that actively defends the human rights of classically oppressed groups within its very own territory while disregarding its occupation of a place that has a clear record of oppressing its own people (particularly women and LGBTQ's). — Merkwurdichliebe
Yes. 20,000,000 Chinese civilians died during their war with Japan. The Japanese put themselves at the top of the list of the most destructive nations that have ever existed. I'm sure you didn't mean to pass that over without comment. — frank
You're acting like an idiot pretending this is about lgbtq rights or antisemitism while people are starving due to war crimes by Israel — Benkei
As if we cannot be against discrimination and oppression at the same time! Or against Israeli occupation and against anti-semitism at the same time! Wow! It's mind-boggling! :scream: — Benkei
I agree. The Japanese Empire's behaviour and actions against China, South Korea and the Philippines were disgusting and totally bad. Nonetheless, which nation never had a bloody bellicose past? Whether you like it or not, that's how the past used to be, just before diplomacy and dialogue started to be more effective. In addition, I still maintain my position that Nagasaki and Hiroshima destruction were not really justified at all. It was the first time that a nuclear attack was used on a population. Your arguments are like: 'the ends justify the means'. — javi2541997
At the same time, I don't see how the Palestinian issue can be resolved without a right of return. — Benkei
The government of Israel does not view the admission of Palestinian refugees to their former homes in Israel as a right, but rather as a political issue to be resolved as part of a final peace settlement. — Wikipedia | Palestinian Right of Return
Overtime? Well, here will be the really huge problems, which will be quite important. After this the open air prison of Gaza cannot be just excluded like before. No outside force will likely come to Gaza. Or perhaps it might be a fig leaf of a UN mission, and when criminal gangs etc. rule the ruins of Gaza, it's going to be an example of how Palestinians cannot take care of themselves (or something like that). The question what happens next should be on the agenda, but it might not be.Over time Israel has become more cooperative on this — neomac
Hamas and Putin choose not to be Western, especially with all of it's decadent attention to human rights and democracy and the rights of peoples and minorities etc. Yet Israel isn't Hamas or Russia, but of course if they wish, they can go in that direction. Yet all the Israelis I've met are quite Western people and think of themselves as being West. They don't have the fear of their state as Russians do.More to the point, how would Hamas or Putin reason according to you if they were to choose? — neomac
Well, then I hope you are never put to be an officer position in war, or basically given a rifle and fight in a war. Because it does make sense for me to treat a the enemy as I have been taught in the army: you shoot to kill an armed enemy (before he shoots you) and you don't shoot one that has surrendered or civilians. Your enemy doing that doesn't change what my country ask of me. It all starts from as obvious things like if you have to kill something, then kill it and don't torture it.To me it doesn’t make much sense to apply one standard when your enemies don’t play by the same standard. — neomac
And that's simply just Hollywood nonsense. Throwing to hell the laws of war doesn't help you, it helps your enemy and undermines your cause and justification.To me it doesn’t make much sense to apply one standard when your enemies don’t play by the same standard. It’s like boxing with a tied hand with somebody who can fight with both hands. — neomac
You miss the whole point. Logic itself does not apply. You're not in some timeless abstract space demonstrating more geometrico that something is or is not the case - or if you are, it's irrelevant to this discussion. Rather you are considering how a foe determined to fight to the death, yours or his or both, can be most quickly brought to submission. And a decision has to be made.Come on, Tim. Do you really think that it is logical to use a nuclear weapon? — javi2541997
What you believe is justified is all yours. If you mean to argue it, then argue it in substantive terms. And "the ends justify the means": sometimes. The only way open to you here is to demonstrate that Truman made the wrong decision; i.e., that he had better options that he inexplicably dismissed. Good luck with that. But until you grapple with that, you're just a hose of ignorance. And you might consider getting back to the topic of the thread.I still maintain my position that Nagasaki and Hiroshima destruction were not really justified at all. It was the first time that a nuclear attack was used on a population. Your arguments are like: 'the ends justify the means'. — javi2541997
So given the centuries of persecution of Jews in Europe and ME, I do think we have a collective responsibility to give them that piece of land for sovereignty. — Benkei
And in which religion murder wouldn't be a sin? Those religions with human sacrifices have dissappeared, and even they didn't that you can randomly murder anyone. You can have individuals, groups organizations and states that are murderous, not whole people. — ssu
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.