Whenever I read statements like this, I wonder which are the concepts of 'first world' and 'third world', respectively. Apart from being a notion created by Western civilisation after WWII to label nations in different boxes and causing, in the long run, negative prejudices sorrowfully.

If we continue to use those concepts, the problem will remain, because the sense of your argument is backing up Israel's genocide because it is a 'developed' nation in a 'backward' territory. A territory which was occupied illegally in the first place.

If you check the politics, level of corruption and their system of representatives, Israel is far from being a nation of the 'first world', as you labelled it. Israel is consistently rated low in the Global Peace Index, ranking 134th out of 163 nations for peacefulness in 2022. Marriage and divorce are under the jurisdiction of the religious courts: Jewish, Muslim, Druze, and Christian. The Economist Intelligence Unit rated Israel a "flawed democracy" in 2022. A flawed democracy is a nation where elections are fair and free and basic civil liberties are honoured but may have issues (e.g. media freedom infringement and minor suppression of political opposition and critics). This is how Netanyahu literally works.

According to this data... do you really consider Israel as a first-world country? — javi2541997

I'm OK calling them a second-world country surrounded by shitholes. It doesn't really take away from the point that Israel is a democracy where gays and women aren't flogged and killed by "morality police". Do they have their issues? Of course. Are they ten times better than the surrounding countries? Yes.

First vs third world = difference in level of technology — Pneumenon

I still do not see why this is relevant at all, and I think you support the occupation and massacre of Israel in Gaza.
Japan has always been more developed than many Western countries, but they were attacked by a nuclear bomb in the most cruel way... so what?

What do you attempt to say? 'The end justifies the means' or similarities.

From an antinatalist's perspective, all supporters of procreation support bringing both known, unknown, un-consented amounts of harm to people born into the world. So from that standpoint, pick your poison, pick your side- it's always going to be some wrong involved :wink:

A democracy that commits humanitarian and war crimes against part of their own citizens and a substantial part of people under their occupation. Being a democracy doesn't absolve them somehow.

Japan has always been more developed than many Western countries, but they were attacked by a nuclear bomb in the most cruel way... so what? — javi2541997

Javi, Japan attacked first. It was all-out war. Stop with the bullshit about how Japan was unfairly targeted.

Try reading what I wrote.

Here we go again. No rest afforded to the victims. — Manuel

This the first line of the OP, two years ago. The Palestinians need a break. They also need to give a break. There's an old expression: if you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you have to do is stop digging. But the Palestinians, through the offices of Hamas and every other anti-Israel, anti-Jew entity, won't stop digging. And maybe the anti-Semitism is hard-wired in them - more than I know. But they behave as if addicted to their hatred. And this is a common-enough mental illness, living self-destructively through hate until habituated because it's easier than anything else, and then anything else becoming nearly impossible.

In this sense the Palestinians are like an addict in the family, a brother or a sister, son or daughter. And what is the hard-earned common wisdom for a cure? There is not one until and unless the addict wants to be cured. Period. And the family/community of which that addict is a part can only protect itself - not itself conducive to the best mental health and highest levels of self-actualization.

Addiction is held to be a disease. No doubt at some point it becomes one, although it seems to me that free choice has a part in it - thus at some point being a moral choice; and the disease afflicting family and community. Hatred the addiction/disease of the Middle East - does anyone disagree? - and as with addiction everywhere, it leads to crime.

In short, until the addicts want to be cured, the only option left is a police function. Maybe it's blue-helmet time. And maybe the neighbors persuaded to accept voluntary emigration from Gaza of those who wish to leave. .

I'm OK calling them a second-world country surrounded by shitholes. It doesn't really take away from the point that Israel is a democracy where gays and women aren't flogged and killed by "morality police". Do they have their issues? Of course. Are they ten times better than the surrounding countries? Yes. — RogueAI

Despite that I understand what you attempt to say, I don't like to treat those nations as 'shit holes' because nobody is guilty to be born in a country like West Bank or Lebanon. If we keep treating them in such a way, don't be surprised if they hate the Western world then.
On the other hand, it was Israel the one who settled there, in the middle of the desert, surrounded by countries that had already been there. Now, they have to accept the consequences of their artificial borders for a nation based on wandering people who don't belong to their specific territory, but they 'believe' so because a holy book says whatever in its psalms...

I don't see any difference between Israel and a country ruled by the Quran.

to their specific territory — javi2541997

If you truly see yourself as against the "Western" narrative, even this idea of "territory" should be questioned. Did you ever consider that even buying into the "this is rightfully mine that is not for them" is itself just buying into the meta-narrative given you? You are doing the narrative-creators a favor with the internalized bickering within their framework. In that sense, they have already "won", due to your lack of vision beyond the given.

I agree - with your first post -

I disagree. They attacked first. Yes, but with honour and respect, not targeting civil citizens. They bombed military headquarters and zones. But, they were answered by a bloody nuclear attack. For me, it is clear that there was a big disproportion between the attacks. As well as in this current conflict.

Israel is a democracy where gays and women aren't flogged and killed by "morality police". — RogueAI

I don't see any difference between Israel and a country ruled by the Quran. — javi2541997

You don't see a difference between a country where gays are gleefully murdered by morality police, and one where they aren't?

OK. According to your opinion, why is the main problem which goes beyond that? Because denying the occupation of an artificial country in someone's territory is just a twisted argument to back up the 'superiority' of some countries over others.

If you truly believe that gay people are not pursued by Israel just because of their sexual orientation... oh God, the Western media did a great job manipulating your reality.

Israel is governed by orthodox authorities! Why is this so hard to accept?

OK. According to your opinion, why is the main problem which goes beyond that? Because denying the occupation of an artificial country in someone's territory is just a twisted argument to back up the 'superiority' of some countries over others. — javi2541997

Because it's all about how people get to control other people. Procreation is the "original sin" of ethics. As a parent, you get to control the decision for someone else that "this world" must be "endured" (lived out, survival.. living as a human with various burdens, suffering, and self-awareness of all of this). But this is handwaved. But then we take "seriously" made up social fictions (that are taken s realities) like, "this territory is for my people!!". You can parse out where the "serious" part is for anything. People think taking the given traditions of "nation-states are true/real/necessary" as simply what must be the case. It was a narrative that grew out of the wars of the 17th century Europe, the colonialism of 18th century Europe, the philosophies of the 19th century Europe (exported to other areas of the world), and the World Wars of the 20th century Europe (exported to other parts of the world). In other words, it's just bullshit carried out in real time and the "reality" part is simply its backing by violence.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Israel

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights in Israel are considered the most developed in the Middle East.[2] Although same-sex sexual activity was legalized in 1988, the former law against sodomy had not been enforced since a court decision in 1963. Israel became the first country in Asia to recognize unregistered cohabitation between same-sex couples, making it the first country in Asia to recognize same-sex unions in any capacity.

I'm sure Israel isn't PERFECT in their respect of homosexual rights, but I think I'm fairly justified in thinking it's a hell of a big improvement compared to most of the other countries in the region.

Do you have evidence to the contrary?

They attacked first. Yes, but with honour and respect, not targeting civil citizens. They bombed military headquarters and zones. But, they were answered by a bloody nuclear attack. For me, it is clear that there was a big disproportion between the attacks. As well as in this current conflict. — javi2541997

Javi, you seem doubly afflicted with both ignorance and stupidity. But there's hope; clearly you're smart; you need only grow up and stop sucking at the teat of your own misguided sentimentality, learn a few things, and especially and particularly take the blinders from your eyes. First, learn about the fate of Nanking. Second, consider the arguments that even the Japanese respect, that the A-bombs saved lives. Third, learn more about the behavior of Japanese soldiers through WWII. Hmm. it rivals the viciousness of the Spanish Civil War. although in different forms. Bottom line, the US wanted to end the war as quickly as possible, for all good reasons, and the Japanese thought they would prefer to die. Which they did on terms that apparently made their own absurdity clear to them.

I disagree. They attacked first. Yes, but with honour and respect, not targeting civil citizens. They bombed military headquarters and zones. But, they were answered by a bloody nuclear attack. For me, it is clear that there was a big disproportion between the attacks. As well as in this current conflict. — javi2541997

There were civilians who died at Pearl Harbor when the Japanese attacked, but worse, when the Japanese invaded China, around 20 million Chinese civilians died as a result. The US was allied with China at the time.

Second Sino-Japanese War

You're being insulting to all of Japan's victims.

That's true, Japan wreaked havoc in China - some of the worst horrors known to humanity went on their, they arguably put the Nazis to shame. Although I don't think Americans knew that.

That's true, Japan wreaked havoc in China - some of the worst horrors known to humanity went on their, they arguably put the Nazis to shame. Although I don't think Americans knew that. — flannel jesus

Liberalism used to mean being for a certain way of life (liberal democracy). Presumably, whatever blemishes America has (and there are many.. from how the Cold War was conducted to cult-like authoritarianism like Trump), the ideal stands for "old school Liberalism".

The "newer" liberalism can be differentiated with the term "leftism". That is to say, culture matters more than old-school "liberal" ideas such as "rights". Thus if a culture deems their "territory" to be "self-determined", it can thus do whatever it wants. If it is an illiberal democracy so be it. There might not be enthusiastic support from the "leftists" in European countries, but there might be "indifferent" support that at least it is what the "majority" culture wants there.. Like why someone would support an illiberal state like Iran, who also claim to be "liberal" is beyond me. It would have to be a case of extreme anti-US hegemony (cut my nose to spite my face), or extreme cultural relativism.

That's true, Japan wreaked havoc in China - some of the worst horrors known to humanity went on their, they arguably put the Nazis to shame. Although I don't think Americans knew that. — flannel jesus

China and the US became allies immediately after Pearl Harbor. China provided the US Navy with intelligence throughout the war. Americans knew.

Japan wreaked havoc in China - some of the worst horrors known to humanity went on their, they arguably put the Nazis to shame. — schopenhauer1

Yep

Second anti-natalism post here, stop it. It's not the place to parade your favourite horse.

Second anti-natalism post here, stop it. It's not the place to parade your favourite horse. — Benkei

Everyone's posting their favorite (anti-) post here. But it was to elucidate a bigger point of where people pick their "indignation". So I did tie it into a philosophical point that we often handwave some things and include others in what we condemn. In a philosophy forum setting, where we question even first principle of our debate (and not just political science or history), I think this is a legitimate point to make. But carry on with your particular indignation.

Mearsheimer actually makes a good point about why the possibility for Jews and Muslims to live together in a single state is basically never considered.

There are roughly as many Jews living in 'Greater Israel' as there are Muslims, which means that as soon as Muslims get equal rights, Israel ceases to be a Jewish state. In addition, due to demographic factors Muslims will start to outnumber Jews in the span of several decades, further compounding the issue.

So there you have it.

Under the paradigm that Israel must be a Jewish state, your flavors are apartheid or ethnic cleansing and genocide.

Do you have evidence to the contrary? — flannel jesus

Yes, I have.

Israel maintains a system of religious courts for the Jewish, Muslim, Druze, and Christian populations. These courts have jurisdiction over cases such as marital issues, conversion, and appointment to religious leadership positions.
Divorce of a Jewish couple can only be obtained at the Rabbinical Batei Din. However, if a petition for ancillary matrimonial reliefs, such as custody, support or equitable distribution of property is filed with the Civil Courts before a case for divorce is opened at the Batei Din, then all other marital issues may also be taken by Magistrate Courts sitting as Family Courts.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_of_Israel

If the rule of law is shared by religious courts, how can the rights of gay people can be guaranteed?

It is so obvious, right?

Just curious did you see my response to that? My response to that quote was because it basically was "yadadyadaya.. but AMERICA couldn't know". It just seemed like knee-jerk leftist rhetoric which goes.. Yadyadayda..America (bad).

Japan's attack was not honourable because there was no just cause - it was naked aggression. At the same time the fire bombings of Japan and the nuclear bombs were clear war crimes as well because all of indiscriminately targeted civilians.

nothing about what you said, to me, makes it obvious that Israel isn't a much safer place for homosexuals, atheists and apostates than any other country in the region. It just sounds like speculation from you that, because these courts exist, gay people must be just as persecuted here as they are in Muslim countries. In fact your own words make it clear that the jurisdiction of these courts in incredibly limited. I don't think those courts have any power over homosexuals whatsoever based on the text provided.

Just curious did you see my response to that? My response to that quote was because it basically was "yadadyadaya.. but AMERICA couldn't know". It just seemed like knee-jerk leftist rhetoric which goes.. Yadyadayda..America (bad). — schopenhauer1

Yea. We all see the world through myths, I think. There's the Muslim terrorist myth, which shows up sometimes. The America-bad myth is ever-present. What I do is just try to be slow to judgment so I can detect my own myths and try not to write off what someone says as if it's nothing but myth. Sometimes a person is appealing for a particular fact to be recognized, and it may be important. How do you get to that when there's a cloud of myths in the way?

Bottom line, the US wanted to end the war as quickly as possible, for all good reasons, and the Japanese thought they would prefer to die. Which they did on terms that apparently made their own absurdity clear to them. — tim wood

Absurdity; they deserve to die; they are backwards because the Samurai are old-fashioned; they have an Emperor, so they are weird; dropping two nuclear bombs is justified, etc.

Imagine if Hirohito was the one ordering a nuclear attack on California - for example - you would argue what I am arguing right now. No doubt about that. On the other hand, I am not saying that the Japanese army was peaceful and not bloody. Yes, I must admit that their commanders were savage. But as much as I can remember, their commanders were condemned by the U.S. Supreme Court. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944)

Why no court condemned Truman for letting the American army destroy two cities?

A bit of hypocrisy and cynicism. Don't you think, Tim?