Speaking for myself, I respect every pro-Isreal Jew who openly, vigourously denounces and opposes the mass murdering, ethnic cleansing, apartheid policies of the US/Nato-backed Netanyahu regime.And is there a certain type of pro-Israel Jew that you do respect? — BitconnectCarlos
Speaking for myself, I respect every pro-Isreal Jew who openly, vigourously denounces and opposes the mass murdering, ethnic cleansing, apartheid policies of the US/Nato-backed Netanyahu regime. — 180 Proof
To say that you are "anti-zionist" is to say that you are opposed to Jewish self-determination. — BitconnectCarlos
So what I would really like to understand is: is it geopolitical and historical reasoning that is blind to universal humanitarian concerns or is it universal humanitarian concerns that are blind to geopolitical and historical reasoning? I think the second is way more likely, hence the spectacular and endless frustration of the universal human rights activists. — neomac
I'm not sure what you mean by "historical reasoning" — boethius
but both geopolitical analysis and humanitarian concerns can be as informed or then blind to the other. — boethius
There are plenty of geopolitical analysts and actors that wish to minimize human suffering, and there are plenty of humanitarian actors that are aware of the geopolitical realities. You can also find the opposite cases, of geopolitical analysts and/or actors that have zero concern for human rights (there are plenty of brutal dictatorships that understand the geopolitics of their situation but are unconcerned with human rights). — boethius
↪neomac
First time I've seen the video so I couldn't have posted it before.
is it geopolitical and historical reasoning that is blind to universal humanitarian concerns or is it universal humanitarian concerns that are blind to geopolitical and historical reasoning?
Yes and no. The latter opposes – struggles against – the inhumane and counter-productive (i.e. destabilizing) excesses – strategic blindness – of the former. — 180 Proof
In terms of "historical force", most conflicts are framed and limited by humanitarian concerns. The rules of war and international law and WMD treaties and other self-imposed constraints on state actors are the result of a humanitarian tradition to minimize the harms of war and strive to maximize a liveable peace after war, all while recognizing that wars do happen.. — boethius
If there was no humanitarian concern every state would stockpile chemical weapons and strive to attain nuclear weapons and not hesitate to use such weapons, as well as any other weapon on hand, on civilian populations. And not just weapons of mass destruction, there is a long list of weapons that states agree not to use (sound weapons, pain inducing weapons, various forms of terrorism, laser and other blinding weapons and radiation weapons of various kinds) all while competing with each other using as much force as they can muster within this broader humanitarian framework. — boethius
There's all sorts of things states could do but choose not to, and the argument that they don't do it because they would look bad simply circles back to the fact they look bad because enough people genuinely believe in the humanitarian principles (such as striving to minimize rather than maximize harm, avoid intentionally harming civilians and so on) that therefore those actions look bad. — boethius
Which is one area where I diverge from Mearsheimer in that states in the current system strive to maximize power but within a collaborative framework of self-imposed constraint due to the genuine belief in principles opposed to power-maximization. — boethius
And, as mentioned above, these constraints are due to the values and not some second order practical consideration, for we can easily find periods in history where there were no such values and we never find such constraints simply arising anyway due to practical lessons. When it was completely compatible with people's values to be torturing, crucifying (including a tenth of your own men on occasion), poising enemy water supplies, general raping and pillaging and eradication or enslaving conquered people's etc. we never find in history groups of people who have these values (i.e. see no problem with any of these things) but stop doing them because of practical considerations (like "torture doesn't work" for example). — boethius
- Hamas remains undefeated while tens of thousands of civilians lay dead. — Tzeentch
- Israel's international reputation has evaporated and it is probably the most isolated it has ever been in its history. — Tzeentch
- Recent seismographic anomalies suggest Iran may have tested a nuclear weapon. — Tzeentch
How can they be wrong about what it means? :chin: — BitconnectCarlos
See hereIsraeli forces fired on the headquarters of the UN peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon for the second time in two days on Friday, injuring four peacekeepers.
US President Joe Biden has said he is "absolutely, positively" urging Israel to stop firing at UN peacekeepers during its conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon, following two incidents in 48 hours.
The world is going insane. — Benkei
Never underestimate the impact how a large terrorist attack can be put to use to rouse people to support war. — ssu
Is it fair to say at least that you're a sympathizer? — BitconnectCarlos
And second, solve that strategic weakness to do what exactly? Conquer the whole Middle-East in a giant US-Israeli war on everyone and then occupy the place forever? — boethius
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.