In the original position, you are asked to consider which principles you would select for the basic structure of society, but you must select as if you had no knowledge ahead of time what position you would end up having in that society. This choice is made from behind a "veil of ignorance", which prevents you from knowing your ethnicity, social status, gender and, crucially in Rawls' formulation, your or anyone else's idea of how to lead a good life. Ideally, this would force participants to select principles impartially and rationally. — Veil of Ignorance

If this was applied to antinatalism, imagine a prospective parent/society is behind the veil of ignorance. They would not know what position any potential child will occupy, what their quality of life will be, their potential for suffering or happiness, or their genetic/biological predispositions.

Rawls' Veil of Ignorance (aka Original Position) asks us to consider the full range of possible lives a new person could lead. This includes the best possible scenarios as well as the worst- thus extreme suffering, disabilities, mental illness, or life in poverty and conflict, amongst a whole host of other negatively balanced lives.

Since behind the veil, individuals do not know if their offspring will be born into a life of mostly joy or mostly suffering, they must weigh the potential risks of severe harm and suffering against potential benefits of a good life.

Combining this with Benatar's asymmetry, it may be rational to view the prevention of harm as a greater moral priority than the creation of happiness, especially when consent cannot be obtained.

Thus, under the veil of ignorance, where the outcomes of a new life are unknown, the ethical priority of avoiding potential harm and respecting the impossibility of obtaining consent presents a strong argument against procreation.

@Vera Mont @BitconnectCarlos

Just curious, do you believe in biological essentialism when it comes to nation-states, or do you think a longstanding tie to a biological, ethnic, or cultural identity, along with a historical connection to a particular region, could be used as such to define a people who have identified with it for generations?

Also, not to open a can of worms, doing some research on this, Ashkenazi (Central/Eastern European) Jewish DNA according to various genetic studies, are about 40-50% in Levantine origin (that is the area around Israel/Lebanon/Syria/Jordan) with about 30-40% Roman Italian admixture, and ~10% Germanic mix ~10% Slavic mix.

If we combine this with the historical plausible theories, ancient Judeans/Israelites from the Levant intermixed with Roman Italians sometime in the Roman Empire/Early Middle Ages, and this intermixed group moved across the Alps to around France and the Rhineland region around the time of the Carolingian Dynasty (c.800s-1000s CE). A few centuries later, a large segment of the population moved into the Poland/Lithuanian/Russian region (c.1300s CE) after much repeated persecution in Western/Central Europe. So the migration from Levant-Italy (the bulk of the admixture), France/Germany, Eastern Europe (a much lower percentage) shows up on the DNA markers.

*Also, the mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) studies indicate the original females were mainly of Southern European/Roman Italian origin, and the Y-Chromosome studies show a Middle Eastern/Levantine origin, which indicates that it might have been the case that male Jewish/Judean/Levant residents were taken as slaves after the Jewish Revolts to Italy/Rome around the years 70CE and 135 CE, respectively, and these males intermixed with pagan Italian women who they converted to Judaism. After the initial intermarriage, the group mainly intermixed with each other.
** Also some of this admixture could come from Judean/Levant-originating merchants, rather than being slaves taken from the two main Jewish Wars with Rome. These merchants were males in the Roman Italian peninsula, that intermixed and converted local Italian wives during the Roman Empire.

There are also smaller traces of Germanic/Celtic, and Slavic populations based on where they moved after Italy (10-20% Germanic/Celtic/Slavic). However, the bulk of the admixture is about ~45% Levantine/40% Roman (Empire Era) Italian.

This information is getting really in the weeds, but since the creation of Israel, people have had a whole host of questions regarding European Jewish origins, and it's best to use the genetic evidence available rather than just pulling random notions out of one's ass or based on phenotypes...There are people of even just two very different ethnic backgrounds that could look one way or the other, and that one would not "suspect" as being of a certain origin, let alone a people whose admixture origin goes back thousands of years (during the Roman times between mainly Levant males and Southern European females).

No, because that was not the purpose the Tractatus. The Tractatus was addressing a specific problem, not trying to explain every aspect of language. — RussellA

So perhaps I should explain more then: It was not addressed by Witt, but it SHOULD HAVE if his goal was to show how propositional logic allows for mapping onto reality due to selecting out true states of affairs; the MECHANISM for doing so must be EXPLAINED. Otherwise, what's the point? And even his own method of simply asserting the theory fails, because of self-contradictions that propositional logic can run into, as you suggested.

So from this:
1) He accounts for no mechanism behind the "Picture" in the theory, just asserts it.
2) The logic that supports the "Picture" fails on its own, even without explanation to how it maps onto/corresponds to reality.

- god, immortality, free wil[ — Moliere

He certainly wasn't a Calvanist then.

I don't see the problem. A reality made up of objects is always already a linguistically mediated or interpreted reality. — Janus

But was that even addressed by Witt? That seems like a psychological point that goes way deeper than simply linguistic analysis. How brains, neurons parse out objects, how our brains even obtain language is way broader than the simple parsing of sentences into objects and their predicates, no matter how many symbols you add universal, existential or otherwise.

To this end what I regard as most important is not simply getting Wittgenstein right but the attempt to get him right, even if we decide he gets it wrong. If is an exercise in thinking and seeing. — Fooloso4

Do you think he put as much effort in his words as you are in interpreting them? Is it even in some way "right" to over-interpret any one human's words to this extent? Do you think the onus of understanding is on the author or the reader? If not the author, then can I write a post, and make you figure it out if you don't understand it? Do we not fall into the trap of some sort of "Appeal to Prophecy" if we can read so much into a relatively sparse text? What makes one person infinitely analyzable and others ignored? Can popularity become its own epiphenomenon, creating the meaning beyond the actual text? If that's the case, can this be done with any more-or-less abstract piece of writing? If so, what are we doing here doing practically infinite hermeneutics? Is that philosophically sound, or is it overmining? If an author tries to confound with too many questions, is that bad faith arguing, clever philosophizing, or "showing"? How do we know which is which besides preference in style, or what others say is supposed to count as preferential style? Can one actually put in more effort than an author in philosophizing a point of the author? If so, why? If that's the case, might it be more prudent to put the effort into taking what one learns and developing one's own ideas and philosophy instead of endless hermeneutics of really trying to "get" an obscure text?

I suspect Vervaeke sits with all those theorists and self-help folk who seek to offer a remedy for common anxiety. — Tom Storm

I think you summed up religion in a nutshell, sir. Hats off to you. Daoism tries to find the flow in the ordinary and Buddhism to escape the suffering of the angst..Epicureanism and Stoicism roughly the same. Some don’t need bigger meaning, they want microdose flow states from a good game of chess or zoning out to a video game. The remedy ends up being just variations of acceptance and escapism of the daily grind.

'Early' Buddhism certainly saw existence as a malaise, a woeful condition to be escaped by the renunciation of the world. However the 'new' Buddhism - — Wayfarer

Sounds like a turn for convenience. If you can’t beat them (the masses) have them join you by justifying the status quo.

Also the idea of karma is a convenient way to kick the responsibility down the road no? A self fulfilling prophecy. You want a family because you aren’t born enlightened enough yet. Don’t worry, in the next life you might be a celibate monk eating a handful of rice. You’ll get ‘em next time :lol:.

yes, the other is ultimately hidden from us (despite our being able to guess at thoughts or anticipating, etc), but the framework Descartes is using treats them as inhuman, as it were, unless we can “judge” they are people, as if it is a matter of proof rather than taking them to be human, accepting them, acting towards them as if they were. — Antony Nickles

I took that quote to simply mean, we judge them to have internal sensations like we do.. not that we need proof. But I do know that Descartes had a horrible understanding that animals didn't have inner sensations like people do. But then, that would be the opposite view of proof because of external signs and such. Rather, it seems like an irrational belief in only people having inner sensations, and that means no proof was needed, just an unjustified belief in a hierarchy.

I’m referring to the radical skepticism that is generalized and creates a gap between us and the world that philosophy turns into an intellectual problem. Not just questioning the status quo. — Antony Nickles

I think this idea of turning into an "intellectual problem" is a non-problem. There are philosophers that have various ideas on the matter. Kant has his CI, but Schopenhauer has his compassion.. Plato had his notion of The Good, Aristotle the virtues, hedonism, cynicism, and all of it. These are just various ways of looking at the human condition and the world and how the human relates with the world. I am at a loss for why this is no good.

One point I think Witt is making is that taking our world as, say, mitigated by “appearance” or “belief” is to exactly take a negative view of our ordinary means of seeing and communicating and judging. As if we are never connected to the world, instead of only sometimes not knowing our way about. They in a sense kill the world to save it in the vision they want: the thing-in-itself (which we can’t know directly), or the forms (which we only remember), or God’s knowledge, or only true/false propositions. — Antony Nickles

Actually, the Thing-In-Itself is precisely what we know most according to Schopenhauer, so not all philosophers think like that. His idea of Will is immanent, and personal, not theoretical construct. And even Kant, is simply explaining theory of cognition, early cognitive psychology, if you will.. It isn't replacing the feeling of everyday, it is answering questions of what it means for us to construct the world.. You need space and time for example, you need qualities, and quantities, etc. etc.

They share the desire and thus create and impose a criteria or standard that is like the idea they have of science or math. Thus why Plato discusses math first in the Theatetus, and Descartes wants to be beyond doubt, and Kant requires the imperative. — Antony Nickles

They are analyzing our ways of understanding of the world... For example what is the nature of arithmetic and geometrical notions or scientific discoveries. Call it various "judgements" about the world rather than truths if you want. Kant had the categorical imperative indeed, but that was faulty from the outset, not because he wanted certainty, but because (in my opinion) it assumes various things and ignores others to get what it wants regarding ethical dilemmas. But none of this seems to be the reasons Wittgenstein gives.. just a blanket "they all want to be certain!" rather than they are investigating avenues for human epistemology and metaphysics..

That it is a “false” narrative does not explain why Plato, Descartes, Kant, Positivism, etc. got sucked into it (belief or opinion vs knowledge; appearance vs reality; the thing-in-itself; only either true or false). That is what Witt is investigating. — Antony Nickles

The way I see those, is they are all different and often self-referential and contained frameworks that don't all have to do with exactly "certainty" in the same way say, that a scientific experiment or a math problem is "certain". These are metaphysical and epistemological frameworks, many of which are architectonic, building upon themselves.

What they have in common is a construction or positive idea about reality. If he is getting at that they think they "solved" something rather than being permanently skeptical, I think that is a bias against constructive theories, and not acknowledging that they can work as hypothesis that can later be changed by other ways of thinking.. I don't see the problem.

This is a tough one, because it’s easy to dismiss Descartes as delusional or paranoid. The particular instance is not as important as the fabrications that create it, which is not the automaton, but turning our human limitations into a problem, here, only seeing “appearance” because we want to have the certainty of “reality”, when the desire is in reaction to the fear that, in fact, sometimes we don’t know whether someone is lying; that their judgments, their decisions, etc. can exist but be unexpressed; that we may be wrong about them, to trust them, to give our love to them. — Antony Nickles

I'm not sure what you (or Witt?) is saying here. Descartes is taking a pretty common sense position that I cannot LITERALLY know what the other person is thinking inside, but I can judge them to be feeling similar to me. So I don't see the big deal about certainty you (Witt?) is making there.

Finding yourself in the grip of skepticism is also tricky (even accepting its truth) because we don’t see that: imagining we live without it (as part of the human condition) or have solved it, is to still be in its snare. — Antony Nickles

I'm not sure what this is saying either. Indeed it is good to be skeptical and try to figure out the world or not I suppose.

He is drawing out (making explicit) the type of criteria in individual cases to contrast them with the philosophical fixation with knowledge as certainty, or that we have to settle for some lesser version in contrast… because we “never have perfect” knowledge. — Antony Nickles

Right, but my contention is that this thing he is setting up of "perfect knowledge" and "making due" is a false narrative, and thus a strawman that doesn't need addressing really.

The point is not the answer, nor to say philosophy is stupid or useless, but to allow for self-reflection, to see our projection into our thinking. The obviousness of our ordinary criteria, once we see them, is uncanny (Cavell’s term) for me exactly because I have been trained so long to think in the frameworks of philosophy. — Antony Nickles

So I am just focusing on this idea of not knowing what someone is really thinking internally, this doesn't seem like something that needs deconstruction because it never was constructed. It's a straw man.

One thing I do not like is obtuse bantering against a belief that doesn't exist.. Someone mentioned for example, cherry picking as a foil Augustine, so one can take that as the view that the "ordinary or majority X (philosopher/person) holds. I just think this is bad faith arguing to make a point that one doesn't need. Perhaps again, this is just him talking to himself about his previous views, but then, why should I care about his previous views or his current views?

We are getting rather far afield from Witt’s approachability, however, — Antony Nickles

Not really though. My point is that it is a pretty asshole move by the philosopher in question to point out things as if they are novel when they are pretty readily held by the majority. In this case, the idea that we can never have perfect "certainty" of what others are feeling, so must rely on outward observations and public displays, and then take action from there and believe them. None of this is an uncommon view.

I ask you, have you ever had someone say some pretty commonsense advice as if you never thought of it? Has that ever irked you that they are providing advice as if they hit on something profound which you and everyone else knows? I gave an example of moderate politicians who say, "It's the economy stupid! That's what matters most to families!".. Well, yeah, so does that mean no other politician cares about the economy? :lol:

If Israel is committing war crimes so has everyone and maybe war just is war crimes; you do shoot at the enemy, after all. — BitconnectCarlos

I mean that seems to be a presupposition of this thread.

At some point the conversation comes to an end because people have made their points. There is not much more except arguing the same thing and just getting emotionally angrier over and over for no reason. I guess it's a way to get people's frustration out with the conflict, but that seems to eventually lead nowhere when it just goes on endlessly. You think you have one up me because you made your point, and I one upped you because I made mine? I'm pretty sure regarding this, we are just going to defend our points without being moved. So what's the point of continuing the same points on this thread over and over again? Go ahead and write your letters to your congressmen/parlimentarian, make a video to reach a broad audience, etc., but shouting at each other on an internet philosophy forum seems quite inane. There is nothing we are going to do. We don't even know each other personally, so there is no attachment there. And if you say I represent this or that, and you are symbolically trying to slay the dragon of your imagined enemy, save the value signaling.

[Edit: I had a whole thing summing up my points, but nah, I don't want to keep endlessly debating the same things with the considerations I said above].

But it is true, isn't it?

Israel has inflicted over ten times as many civilian casualties as Hamas did.

Nothing screams "moral high ground" more than resorting to the same barbarism as your enemy and outdoing him ten times over. — Tzeentch

You can have the last post if you want, I already addressed the issues. What more do you want from me?

Right. I'm the one that is confused.

Nevermind the fact that any brutality perpetrated by Hamas you may point at has been repeated by Israel tenfold. — Tzeentch

You can say whatever you want and that doesn't make it true. Justifying Hamas' means and confusing war is on you, not me.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/907528
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/907531

This is what Israel is doing 'round the clock, and you're still calling that self-defense, aren't you? — Tzeentch

Ah right, you confuse who the bullies are, and as we already covered, you confuse what war entails. Off to the other thread.

That's unfortunately what Israel has been - a bully. — Tzeentch

Cool, you can also tell that to millions of people in the region who are now affected by their suicide-bombings (stopping previous negotiations), and current round of straight up barbaric civilian brutal murders and rapes and dismemberment.

Why? They are simply reacting to Israeli aggression with the few tools at their disposal.

There's nothing you have said so far that disqualifies that from being an act of self-defense. — Tzeentch

Raping and dismembering and killing civilians doesn't disqualify them? Cool, we can stop talking because we are so far apart in terms of what we see as justified violence for political goals. And to conflate actual self-defense to an actual movement bent on PURPOSEFULLY using disgusting tactics, is beyond the pale and thus disqualifies whatever "justice" is sough as the ends.

and wasn't bullied over the span of six days after which Israel doubled its own territory. — Tzeentch

:lol: :roll: I'm sure Hitler would have said they were bullied if Western powers stepped in. Look at what Nasser's Egypt, and Jordan and Syria were doing and saying...

Now aggressive action is self-defense. I'm sure oppression and apartheid are self-defense, etc. — Tzeentch

Just like stopping Hitler before 1940 would have been justified and needed to stop an actual aggressor.

There's simply no way you can condemn Hamas while apologizing for Israel without being an utter hypocrite. — Tzeentch

Yes, sending rockets, and then actually invading and brutally targeting civilians and capturing hostages rather than peace talks would make me condemn Hamas. But you go ahead and ignore that so you can bring up your talking points about the Israeli rightwing.

Yeah, the state we happen to like for whatever reason did it, so it must be defensive. The US didn’t invade Vietnam— it was defending Vietnam. Israel is committing a genocide — it’s sending itself. — Mikie

Yeah except Vietnam was not right next door and surrounding you with several countries not just one, immanently threatening your existence as a country.

France was actually preparing for a new conflict with Germany, and it was preparing to fight that conflict on German soil. — Tzeentch

You said earlier, from the Wiki article, that they were preparing for a "counteroffensive". That means AFTER they were attacked they would fight back. They were in a defensive posture. Unlike this scenario you are using where France wasn't threatening Germany, it was actually the other way around, that Germany was threatening France. And thus, unlike your scenario, the Arab armies were IMMINANTELY and loudly threatening Israel's existence. Hence why I said that you should switch this where Israel was France. Except, UNLIKE France that just sat there waiting for an attack, Israel acted pre-emptively and was obviously successful. If anything, the lesson learned in 1930s is you don't let an aggressive bully get away with it and constantly concede as Western powers were doing when Hitler was clearly violating the Versailles Treaty- rebuilding armies, taking Rhineland, invading Austria and the anschluss, going into Czechoslovakia, etc. He took over Alsace Lorraine, etc. None of this was stopped.

So occupying territory illegally now becomes "self-defense"? — Tzeentch

Yes when during the time leading up to the pre-emptive strike, you heard nothing but rhetoric about wiping Israel off the map and then after words, they said "NO" to negotiations with Israel, recognition of Israel, and no to peace with Israel. Now later on, in 79, Sadat was the first to actually overcome this stubbornness, also due to Black September, and Jordan was willing to do secret dealings with Israel that was formerly signed as a peace agreement in 1994. Oslo Accords also, so there were strides, and the West Bank was the main negotiating block with the Palestinians for the new homeland. You would have to realize before a certain time it was just assumed that all of Israel was seen as a non-starter. And even now, it is the same. Of course, even the ones willing to negotiate didn't take a good deal or present a counteroffer. And you had more violence.

The philosopher imagines “knowing” another’s mind as being (requiring) an identical equation, thus the impression you could never know my pain, have the same pain, and why the philosopher comes up with a carrier, an object, for this imagined uniqueness, as a pain “sensation”, pain “perception”. — Antony Nickles

Which philosopher(s)? There is identity theories I guess that propose certain neuronal firings indicate a certain brain state, but I am not sure Witt knew about those. No one presumably thinks that we actually can feel the same exact thoughts as through ESP. And surely, the whole point of empathy is that we imagine others pain is similar to our own.

This is making a caricature of common notions.. Yeah, almost everyone agrees that they can't see inside what another person is feeling, and you take it on habit and as a matter of course that people feel similarly when they are in pain or other sensations. And that it is impossible if their pain is exactly the same. But I am not sure pointing out that obvious point is making some grand philosophical point.

For example, a much more interesting philosophical point is that of "p-zombies", a thought experiment proposed by David Chalmers. But that is more interesting because it imagines that people don't have any inner sensation. But the point of it is to prove the weirdness of subjectivity and why it exists at all and that if materialists are correct, you can have a completely behavioral based model, that shouldn't account for internal states. But you see why this actually is meant to elicit various questions related to the mind-body problem.

We cannot know other minds because our relation to others is not knowledge, but how we treat them, our “attitude” in relation to them, in its sense of: position “towards”. I treat you as if you have a soul. — Antony Nickles

But, as I noted, this contradicts Wittgenstein’s comments. — Luke

So what I am not a fan of, is when something that is pretty common understanding of things is presented as if it’s profoundly innovative wisdom.

Except that the Maginot Line was most definitely built to accomodate a counter-offensive into Germany. — Tzeentch

Huh? The point was France did little to jack shit when Hitler was violating the Versailles treaty, opting to build a wall over taking any military or other measures to “head it off at the pass”. Essentially, they just put their head in the sand from looming threats..so in a way, Israel is the France here, but did the opposite strategy and didn’t wait to be taken over by surrounding armies.

Why do you keep suggesting Israel should be accomodated in its illegal actions? — Tzeentch

Illegal action to defend themselves? Nah not buying that argument.

If Germany had excused its invasion of France under the pretense that France was oh-so threatening, would we take it very seriously? — Tzeentch

Except France wasn't threatening. If anything, they were intractably in a defensive posture, even when the situation did not call for it. WWI did a number on them I guess.

Israel took an opportunity to double its territory, thinking it would get away with it. And then the world didn't let it. — Tzeentch

Again, if you want to load the premise this way, you will get your own conclusion. Someone else I am sure will bring up the 3 No's and whatnot, and that there was room for negotiation if the Arab states had made an agreement after its disastrous loss. This didn't happen though.

But again, you refuse to steer the conversation in constructive ways, so we can just keep making our points.. historical, ethical, strategic, or whatnot.

The premise has all the support it needs: decades upon decades of UN Security Council resolutions. — Tzeentch

Already addressed this, so I'm done debating it.. You can keep referring to it if you want though.

There are few things as set in stone as the fact that Israel is the belligerent occupier and has been in the wrong ever since it made that ill-fated decision. — Tzeentch

That seems to be your belief, not "set in stone" fact. But if you want to lower the value signaling, we can discuss various ways that might resolve to a state-solution.. However, even if we worked out in perfect harmony steps that might work, what of it? We are just two people debating on an online forum.

A "massive" threat I'm sure, considering Israel clobbered all of its neighbors simultaneously and doubled its own territory in the span of six days. :lol: — Tzeentch

I never get this kind of point. If an enemy is bested militarily, even easily, does it make it any less threatening? That's precisely why they did a pre-emptive strike!

It's a bit rich to expect non-violence from a people who have been subjected to a brutal occupation, apartheid and other crimes of humanity for decades.

When will Israel try its hand at non-violence? — Tzeentch

I just think this is unrealistic. If you have the upperhand, you don't equalize the playing field because someone on the sidelines calls "foul!".. in order so that when the fighting (DOES INEVITABLY) HAPPEN, you can be that much more defenseless and so be clobbered.

As we've discussed before, the fear is that Pals take the hill country in the West Bank with free use of arms, that at some point a group like Hamas will try to form a pincer attack and relentlessly try to send missiles and attacks on Israel proper.. And of course, this would lead to a "re-occupation".. So yeah there needs to be a true non-violence first amongst the Pals, before Israel would start thinking in that direction.

But again, we actually agree on certain points, but the way you are debating here, we can't get there. And thus the debate goes in the usual direction.

In 1967 it was Israel who decided to illegally occupy the West Bank and Gaza (among other territories).

Its base territorial greed cannot excuse "controlling people like Hamas" which in practice means the brutal oppression of millions. Israel can't even legally claim self-defense in these regions, because as the belligerent occupier, it is by definition in the wrong. — Tzeentch

Load whatever premise to get the conclusion you need.

In reality, there isn't even an onus on the Palestinians to negotiate. The 1967 expansion of Israel was illegal, period. It has no legitimate claim whatsoever on the West Bank and Gaza. — Tzeentch

Rather, the Arab/Islamic states surrounding Israel were immanently going to try to conquer it.. Remember Nasser and the Pan-Arab movement at the time was threatening, but are we going to now rehash the conditions of June 1967? I'm sure that's been discussed here before...

Those pesky Palestinians, refusing to simply acknowledge Israel's illegal occupation and just leave, eh? — Tzeentch

This is a strawman. I didn't say that. They don't have to acknowledge anything. If "not acknowledging" means non-violence, then sure, that.

So perhaps Israel is uniquely barbaric in the modern day and age. — Tzeentch

I think this now shifts to the other thread as to what war looks like.

As far as "apartheid".. There has to be a peace movement amongst the Palestinians. That means controlling people like Hamas. Until that is solved, Israel has to defend itself.

This idea that Palestinians are like puffer fish that are filled with rage that just needs to be "let out" in various barbaric acts is ludicrous. But I'm sure you will defend it as "oppressed". And this will go around in circles.

Arafat had a chance to settle all this. He didn't. And until this type of ignoring is had, we can't talk about the issues we DO agree upon.

By the way, Israel does not represent Jews globally. It doesn't even represent all Jews within its borders. Many are adamantly opposed to Israel's malpractices. — Tzeentch

Sure, but I didn't say it did, so this is a straw man. Rather, this is the only Jewish nation-state. That is just a fact.

If country's views may be disregarded based on human rights violations then where does that leave Israel? :lol: — Tzeentch

The point is the unique singling out.

And third world countries — Tzeentch

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Non-Aligned-Movement

There are many countries in Africa that align with the Islamic bloc, but some that also align with it that are from the formerly "third-world" (non-aligned) countries during the Cold War.. Of course all of these countries have brutal ongoing violations, but easy to coalesce against a singled out enemy.. guess who!

And any nation that is aligned against the West.


Well then, let's disregard all of these (on whatever shakey grounds you have yet to present). — Tzeentch

Huh? China and Russia are not aligned against Western powers? The question is more to you not me then..

What kind of a picture do you think we'll end up with?

Will the voting behavior of the list of countries that are left paint a less painful picture for Israel? — Tzeentch

Well, since the UN is biased, and has no executive powers that countries are obliged to abide by anyways, and seems to just be a place people can point to for this and that argument for appealing to authority, I say just move forward with different conversation points.

What should I be looking for? — Tzeentch

Numerous human rights violations, many vote as an Arab/Islamic bloc, and then there is the third-world non-aligned countries in Africa.. all of these countries with numerous human rights violations that they don't condemn for their own cultures/countries, not to mention China and Russian interests and violations against the "West". Not to mention Israel is the only Jewish nation-state in the world, so hard to compare.. But, Jews haven't been known to be easy and exceptionally singled out targets in history, right?

In other words: "I'm not crazy, the world is crazy!" — Tzeentch

As in, look at a lot of those countries in the General Assembly...

All countries are in the General Assembly. — Tzeentch

Indeed

Considering the countries in the General Assembly, not really.

And on what basis do you make that judgement, given that the UN has consistently pointed at Israel's settlement policy as a purposeful obstruction of the peace process? — Tzeentch

I don't think much of the UN.. They are a biased body. Not much more to say.

But as for the Israeli settlement policy.. it could have been solved years ago, but Arafat didn't want that.

There are the religious zealots and what not that want to settle "Judea and Samaria". Some have an argument that prior to 48, there were actually Jewish communities in the West Bank that they are trying to rebuild.. All of that wouldn't be any good reason to keep that land. The only reason I have heard that makes sense is that it is a strategic region to have to prevent extremist Palestinian groups (like Hamas obviously) from organizing enough to try to gain the high ground (literally) to launch attacks and destroy Israel proper.. And that reason indeed, makes sense. As long as you have a group that wants to see your nation-state destroyed (either all at once, or slowly overtime when you have enough resources to attack), then if you DO HAVE the upper hand in keeping the strategic high ground, you will keep it until there is truly a de-radicalized movement that wants a lasting peace.

And since no Palestinian leaders have really taken the hard(er) route of getting past absolutist terms for peace, we haven't seen it come to fruition that Israel dismantles the majority of their settlements.. It's too bad for those who truly want peace, and the whole world, who wait for eternity, for the de-radicalization to happen.. And yeah, if there is a civil war between settlers and Israeli troops, that is what would have to happen..

In fact, I see civil war in that region as an improvement over unified hatred.