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.

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.

[...] dismembering and killing civilians doesn't disqualify them? — schopenhauer1

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

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

Just like stopping Hitler before 1940 would have been justified and needed to stop an actual aggressor. — schopenhauer1

Except that 1940's Germany was an actual threat, and wasn't bullied over the span of six days after which Israel doubled its own territory.

Yes, sending rockets, and then actually invading and brutally targeting civilians and capturing hostages rather than peace talks would make me condemn Hamas. — schopenhauer1

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.

You're all over the place.

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

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

After all, I could use the same logic to claim Hamas is acting out of self-defense.

Philosophers should practice what they preach.

Precisely because philosophy isn't a hard science, the philosopher themselves should act as a 'living proof' of the validity of their views and lead by example.

If they do not, then the philosophy should be looked upon with a degree of skepsis.

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. — schopenhauer1

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

Yet, when Germany invaded France, Germany was the clear aggressor and no one would buy it if Germany said, after clobbering France in a month-and-a-half, that France was the aggressor and that it was reacting to a threat from France.

Israel, just like Germany, grossly overpowered its rivals. Israel even tried to play the victim afterwards, not unlike today.

Illegal action to defend themselves? — schopenhauer1

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

When Israel does it, it is self-defense, and when Hamas does it, is it terror?

Is that sort of the way you believe this works?

Based on what you're saying, one could easily spin the October 7th attacks to be "self-defense" - Israel is the clear aggressor in this conflict after all.

Except France wasn't threatening. If anything, they were intractably in a defensive posture, even when the situation did not call for it. — schopenhauer1

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

It even explains why on the Wikipedia page you linked...

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. — schopenhauer1

Negotiation?

Israel decided to take land that didn't belong to it, and its adversaries rightfully resisted any naturalisation of this state of affairs. Just like the Palestinians have resisted the illegal occupation.

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

I never get this kind of point. If an enemy is bested militarily, even easily, does it make it any less threatening? — schopenhauer1

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

I wouldn't.

And Israel's victory in the Six Day War was even more one-sided than Germany's.

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

Load whatever premise to get the conclusion you need. — schopenhauer1

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

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.

Rather, the Arab/Islamic states surrounding Israel were immanently going to try to conquer it.. — schopenhauer1

Haha. Hahaha.

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:

Yea, I'm sure the Israelis were real scared of them.

If "not acknowledging" means non-violence, then sure, that. — schopenhauer1

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

When will Israel try its hand at non-violence?

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. — schopenhauer1

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.

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.

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

I think you'll have to admit that even if we disregard all of the nations you named, we will still end up with near-unanimous condemnation of Israel's conduct.

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

Its apartheid regime is perhaps most reminiscent of South Africa. South Africa also possessed over nuclear weapons, by the way.

But, Jews haven't been known to be easy and exceptionally singled out targets in history, right? — schopenhauer1

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.

Numerous (48 or so?) human rights violations, [...] — schopenhauer1

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

many vote as an Arab/Islamic bloc, — schopenhauer1

Okay, so in your view, Arab and Islamic nations don't count...

and then there is the third-world non-aligned countries in Africa. — schopenhauer1

And third world countries in Africa. (?) :chin:

not to mention China and Russian interests and violations against the "West". — schopenhauer1

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).


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?

As in, look at a lot of those countries in the General Assembly... — schopenhauer1

What should I be looking for?

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

If Hitler were to make the same argument in 1939, what would you think of that? Would that be very convincing?

All countries are in the General Assembly. :chin:

I don't think much of the UN.. They are a biased body. — schopenhauer1

The UN represents global opinion, and global opinion has condemned Israel's actions now and in the past nearly unanimously - in the General Assembly, in the Security Council, in various UN bodies, etc.

Have you considered that maybe it is you that is biased?

Right. Never spoken to a Palestinian, and yet here you are excusing crimes against humanity perpetrated against them.

It's a bit rich, don't you think?

To be clear: removing hundreds of thousands of settlers to create a Palestinian state is something you consider realistic, correct? — Tzeentch

Yes, give or take, — schopenhauer1

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?

You keep using this word "oppression" but oppression, from the Arab-Muslim perspective, is any Jewish self-determination on that land when it ought to be Muslim land. — BitconnectCarlos

Yet, the Israelis have had their state for nearly a century, and the Palestinians have been living under a brutal Israeli oppression since 1967.

A recurring pattern seems to be that you value your own constructs of what Palestinians are like over the very real atrocities that are being committed to by Israel as we speak. Have you ever spoken to a Palestinian?

That was in 2005, and the numbers involved just weren't anywhere in the ballpark of what would be required for the creation of a Palestinian state.

Also, the disengagement from Gaza turned into another domestic crisis, with riots, gunfights between the IDF and settlers, and people setting themselves on fire in protest. Gnarly stuff.

To be clear: removing hundreds of thousands of settlers to create a Palestinian state is something you consider realistic, correct?

Of course Israel couldn't remove the settlers. We're talking about literally hundreds of thousands of people (in many cases armed and militant), when Israel could barely remove a couple thousand from the Sinai without a full-blown domestic crisis. It was after the Sinai debacle that Israel actually vowed never to conduct such a removal again, so you'll have to contend with Israel's own words as well.

And the corresponding UN Security Council resolutions make exactly this argument - that Israel was making any peace deal impossible by creating facts on the ground that are basically irreversible. That was exactly the goal of the settlement policy.

But if you are under the impression that removing settlements was something the Israelis were actually prepared to do, then at least it's clear where the disconnect happens.

At some point, you take a deal because it's good for your people to move forward. — schopenhauer1

Again, what deal are you talking about? There was no deal to be had. Or do you think Israel would have started removing settlers based on whatever borders were agreed?

The 2000 one.. where 92% of land was contiguous. — schopenhauer1

Do you expect me to believe you don't understand the meaning of those maps?

Those settlers were never going to go away. Israel could promise 100% of the West bank; it sure as hell wasn't going to remove hundreds of thousands of settlers after the Sinai disaster.

They were deliberately positioned to break up any would-be Palestinian state into a field of little islands. The point was to create facts on the ground that would pre-empt any peace accord, and Israel was called out on it in UNSC resolutions.

This is not, and never was, a feasible basis for a state and you know it.

A Palestinian State was never feasible, because Israel since 1967 worked extensively to make it unfeasible via their settlement policy.

That's the point of the settlement policy, and this very criticism at Israel's address is made in several UN Security Council Resolutions, condemning it as a purposeful obstruction of the road to peace.

I don't understand how willfully blind you have to be as to not acknowledge this.

Here, this is what the effects of Israeli settlement policy looks like:




No American president can change this now, and that was of course exactly the point. Note the situation at the start of Clinton's presidency in 1993.

What realistic prospect of a Palestinian state are you even talking about?

Interestingly, the Kremlin offered a cease-fire and granted Ukraine an opportunity to return to the negotiating table with the March/April 2022 Istanbul accords as a basis.

Personally, I think Ukraine would be crazy not to at least take a seat at the table. But I know better.

I think we ought to read this latest offer by the Kremlin as a "last chance" type deal, before they will ramp up the pressure on Ukraine another time and this time probably with the intention to definitively cripple it until they can impose their desired conditions unilaterally.

However, I get the sense if you talk to Israelis, even liberal/moderate ones, they would ask you what a moderate Palestinian might be, as they haven't seen one? — schopenhauer1

Probably because they have never visited the West Bank.

Take it for what it's worth, but while I was there I did not hear a single Palestinian express they believed violence was the solution.

You know who are radicals? Israeli settlers. Those people can rightly be called radical, and yes I met them too.

True, and I doubt whether this makes a two-state solution any more likely.

But that's not the reason why I believe this is significant.

The more diplomatically isolated Israel becomes, the more it turns into a strategic liability to the US.

When US support for Israel starts waning, that's when this ball may finally start rolling.

:ok:

A while back I mentioned the 'climate grift', and how it undermines the credibility of environmentalism.

Well, here you go:

Rich nations are earning billions from a pledge to help fix climate

Ireland to recognise Palestinian State

Norway recognises Palestinian State

Long overdue, but a positive development that will put further pressure on Israel.

Other countries are reportedly following suit.

My eight wives and I find our polyamorous relationship perfectly natural.

For example, how can one understand the "ethics" of "war" or "commerce" or "economic policy" AS APPLIED to individuals. These are inherently things only applied to state apparatuses and institutions. That is to say, "governmental entities". That is why I would split government or political ethics as a different domain than individual ethics. — schopenhauer1

Ok then.

What are the rules of these ethics that apply to states?

Since states do not exist and are merely abstractions, does it mean we can discuss other things that do not exist?

I guess there's a reason this thread is in The Lounge. :razz:

It's not based on individuals but actors on behalf of states. — schopenhauer1

What other actors are there besides individuals?

These individuals can be liable for acting poorly on the state, but war itself is considered a legitimate form of conflict (however ironic that sounds), between state actors. — schopenhauer1

This sounds like international law, and not like ethics.

You're right; within international law war can be legitimate.

But, and correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think you or anyone in this thread is primarily interested in a discussion about international law.

You were talking about a different form of ethics that applies to states. For transparency's sake, I don't think such a form of ethics exists, because the state is an abstraction and personifying the state has no basis in reality. It's just a handy tool we use for communicating broad ideas.

Now, on an ethical basis, when talking about ethics-proper, I agree with you that the individual is the locus of ethics. However, this is why I've always separated government and ethics. I do NOT think that ethics can in a 1:1 way ramped up to large social levels. That is because this a discontinuity at some point when actions can no longer be controlled at individual levels. — schopenhauer1

So what is this non-proper ethics that apparently applies to states?

It’s a war of self-defense. — schopenhauer1

This isn't often explicitly discussed, but there is a fundamental difference between an individual acting out of self-defense, and a state (an abstract idea) "acting" out of self-defense.

In my opinion, what constitutes genuine self-defense from a moral angle, is when the individual in question has no alternatives.

If we assume for a moment the state seeks to act purely out of self-defense by proxy (and not for example to protect its territorial integrity, national identity, etc.), this fundamental prerequisite of there being no alternative options is not met, because that is simply not how states function.

An individual can choose to flee from war. A state can't, nor will a state suggest that its people try avoiding the violence by fleeing.

A country on that is on the verge of being invaded may claim it is acting in defense of its citizens (self-defense by proxy), but in fact those citizens have an option open to them: flee.

Therefore it is not an act of self-defense, and practically speaking wars of self-defense do not exist.


Debunking the idea of a "war of self-defense" from a more practical angle: morality must be analyzed on the appropriate level - that of the moral agent, which is to say the level of the individual.

So even in war, determining the moral nature of actions must happen for each individual and each action seperately. Just because many individuals are involved does not mean we get to use special shortcuts by which a war can be labeled as just as a whole.

What incentive is there for the Kremlin to agree to such terms?

Ok, but what about my question? — RogueAI

I'm not going to play games answering your loaded questions.

If you have a point to make, make it.

If your point is that Israel commiting crimes against humanity is morally equivalent to people opposing Nazism or slavery, you're obviously off your rocker.