As an analogy, if I kill your daughter or attempt to, you get to kill me without any problem. What you're not allowed is bomb my family and neighbours. — Benkei

Alright, I'll respond to this analogy. I ignored it at first because it's a little vague so I'll attempt to clarify.

If we were both US citizens I would absolutely not be entitled to kill you if you killed my daughter. You would just be charged with a crime.

But if it's a conflict between two groups then, yes, ideally we only target the murderer/attacker but in reality this is simply not possible. Even if we struck a legitimate military target such as base, there are still plenty of civilians living and working there. There is simply no way to avoid civilian casualties in war and that's a universal fact about war/conflict.

As an analogy, if I kill your daughter or attempt to, you get to kill me without any problem. What you're not allowed is bomb my family and neighbours. — Benkei

If our tribes were at war and I was launching missiles from my home or a school don't you think that puts you in kind of a tough spot when it comes to a retalitatory strike? What I'd be doing, by the way, I believe is a war crime.

No, I don't agree. It's quite clear the 1967 borders are acceptable to a majority of Palestinians, even Hamas hardliners, which already includes plenty of land stolen through conquest. There's a difference between wanting and compromising. — Benkei

Hamas asked for '67 borders + right of return. '67 borders by themselves are a reasonable request, but any mention of right of return is not. RoR = end of Israel plus a logistical nightmare.

The majority of Palestinians are not simply satisfied with '67 borders if there's no RoR.

That's no justification for a war crime. — Benkei

If the Belgians started launching missiles at the Netherlands & killing the Dutch are you not allowed to respond? It's a question of how one responds, not whether response is permissible (which it obviously is.)

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) published reports documenting racism in Israel — Benkei

The data is a little old and was taken not too long after the second intifata but I'll let it slide. In any case, I can play this game as well -- and you know I can -- simply by citing data on the Palestinians' attitudes on Jews. It goes both ways, agree? I cited earlier that 93% of Palestinians hold anti-Semitic views and trust me I could go further. Does this surprise you? It shouldn't.

I've never denied racism in Israel.

One group is oppressed the other isn't. — Benkei

Israel cannot impose peace. It is not possible. The leadership of both parties must sign on to the agreements. It must come from both sides. The attitude that all of Palestine must be reclaimed for the Palestinians is widespread among Palestinians and serves as a significant obstacle for peace, do you agree? It is not just the Israelis.

[/i]

The latest attacks on Gaza was collective punishment, which Israeli does almost every time in an escalation. — Benkei

The latest attacks on Gaza were in response to Hamas launching thousands of rockets at Israel.

Every time they collectively punish Palestinians, every time they annex land. In other words, more or less continuous. — Benkei

You frequently throw dozens of potential issues out there for me to address and it's just not worth it for me. When I address one you just move onto something else.

Lasting peace is not established under the heel of a boot. Israel could be the saviour of Palestinians too and have true lasting peace and an ally in the region - if it would concern itself with a just solution. Since that will never happen in a country where over 50% think non-Jews are inferior, we'll be stuck with this unless the international community intervenes. My hope is there and the Irish statement is a good beginning. — Benkei

Israel could be the savior of the Palestinian people if it packs up and leaves or agrees to subjugate themselves under Arab rule. You don't get it - this isn't about Gaza. This isn't about the West Bank. The majority position of the Palestinians is that they want all of Palestine, from the river to the sea. Why can't you understand that the problem doesn't solely lay with Israel?

Also source on the 50% figure?

And of course the real issue is that these Palestinians, who officially aren't even called Palestinians but Arab israelis, do face discrimination in the country even if citizens. — ssu

What sort of discrimination and who is it coming from? There's a difference institutional racism and racists acts by individuals. I never noticed Arabs being banned from certain places or services when I was in Israel. Arabs have strong representation in government (20%) in Israel and are allowed to vote and I believe should be equal under the law. There are tons of Arabs in high positions in Israeli society. That said I don't know anything about, e.g. the housing industry over there.

Passing judgment on situation X is something different then solving situation X. In a philosophy forum the purpose is to discuss the ethical merits of a given situation or solution, not solving that situation. — Tobias

Alright fair enough - I think we could do both though.

It can be sometimes difficult to apply a moral lens to this sort of low intensity warfare & actual warfare but we can do our best.

When it comes to matters of national security, e.g. whether Israel was justified in their pre-emptive strike on Egyptian airfields in '67 applying an ethical analysis of the issue seems out of place. If an enemy mobilizes and surrounds your camp are you allowed to strike? Is that "ethical?"

but the question remains whether Israeli actions are right or wrong. — Tobias

There are somethings I can certainly say are wrong - massacres, for instance. Security measures such as house raids or bulldozing suicide bombers homes are not so clear.

You could crucify any group or any country like this. Was the North in the American Civil War squeaky clean morality-wise? Of course not. Sure, we can talk about what they did wrong but to only focus on their wrongs and not the crimes of the South does seem dubious. You'd get a very slanted picture of the Civil War if that's all you were presented with.

Part of the problem is also that philosophers like to conceive of morality as ahistorical and this results in 21st century people sitting on their nice couches or chairs behind computer screens judging individuals in an environment and historical circumstance that they just do not know and will never know. I guess this is a question of responsibility or blame which is different from morality. These issues are obviously closely related though.

And even beyond this - which morality are we to judge them by? Utilitarianism? Ethical Egoism? Whether the country is "being nice?"

What you tell us to do is entirely uninteresting because you do not matter one bit. (neither do I). What might be relevant is whether you are right in your advice or not and if so why / why not. You seem to have some odd idea that the truth value of an argument is dependent on who utters it.
— Tobias

Could you expand on this a little? I know that I've gravitated towards a certain relativism here. I wasn't sure that I went that far but I might have so please let me know.

"I think you misinterpret the position of your adversaries in this thread. I do not think anyone holds Israel to be 'an evil entity'. What they criticize are the actions and policies of Israel." — Tobias

There are posters who have waddled into that territory. In my mind there's no real difference between "constantly does evil" and "is evil." There are plenty of posters who have described Israel as being essentially a constantly evil force. Posters here have accused Israel of genocide constantly which is the epitome of evil in my book. Scroll back a little and you'll see plenty of these Israel-Nazi comparisons.

What is the actual difference between Palestinians and Israeli Arabs than a passport?

Haste try to divide et impera? — ssu

From a legal standpoint, one is an Israeli citizen entitled to Israeli legal rights and the other is not. The Israeli Arabs were just the ones who stayed in Israel during the Independence war.

So, while Jews may feel they have a special claim to or association with the region, others may reasonably feel that they don't or that they themselves have a similar claim. For me, as I don't think God conveyed real estate to anyone, it follows from this that the claim it is the Jewish "homeland" isn't persuasive and forms no basis or justification for the existence of Israel. Therefore, it shouldn't be a consideration in any conflict between Israel and anyone else. Do you think it should? — Ciceronianus the White

Well what grounds the justification for other types of states, e.g. non-religious ones? I guess I would say, ultimately, security.

In the case of Israel I've always felt the real reason for the state was security - to protect the Jewish people against various enemies. The religious claim may or may not be true, who knows. Others will have their religious claims too.

Nothing in that post is in any way shape or form a justification for Israel committing war crimes. — Benkei

Which war crime do you want to talk about in particular? I have nothing against condemning war crimes when they actually occurred: Deir Yassin, for instance -- I condemn that fully.

Jews were returning well before WWII, and didn't need to kill, oppress or annex land to do it. — Benkei

The Jews back in the 20s and 30s didn't have the means to kill, oppress, or annex Arab lands. On the contrary, they were the ones being murdered in Arab lands through pogroms during a time (1930s) when many Arabs openly supported and sympathized with the Nazi regime. Look into the 1929 Hebron massacre where Arabs went house-to-house killing Jews with household items and gardening tools.

The main, practical intention of the state of Israel is simply to prevent things like this.

If deprivation of your people's historic home is the benchmark for being justified to return there, it applies equally as well to the Palestinians ousted or displaced by the policies of the state of Israel. — fdrake

I think most Palestinians actually fled in '48 and for good reason - they thought the Arab countries were about to make a graveyard out of the place. Some were expelled by Israel, but others were advised or ordered by their leaders to flee.

Maybe Israel can begin a discussion about compensation when Arab countries agree to compensate the 600-800,000 Jews who were expelled and dispossessed of their property between '48-'72 (and lets not forget compensating all the descendants.) Or when the Palestinians apologize for attacking Israel in '47-'48 with militias before their Arab neighbors. They could also compensate Israel.

What about 1948 for the people of Palestine ? Completely asymmetrical application of principles. — fdrake

What I was trying to demonstrate with my example was that you can't really draw a proper cut off year for when a claim stops being valid.

No, I just don't acknowledge religious claims or ancient ones for that matter. — Benkei

So when's the cut off year? Maybe year 1500? That sounds like a good number. In any case, I'm not expecting you to care. It's a purely religious-cultural issue and it's a big one in Judaism. If your people were expelled 1000 years ago or so from their homes and were trying to migrate back why should I care? Even if it was more recent like 200 years ago would you expect the rest of the world to care? What would you say if I told you the cut off was 150 years and anything before that was too far back and doesn't matter. I don't know much about Dutch culture, does the land you're on mean anything to you?

Jewish culture and religion is centered around the land of Israel, particularly Jerusalem.

Yeah, useless religious crap I really don't give a shit about. As if any of that would even remotely justify anything happening now. — Benkei

I don't expect you to give a shit about it because it's not your people. The issue just begins for you, suddenly, in 1947 or so (or even '67 for some!!). You're like a 5 year old who wanders into a giant toy store wondering how it all came to be and comes across two older children fighting over something (what are they fighting over exactly? many westerners don't know.) I'm not trying to be mean here it was just best analogy I could think of for how many Westerners approach the issue.

You're tell me that many disagree that the question of a Jewish homeland is complicated and long lasting? Maybe many Europeans who have no personal or familial involvement, but ask any Arab or Jew and the timeline becomes in the thousands of years because that's how long there's been a Jewish presence in the area which began with a Kingdom in around 1000 BC. The Muslims built the Dome of the Rock on the ruins of the Second Temple.

Just to be clear, are you applying the apartheid point to the treatment of the Palestinians or the treatment of Israeli Arabs?

As a lawyer I would in such case advise you to withdraw and not pass judgment., because you cannot be impartial. — Tobias

Alright, so lets let the "impartial" observers handle it then. And who would those be? Americans? Europeans? Which ones? Do Indians have a say? How about the Chinese? If Israel obeys some in the West and loosens security, who pays the price when blood is spilled? It's all very well and good to say that Israel shouldn't blockade Gaza, but who pays the price when heavy weaponry is imported from Iran? In any case I'm fine with the West stepping in to help with the process and make suggestions, but we'd like a say too.

I have the self-awareness to admit that I'm partial; I just wish that that the West would realize that they approach the issue through their own biased cultural lenses as well. The Middle East geopolitically should not be treated like Europe. It is not analogous to the struggle between the British and the IRA. It is an extremely complicated issue with a very long history, intense hatreds, constantly shifting borders, and religious fundamentalism thrown in the mix. The stakes are extremely high and I don't have the luxury to take a step back from my own people. If your people were being attacked and under constant threat, I would not tell you to take a step back.

I do not think anyone holds Israel to be 'an evil entity'. — Tobias

Israel's neighbors have used this type of language constantly since Israel's inception. It's luckily simmered down a little now and progress has been made, but historically this was a very big concern. The environment in the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s - Israel's formative years - was different from today (but how much have things really changed? Who knows.)

Consider that during the Eichmann trial of 1961 there was a huge outpouring of support for Eichmann in the Arab press and that many Arab nationalists were close with the Nazis during the war. You think these attitudes just go away? The Middle East is today the most anti-Semitic region on the planet with 93% of Palestinians holding some degree of anti-Semitic views. I simply can't take it for granted that modern Arab nationalists don't share these historical sympathies. So sure maybe most Westerners are fine with Israel existing but that attitude is hardly universal.

I'm not interested in defending the definition; only in bringing it up as one definition that's been floating around. I think the more interesting question is how one's responsibilities & attititudes towards ones community - which is often one's ethnic group - compare with responsibilities & attitudes towards outsider groups.

It might help to define racism first. In the US a fairly common definition you'll see is simply power + prejudism = racism. So if you're a white person who is prejudice you are a racist.

I do think there's an interesting discussion to be had here concerning to what extent one ought value their community or family above others though, if at all.

I would say anyone stating that oppressed minorities cannot be racist are deluded. — I like sushi

I agree, but those who disagree will simply define the term differently. These talks are difficult to have because definitions have changed so much over the past few decades.

When it comes to racism I go by: the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.
"theories of racism"

I'm definitely not a racist under this definition, but others on this forum would call me (or anyone) a racist for personally valuing their family or community above those of a complete stranger.

I do not see what your heritage has to do with the position you take. — Tobias

Hey Tobias, if a gunman told to choose between saving your mother's life or the life of a complete stranger, would you pretend to be an impartial observer? How about if it was your son? Would you reason "oh well, two humans both have equal moral value etc. etc." At the end of the day you choose to save your mother/family (right??). There's nothing wrong with that. You have duties to your family.

In just the same way, the Israel-Palestine conflict isn't some abstract philosophical thought experiment to me; it's deeply personal and I have family living over there that I visit. My position isn't entirely due to my heritage and in the past I had a phase where I was anti-Israel.

Of course we can talk about the ethics of the conflict and I'd agree that Israel has certainly fallen short some times. You'll find plenty of depravity on both sides. I don't think it's an evil entity however that deserves to be wiped out which is a common view in the Middle East.

Which is quite something, though, isn't it? What if there was no "Jewish homeland" in Israel? That would seem to make quite a difference. — Ciceronianus the White

Yes, it is quite something. However, there are plenty of backgrounds to which a Jewish homeland in modern day Israel likely sounds quite innocuous - after all, I wouldn't be offended at the idea of, e.g. a Kurdish homeland. Zionism is actually very flexible and you'll get different ideas about the extent of the state or the nature of the government so it certainly can be offensive if framed in highly discriminately, right-wing terms but it need not be.

You didn't say it but it's implied because you think it's fine to collectively punish them because "Hamas" and "terrorism" and "my brain just shortcircuited so I stop thinking when I hear these buzz words". — Benkei

Any nation has the right to sanction other governments that threaten it or wish it harm or fund terrorism. We do the same with Iran, and I don't hate the Iranian people. We sanction Russia, but I don't hate the Russian people. We've sanctioned a number of nations in the past and it has to do with the ruling body, not the people. In the case of Hamas the blockade is for security reasons.

You seem to just refuse to acknowledge that this "terrorism" doesn't happen in a vacuum. What was earlier: Israeli occupation, annexation and oppression or Hamas? Tik tok. — Benkei

Israel hasn't annexed Gaza. I'll admit to you that I need to do a deeper dive between the history in that region between '67 and '89 or so but it doesn't change the fact that if we want peace we need to be forward-looking as opposed to playing this game of X caused Y which caused Z, but X was a totally independent, free action undertaken by the enemy and that is the cause of all of our problems and that happened 50 years ago.

If you have any good, neutral resources on the history in Gaza between '67 and maybe '89 or so I'd be happy to watch or read. If you're seriously interested in peace we need to be looking forward.

you don't have any right to complain about whatever the Palestinians do — Benkei

Where does this come from? Which moral theory? Which great thinker? Maybe the New Testament, book of 180proof? Do not intentionally murder innocents, full stop. So I'm not suppose to complain as my people are getting murdered... I'm not even entitled to that privilege according to you.

If the Dutch military was overseas as they were in '09-'10 and one day a 5 year old Dutch boy was murdered by a terrorist should I tell you that you have no right to complain or be sad? Is it just reasonable blowback to be expected?

Israel is a war criminal — Benkei

What does this even mean? Isn't "war criminal" a label for an individual? It doesn't make sense to say that an entire nation is a war criminal. You're fighting a windmill here.

Ok, so you're arguing for guily by association where it concerns Palestinians, because Hamas' actions are the "method used by the oppressed class" but insist on there being innocent civilians on the oppressor's side - because...? — Benkei

I've never said Palestinians are "guilty by association." This just isn't my position so I'm not going to respond in more detail. I don't have anything against the Palestinian people as a whole, but terrorist groups embed themselves within the population which puts Israel in a very difficult spot militarily.

Principles of justice resist favoritism. It's not just philosophical integrity, it's ethical integrity that the same rules apply to everybody equally. Your relationship to a perpretrator ought to be entirely irrelevant as to judging his or her actions. That's why we insist on impartial judges for instance. — Benkei

Ok but civilians aren't perpetrators. 180 refuses to condemn any method used by the oppressed class to gain equality so he turns a blind eye to civilian murder. If you followed our discussion this goes as far as him theoretically refusing to condemn the race-driven murder of his own family if they're in the "oppressor" class.

"Fantasy imaginarium" is a productive and useful exercise because it allows us to flush out ideas and rules and apply them to a variety of circumstances, something that you struggle with. Say what you want about 180, but the man has consistent principles that he's willing to apply seriously which is more than I can say about you.

:rofl:

I was offended before because I thought you were only applying your perspective here to Israel, but now that I see you'd throw your own family under the bus I'm less offended and more bemused. You sure did bite that bullet. +1 for philosophical integrity.

This is not what any major religion instructs, by the way. Where are you getting these ideas? Source?

hell yeah I'd support the White folks — 180 Proof

You'd condone white folks murdering black folks in a black-dominated society? Holy shit you actually bit the bullet on this one.

You're telling me that if your friends and family were targeted despite having no real involvement you'd shrug it off as David's rightful fury. Now I no longer think you're a racist you just have no loyalty to anyone.

If they were underdogs would you support them? Maybe they pick a few random blacks to murder for no reason, but don't sweat it it's just David's slingshot against bloody Goliath.

Aren't the KKK underdogs? Shouldn't you be rooting for them? They're not the powerful force they use to be. Something something David's slingshot.

I very much doubt it. The IRA were always 100% behind the Palestinians. — Baden

Sure they'd have been behind the Palestinans but Israel would have made peace with them in a second and simply withdrew. It's not that easy with Hamas. You don't get it, it's not just about withdrawal from Gaza and the WB. We have no bases or troops or settlements in Gaza to begin with.

Earlier you asked for a source here it is:

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/comprehensive-listing-of-terrorism-victims-in-israel#1993

Over 1362 killed since 2000 and this list is not updated for 2021 with only 1 dead.

Around 3000 killed by Palestinian terror attacks since Israel became a state. I'd be so happy if the Palestinian terrorists started picking out mostly legitimate targets like the IRA. If the IRA was dropped into Gaza it would the moderate voice that is loved by Israel.

Ok that makes sense. I can see why people draw parallels between the IRA and the Palestinians and I know the Irish have been doing this for years, but it's just not the same thing. Have you ever been to Israel? The Middle East?

I hate to say it, but I would welcome IRA style terrorism as opposed to Palestinian terrorism in Israel.

:lol: — Baden

Yeah that was from the misreading. I thought you were saying the Zionist perspective is invalid and once you go there you're in heavily anti-israel territory and I was wondering where you got this idea from. I'm sure it would be told in Arab households, but if you someone got it elsewhere I'd be interested to hear.

Sorry I misread.

I've talked about ethics multiple times. You just don't like my position. Did you ever respond to this point I made?

I have talked about ethics in this thread on multiple occasions. Have you recanted your point about

It just happens to be in this conflict that Israel is killing the vast majority of civilians and that is the topic of the thread.
— Baden

Israel could disassemble its bomb shelters and anti-missile infrastructure so the kill counts would be more even, would you like that? It could also stop its blockade of Gaza so more weapons could be imported. — BitconnectCarlos

I am a Zionist and I was raised in a Zionist family and you don't get to tell me that my voice isn't valid. I don't think you understand Zionism. All it is is about affirming a Jewish homeland in Israel. It does not involve persecuting anyone.

Are you an Arab? What are you?

That's not what I'm saying and I've had great, productive convos with several other posters here. And no, I'm not just here to "rah rah" for Israel. I'm providing a moderate Zionist voice in a discussion where that voice is often not represented.

My one sided description of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? I've never pretended to be a neutral bystander. I'm an American Jew with family in Israel and historical ties there.

If someone wants to claim neutrality that's their own delusion. What news sources do they watch? Who do they listen to? Who's story have they heard? Do they understand the region and its history and not just imposing their own cultural attitudes on Middle Eastern people?

I'm glad to hear that; try to be a little more sensitive with your language next time and don't accuse people of talking about "cartoon terrorists" when these terrorists are very real.

It just happens to be in this conflict that Israel is killing the vast majority of civilians and that is the topic of the thread. — Baden

Israel could disassemble its bomb shelters and anti-missile infrastructure so the kill counts would be more even, would you like that? It could also stop its blockade of Gaza so more weapons could be imported.

When you use that term it shows me that you have a complete inability to emphasize with Jewish victims of terrorism and don't ever, ever pretend otherwise.

Bitconnect's cartoon terrorists — Baden

You're a ridiculous person.