Ignored for the childish strawmen you expect me to defend and proving my previous point.

Chaos is an emergent property of any complex system and we're already complex at an individual level (consistency is impossible and we barely cling onto rationality) let alone when interacting with each other. Even where 95% of people are fundamentally decent people, it will still descent into chaos as a result with certain people only to keen to capitalise on it.

"All is chaos under the heavens - times are excellent." - Mao

No, even the partition plan is invalid because this was never agreed with the people who actually lived there. That was an act of theft itself. My view is Israel must sit down with Palestinians to negotiate borders, who have repeatedly signalled that peace along the 1967 borders is possible. Anyone on the wrong side of those borders until a ceasefire is agreed before entering the larger negotiations is fair game (with the exception of anyone who settled there peacefully before the declaration of the Israeli state). And a ceasefire must necessarily include a stop to colonisation efforts since that's the very act of aggression that makes almost everything Israel does unethical and illegal.

Israel from then on is to manage the occupied territories in accordance with the Geneva Conventions it signed up to. Since Likud has actively undermined the two state solution by turning the West Bank into Swiss cheese, this needs to be resolved and the most likely solutions are land swaps or simply concluding those Jewish colonists now live in Palestine in combination with reparations for displaced Palestinians. Israel has no rights here so the basic position is all of it is returned but negotiations can be held to get to different results.

Then there's the right to return and again without negotiation the right will just persist so the only way for Palestinians to give up those rights is to offer something in return. What that something would be is an important subject for negotiations.

And can you see how if, say, only one side were pressured relentlessly to make concessions how this could engender ill-will? — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, I can totally see why Palestinians hate Israel. The idea that in the pursuit of justice the loss of unjust benefits of the oppressor are "concessions" is of course ludicrous.

Do you believe that the Arab countries ought to provide reparations to the millions of Jews who were expelled and had their property seized? — BitconnectCarlos

It wasn't even a million and not all of those were expelled and expropriated but obviously when I'm arguing for a principle based approach, the answer is yes. However, it's unrelated because not caused by the Palestinians so should be dealt with separately.

Most people cannot escape tribalism, which all this is.

As a moderator of a philosophy forum you should be able to understand that if insulting political adversaries and thumb suck one another with your pro-Palestinian fellows are the better things you have to do in this thread to support the Palestinian cause, yet this is way too far from a honest and humble critical investigation of your own political views or whatever related moral point of principle (like human rights or the right to self-determination) you claim as obvious . — neomac

As a moderator I know exactly the type of poster you are and you're not interested in an actual discussion, just ranting. Which is why I ignore most of what you write as the reactionary diatribes they are.

Well, you'll like FTM then which is fully funded by subscriptions and gifts and under complete direction of two journalists.

Theft is wrong in all societies, but territorial boundaries change as a result of war all the time. — BitconnectCarlos

Which has been considered illegal under customary law for more than a century as an extrapolation of theft but even more, aside from the border shift, which was historically done more often than not without displacement of the local population. That only started after the rise of nationalism.

And even killing a thief can be criminal. — BitconnectCarlos

Not in self defence of your own property especially when the theft is ongoing and accompanied by wanton destruction and murder. For decades.

Edit: more problematic is actually the whole tu quoque fallacy again. "Others did it too! So don't complain we're committing crimes."

There's plenty of right wing news in NL. Telegraaf, geenstijl, nieuw rechts, FD, dagelijkse standaard and AD. Parool and NRC are relatively conservative and I suppose Volkskrant and Trouw are a bit more leftist. But from where I'm standing most of it is pretty centrist and conforming to economic truisms and political safety.

We also have decent investigative journalism with the Correspondent, Follow the Money, Nieuwsuur and Investico.

More all caps please. As much as I enjoy getting a rise out of you without even trying, I've got better things to do.

Is there any meaningful difference between the two? Israel's goals are twofold regardless: Rescue hostages, destroy Hamas. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, self defence presumes a just cause, which Israel doesn't have because it's the aggressor in this conflict.

Through the act of colonisation they are aggressors, not civilians. My highest source of authority is any law since Hammurabi that condemns theft. You pretend this is just international law but it's longstanding legal principles that exist in every culture.

Accurate? He misses a stationary target more often than not.

No, that depends on the gun. Give me a scoped Daniel Defense Delta 5 Pro and I will hit 9/10 at 500y.

Yes. Ak-47 actually.

Of course I watched it. Seems like a perfectly decent showcase of marksmanship to me, that clearly shows 500 yards is well within the maximum effective range of a Type 56. His shooting is clearly accurate. And that's with iron sights. — Tzeentch

Not what maximum effective range refers to.

Again, say this person were to be given a modern AK platform with a scope and a several months to familiarize himself fully with the rifle, would you think it a 'nothing burger'? Would you say "Oh, don't worry, they can't hit us from here" (which is what you would be saying had you deemed yourself outside of the weapon's maximum effective range). — Tzeentch

You don't understand what MOA is then because a scope doesn't change it. You can aim with a scope all you want, the bullets are simply going all over the place within the MOA.

Good to know your moral compass makes you feel totally ok with being sarcastic about kids being bombed or growing up in a war zone. You'd think there would at least be common ground that such things aren't exactly a joke. But here we are.

As for picking up arms myself - I’ll stick to challenging governments, holding them accountable, and, you know, using law to make a change. Maybe not as flashy but it works:

https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/Organisatie/Gerechtshoven/Gerechtshof-Den-Haag/Nieuws/Paginas/The-Netherlands-has-to-stop-the-export-of-F-35-fighter-jet-parts-to-Israel.aspx

Did you watch it? Misses: 1 on 150y, 3 out of 5 at 350y, 4 out of 6 at 400y, 4 out of 6 at 450y, 5 out of 7 at 500y.

And these are stationary targets, the gunman is stationary and in a supported position, where he knows the distance to the target and can adjust sights accordingly.

Travel distance where the bullet can kill is several kilometers for an AK-47, but that's not what effective range is. Effective range is the maximum distance at which a weapon may be expected to be accurate and achieve the desired effect. Missing stationary targets more often than not means it cannot be expected to be accurate and achieve a kill. So 300y is more or less the max. for this type of AK-47, probably less since the targets were stationary and the gunman in an optimal position.

Cool you are so obsessed with me you start imagining what I do when not posting here.

Still has an MOA of 3-4, so no. Hitting anything at such distances is a trick shot. Not realistic under real circumstances.

Hopefully it's cancer.

It would be more congruent with the espoused ideals of self-determination, UN SC and GA resolutions to arm Palestinians than Israel. But I suspect it would be sufficient to simply stop supporting Israel carte blanche and stopping arms deliveries to Israel by the "international" community (e.g. roughly global North), plus actual diplomatic pressure will force Israel to treat for peace with its enemies. If it turns out that doesn't work, then arming Palestinians is the more ethical choice than arming Israel.

Replied via PM.

Or the universe operates as suggested in the 3-body problem (the series hasn't reached this point yet). But I don't want to spoil the books or the series.

Nope. Designed for a range up to 300 meters and it's shit to aim with beyond distances of 200 meters. With a 3-4 MOA, you're talking about 17 to 22 cm deviation over 200 meters, which means a killing shot at 200 meters is nothing more than a hail mary, at 400 yards it's nonsense.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/08/05/practical-accuracy-of-the-ak-in-7-62-and-5-56-by-9-hole-reviews/

But I see now they are describing it as an AK-47 style weapon, so could be a 103 or M version, which are a bit more accurate at longer distances but still not enough for 400 yards.

I still don't want my money to flow towards a regime I don't think should remain in power. The profits will be used to maintain the means of oppression of Chinese citizens, where particular minorities suffer the most (Uighurs, pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong) and specific people who "dissappear".

Nothing burger. Considering the weapons carried, he wasn't even close to anywhere at an attempt.

trick question. E. All of the above.

Yes but not as a right to self defence but retaliation because Hamas breached ius in bello, but as quickly became obvious not in the way it has done. Additionally, the Palestinians have a continual right to self defence meaning any IDF soldiers in Gaza and West Bank and any settlers there are fair game. And any military campaign in Israel proper aimed against military targets would be allowed too. Basically, Israel has no right to self defence where it concerns the occupied territories. And as long as it maintains its colonisation policies and colonies it remains an aggressor and attacks into Israel proper would fall under self defence for Palestinians instead.

Then don't listen to politicians but international lawyers. This stuff is defined. Israel is the aggressor, Hamas commits a war crime and Israel uses it as an excuse to step up its decade old aggression by committing even worse war crimes.

play-pretending as a victim again. It's factually correct that anyone who defends Israeli aggression is a war crime apologist.

Read the thread. He is one so it's not calling names but a statement of fact.

In fact, people's unwillingness to call it out is just a lack of moral clarity or understanding of the facts.

Don't forget Hong Kong.

Labour conditions in the EU are significantly better but yes exploitation exists everywhere. Environmental protections are better in the EU as well. Both of which cause local production to be expensive. The global North consumerism can only be supported through exploitation of the periphery, because only cheap production (eg exploitation) will ensure a level of profit that is sustainable under capitalism due to its insistence on growth. Obviously spending money in such a way as not to support the worst offenders is more ethical. Best is to consume less. And there are plenty of companies that have high(er) standards.

Labour conditions, human rights, pollution and build quality are all issues.

The implication being she's a bitch otherwise it couldn't be cannibalism, right?

I'm not really interested what a war crime apologist has to say about who to negotiate with. People tend to negotiate with their enemies, not doing so just makes you dumb.

Here's a two-state solution and how to get there:

1. Israel to unilaterally recognise a right for the Palestinians to have a sovereign state where the 1967 borders will be the basis for the size of Palestine
2. stop all further settlements in WB and evictions in East-Jerusalem, recognise ownership rights in East Jerusalem
3. repeal all discriminatory laws in Israel proper
4. no more collective punishment of Palestinians
5. no more blockade of Gaza and its air space and sea
6. no more mass destruction in response to ineffectual missiles or balloons
7. tear down the wall
8. For the interim period, Gaza and WB remain occupied territories but they will be policed instead of military oppression
9. Palestinians to commit to an indefinite cease fire as long as Israel maintains the above 8 points
edit: 10. forgot: Palestinians to recognise Israel along the 1967 borders as the basis of the size of israel

In other words, stop the crimes. There's no excuse.

Enter into the transition period where Palestine should be set up:
1. include the political wing of Hamas in talks as well as PA
2. land-for-land exchanges to arrive at comparable land size
3. Israel to pay Palestine an amount equal to all the monies spent supporting illegal settlers so it has the means to settle the new lands it receives through the land-for-land exchange
4. Palestine to hire their own first and Israeli contractors second (which will lead to "reparations" flowing back to Israel and creating economic interdependence)
5. have religious leaders negotiate the Temple Mount
6. Jerusalem as independent city-state administered by Palestinians and Israelis alike
7. gradually transition policing activities in Palestine to Palestinians
8. Set up a special task force of like minded Israelis and Palestinians to investigate (terrorist) crimes committed by Israelis against Palestinians and vice versa, where jurisdiction will be with the state of the victim
9. retreat from WB and Gaza and set up border controls
10. Declare a Palestinian state
11. Party with your Israeli neighbours — Benkei

Again playing victim. I have nothing against Jews in Israel. I have a lot against criminals not being brought to justice, especially where it concerns war crimes and colonisation. That some Israeli Jews abuse their Jewishness by equating sick Zionist policies with Jewishness and equating anti-zionism with anti-semitism and that you're not astute enough to tell the difference is fun but it's not going to make me stop repeating it.

Also, to apply your fantastic moral compass to all those Jews killed in ww2: "sorry, they lost!"

Maybe someday you'll start to understand what a consistent moral philosophy looks like.

I don't want sympathy. You seem to misunderstand that what Jews think had become irrelevant. It's about what the rest think and what happens when finally support for the thieving murderers of Israel stops. That useful idiots will defend it until the end of the earth is irrelevant. That others see you have no argument is enough. What we're seeing is the beginning of the end of Israel and when the end is there let's all remember your reply here: "sorry, they lost".

Except of course the Jews went on the offensive in April 1948 with the specific aim to claim territory (Dalet plan), which aim was already illegal decades before that. It remains interesting that aggressors and oppressors keep pretending they're victims. How dare the oppressed demands justice, or worse, actually fight back!