Excellent. The next candidate that's demented. Americans can choose between shit or crap. Such a leading example for democracy - offer people no choice and then still call it democracy.

Let's apply that to the Israelis as well. They voted in Likud, who is now committing war crimes. Whatever happens to the Israelis, no matter how bad, is their just desserts.

You really don't understand how morality works do you? Only hate in your bones.

so occupied territories, yes?

it's called the right to self determination. Look it up.

Yes, states can have rights and obligations. It's a thing called sovereignty. I didn't say the Jewish presence had to leave, although every illegal settler should.

"Occupied territories" is itself a misnomer. It implies the palestinians are entitled to 100% of the west bank which is a ridiculous idea. — BitconnectCarlos

That is exactly the point and not a misnomer. Israel has zero rights there.

Netanyahu tells US it opposes a Palestinian state. From the river to the sea it will be a Jewish national state: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/18/netanyahu-tells-us-opposes-palestinian-state-after-gaza-war

"From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" is considered a statement of genocide by the Israeli propaganda machine. So we know what this means.

We already knew this of course but then this further underlines the Likud intent (as we know from their charter) and it's out in the open in MSM.

Israel does not indiscriminately target all Palestinians; — BitconnectCarlos

Yes they do. That's the whole issue with collective punishment, evicting Arab Israelis from their homes in Jerusalem, confiscation of property just because you're related to a criminal if you're a non-Jew and stealing and selling land that isn't theirs is all done indiscriminately. Or actually it's all done discriminately because it always targets non-Jewish Israelis or Palestinians in the occupied territories.

There's no Israeli village not build on an Arab ruin.

I only wrote that because I got fed up with the recurring question "who would you have rather have won?" where in the questioners mind he firmly believes Hamas are like the Nazis and therefore Israel is allowed to commit war crimes because since we wanted the Allies to have won we therefore think their war crimes were acceptable and, indeed, necessary.

And while I appreciate your insights on the WWII history I think in the end my post should not be seriously engaged as it was mostly intended to ridicule the original question.

I can't see a world where Hamas achieves total victory and Jews are allowed to remain in Israel. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I agree. I also don't see an Israel that doesn't fully destroy Arab history and culture in greater Palestine nor a "Jewish State" that will ever be anything but a racist shithole without foreign intervention (a la South Africa). Any solution has to come from outside the warring parties, especially if Europe/anglo-saxon countries continue to unconditionally support Israel.

It's also interesting how when I ask Asians, Africans or South Americans about this conflict it all of a sudden really isn't that complicated. At least to them. It really is a "Western" problem that this conflict is not getting closer to getting resolved.

Oh you should play. The Nazis in this story are the Israelis so Hamas should win. They have racist laws that treat Jews and non-Jews differently because Jews are their version of the ubermensch. They annex land, claiming it as their own just like the Nazis and thereby are effectively destroying the people and cultural of the Palestinians (name me one Arab sea port in Palestine!) if they aren't outright bombing them to smithereens while decrying "Amalek".

Hamas are like the Allies who occasionally commit a war crime but that's all good and excusable because they're fighting for the liberation of the Palestinian people and therefore are the good guys.

Sure buddy. They waived their magic wand "national home" and all of a sudden nobody understood what they meant!

And yet you're claiming that Britain nevertheless promised to do exactly that. — Echarmion

The British empire has always consisted of several countries, kingdoms to be exact. See also the treaty of westphalia which speaks of "Princes and States of the Empire" from 1848, which describes how empires were understood.

So the opinions of a single prominent person are indicative of "everyone"? I think not. I mean your quote literally starts with the words "I assume"...

Edit: and actually the sentence immediately preceding your quote is "I don't know what this involves". — Echarmion

This just underlines you're illiterate when it comes to writings of that time. Marx wrote extensively about nationalism decades before these idiots drafted this document. It's right there in the "internationale". Bentham requested to a Committee for the Reform of Criminal Law, "I will be the gaoler. You will see ... that the gaoler will have no salary—will cost nothing to the nation." - who died in - checks notes - 1832. It's in Theodore D. Woolsey's Introduction to the Study of International Law from 1864.

But don't let history get in the way of actually interpreting a text in light of the times. What a "national home" meant was crystal clear nationalism, nations, etc. were established words used by everybody with an education at the time.

As to a "single prominent person" they got organised in the League of British Jews. Anti-zionist Jewish movements were common at the time.

It's not enough to just repeat what you read about the balfour declaration on wikipedia, which seems your source as every point you make is made there.

As Montagu in the British cabinet (I eronneously said parliament before) and other like-minded Jews argued at the time:

...I assume that it means that Mahommedans and Christians are to make way for the Jews and that the Jews should be put in all positions of preference and should be peculiarly associated with Palestine in the same way that England is with the English or France with the French, that Turks and other Mahommedans in Palestine will be regarded as foreigners, just in the same way as Jews will hereafter be treated as foreigners in every country but Palestine. Perhaps also citizenship must be granted only as a result of a religious test. — Montagu

On the prevalent anti-semitism in Britain:

and I am not in the least surprised that the non-Jews of England may welcome this policy. I have always recognised the unpopularity, much greater than some people think, of my community. We have obtained a far greater share of this country's goods and opportunities than we are numerically entitled to. We reach on the whole maturity earlier, and therefore with people of our own age we compete unfairly. Many of us have been exclusive in our friendships and intolerant in our attitude, and I can easily understand that many a non-Jew in England wants to get rid of us. — Montagu

On the meaning of "national home":

I assert that there is not a Jewish nation. The members of my family, for instance, who have been in this country for generations, have no sort or kind of community of view or of desire with any Jewish family in any other country beyond the fact that they profess to a greater or less degree the same religion. It is no more true to say that a Jewish Englishman and a Jewish Moor are of the same nation than it is to say that a Christian Englishman and a Christian Frenchman are of the same nation: of the same race, perhaps, traced back through the centuries - through centuries of the history of a peculiarly adaptable race. The Prime Minister and M. Briand are, I suppose, related through the ages, one as a Welshman and the other as a Breton, but they certainly do not belong to the same nation. — Montagu

It's clear that everyone understood what was meant by "national home". Just because it wasn't previously used in international legal documents, does not mean that it had no then-current, common sense meaning.

Here's the full memo: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/montagu-memo-on-british-government-s-anti-semitism

And the facts are that Britain did not actually ever create a Jewish state, nor did it allow unchecked jewish immigration and ultimately refused to even implement the UN plan for the mandate. — Echarmion

Because it was not Britain's place to create it and in any case as an empire did not wish to relinquish what it thought it was its right to Palestine. That didn't happen until decolonalisation started in 1947.

It may also have been seen as a convenient way to get rid of Jews in Britain. — Echarmion

There's no "may" about it.

It also pointedly did not include any actual provisions about creating a jewish state and Britain thereafter studiously avoided making any such moves so as to not antagonise the Muslims — Echarmion

This too is false. The zionist movement was clear wel as the phrase "national home". National already meant what it does today as belonging to a nation-state.

What's your point about pretending this is all less clear than it really was?

Britain did not give anything away, they just ended their mandate and fucked out of there. Britain, having at that point still various muslim subjects, did not want to be associated with the jewish state so blatantly. — Echarmion

The Balfour declaration was the British solution to the "Jewish problem", which Jews they wanted to fuck off our of the UK. It was heavily debates against by Jewish parliamentarians for the obvious racist crap it was at the time. So the British gave them permission to establish a national home for Jews in Palestine when that mandate wasn't even in place - that happened three years later and was ended in 1947.

Fact is, all sorts of bad stuff have happened in the US, carried out by duly elected representatives, following (sort of) open procedures in legislative sessions, and signed by elected chief executives. Fascists weren't required. — BC

Exactly. So how come? What's the real lesson? And how to reverse it when there's a vocal minority claiming taxation is theft and vested interests keen on keeping their privileges because any loss of privilege is considered an injustice by them? And how come a relative minority benefitting from it gets such widespread support from voters? It doesn't, for instance, comport with studies where people would rather force both parties to end up with nothing than accept an unfair result from a negotiation. Fairness is a strong motivator yet we'll gladly vote for parties or people who have no interest in fairness.

Edit: I think the first one is obvious. It's not a negotiation in Parliament and not a trade. So there is no social "contract", just people pursuing their self-interest to the furthest extent as possible that the system permits. This is mitigated to some extent in multi-party systems that require coalitions to form majority voting blocks but over the years has been avoided by trading off unrelated issues before parties actually come into power and thereby avoid democratic control.

Fascism does have many definitions, but "the way it works" is less variable. If some people are operating in a fascistic manner, it's worth focusing on. — BC

That's what I question I guess. Any form of unfair policies is a step in the wrong direction. You're a decade too late if you're trying to assess what type of evil you're dealing with. I think it's much more interesting to analyse how societies get there through the gradual, "legal" means, erosion of the rule of law. And I see this play out in many different conversations, where moral reasoning is reduced to whether it breaks a law or not.

So if we procedurally pass awful laws then these are "just", which is why tax breaks are deserved, breaking up families at the border are fine, gerrymandering is just smart, tax evasion a walhalla for consultants, pollution is a-ok as long as you got a permit, lobbying is effective, improving the material conditions of citizens optional and daytrading considered a meaningful vocation. From where I'm standing Fascism is fucking close in every European country but probably not in the US, which is more likely to fully degenerate into a corporatocracy due to its particular off-brand of delusional idiocy.

This just in, in the past 10 years the richest 5 persons have doubled their wealth whereas over 5 billion people became poorer. Website: https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/research-publications/inequality-inc/

Capitalism is working just as intended.

I'm not sure, considering the disparate definitions of fascism, whether focusing specifically on fascism is relevant. In that respect, I think Rawls really was onto something with is justice as fairness. And that's a gliding scale. And unfairness can be either about the number of people affected or the egregiousness of the injustice (e.g., from tax benefits for the richt to outright institutional racism). It doesn't really matter whether we then qualify an unfair society as fascist, nepotist, authoritarian, etc. other than as a tool t diagnose why it is unfair.

Even outside of these extreme scenarios, I think it's clear that EU and USA interests no longer align on various issues.

YES!

But sorry. I'm an European, I know these people.

The EU is the best we can make. Non-US NATO would be a shadow of the former organization. Or if Russia bombed with cruise missiles EVERY European Capitol, that could make us work together. But that's not going to happen. — ssu

But doesn't the fact that NATO exist in itself cause the EU not to successfully cooperate militarily? There's simply no real need. I think if EU countries could centralise command and simply have all the countries current armies merge into a single force we would easily have an adequate defensive force. France already has the nukes for deterrence.

It's relevant in "the end justifies the means" thinking prevalent in typical right wing thinking.

It's not a document brought into the proceedings but reflects references in court cases of the UN and specific tribunals to get a better understanding how rulings were argued on this specific subject.

Seems preliminary reaction by Israel is "look how terrible Hamas was on 7 October" as an argument that therefore Hamas must be eliminated with the unspoken addition "by any means necessary". Without that last point, there is after all, no argument.

For the lawyers on "direct and public incitement to commit genocide":

https://cld.irmct.org/notions/show/265/direct-and-public-incitement-to-commit-genocide#

The proportionality depends on the risk to your soldiers/civilians versus the risk to enemy non-combatants, which means Israel's decisive advantage of the ground factors into proportionality. — Count Timothy von Icarus

You left out subsidiarity but otherwise agree with your post but I don't think it applies here in most actions taken by Israel. Breaches of humanitarian law (such as collective punishment) are disproportional by definition and therefore not allowed under any circumstances.

Stop acting like a dumb shit. Let's go back to: I'm sorry for you if you think this needs quantifying.

The Martens clause leads interpretation.

Until a more complete code of the laws of war is issued, the High Contracting Parties think it right to declare that in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, populations and belligerents remain under the protection and empire of the principles of international law, as they result from the usages established between civilized nations, from the laws of humanity and the requirements of the public conscience.

The Geneva Conventions exclude breaking its rules even if the other party does (unless specifically stated otherwise) right there in article 1 and 3 of the convention. So Israel has a right to (counter)attack but not a right to breach the conventions. The disproportionality is apparent in the means chosen, collective punishment and deliberate targetting of civilians, which are all prohibited under the various conventions. Put in other words, excessive violence when acting in alleged self-defence, even if we accept a case of self-defence, is still illegal under international law and therefore disproportional.

More on reciprocity in humanitarian law: https://international-review.icrc.org/sites/default/files/S0020860400022178a.pdf

However, the real problem here is that you need laws to tell you what is ethically abundantly clear to anyone with a conscience (that's how it ended up as law, because people with a conscience realised it had to be written down). So this is my last reply to you as I don't want to engage with murderous idiots here or in real life.

No. And you haven't read those conventions or you would already have the answer. But nice try hiding your ignorance behind sarcasm.

As I said, if this isn't apparent to you, I'm not wasting my time answering dumb questions.

Read the Geneva and the Hague conventions if you have problems wrapping your head around which principles are involved. Or alternatively grow a conscience.

The dictates of public conscience. I'm sorry for you if you think this needs quantifying. Maybe find a moral compass before asking moral questions.

Deliberate targeting of civilians would still be illegal/unethical though and there is a right to reciprocate. But Israel clearly escalated beyond any reasonable proportionality.

I can answer that: moral and cultural superiority means Israël can do whatever it wants because they're the good guys. All allied war crimes are excused and were justified because the Nazis were the bad guys.

You're a biased leftist. I just pointed that out so I don't have to rub my two braincells together anymore and worry about Gaza.

Similarly as, well, Saudi Arabia has spread Wahhabism. Not only by the actions of one Osama bin Laden, that is. — ssu

Despite the ruling class trying to avoid this. I think there would be an interesting analysis to be made between Wahhabism and Trumpism in relation to inequality and political power.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/10/west-bank-videos-show-israeli-troops-killing-teenager-and-driving-over-mans-body

This is what you get when you support people unconditionally: they rightfully think they can get away with anything with clear atrocities as a result.

Of course, I'm biased in favour of the oppressed and justice - which any sane person would arrive at on the basis of legal and moral principles. It's morons who think pursuing the status quo is somehow not biased, especially when they get into cultural comparative absolutism.

Your lack of historical knowledge and inability to think is on display across the forum. It's not an ad homs to point this out.

I wasn't quite thinking of the PLO (now part of Palestinian Authority, a quasi-governing agency). I was thinking of the splintered proxies from Iran. I notice you try to look for a quick Israeli redirection. I find that interesting and telling :chin:. It's like a knee-jerk reaction almost. It's really hard for you to simply denounce Islamism and authoritarianism demonstrated by Muslim communities without qualification of something (mainly anti-Israel or US). You aren't as biased as other posters, but the undercurrent is obvious. I'm not even sure this is objectivity, because even most historians and chroniclers have a point of view. — schopenhauer1

One of the most biased posters blaming others for being biased. What a joke.

Isn't "california farmworkers" a euphemism for "immigrants"? Nobody cares.

Also, it is not clear what Israel's intention is regarding Gaza. — BitconnectCarlos

This has been clear for decades. You've just not been paying attention. And not just Gaza, the rest of Palestine as well.

Israel's conduct is well above the standards of the Allies in WWII. Israel exercises restraint. — BitconnectCarlos

The Allies' goal wasn't to displace an entire people and ethnically cleanse the area of Palestinians. So this is false. You have an idiotic idea of restraint, where the capability to do worse is proof of restraint. That's the abusive father claiming restraint when hitting his children because he could kill them too.