991–1000 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then why do they consistently call for genocide? And why do they oppose a peaceful two-state solution?
They all for the removal of the people who stole their land, from their land. I support this obviously logical and moral position.
And it wasn't their land in the first place. It had been the Ottoman Empire, at the time it was under the control of the British.
Like if you grow up living inside the Star Wars mythology and suddenly you get a chance to fight The Empire, do you do it? Do you really care if people outside the Shared Mythos Group (TM) disagree with you doing it?
(Note that I’m not saying anyone in this framing is “The Empire”, I’m just using the Star Wars mythology as a familiar example of a mythic framing)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since 2005, Israel has aggressively settled more and more people in the West Bank, to the point where more than 10% of Israel's Jewish population (read: first-class citizens) now live in West Bank settlements, so Israel's right wing has done everything in its power to make a two-state solution less and less practical. IMO a one-state solution where everyone has equal rights is the only just and reasonable path forwar…
Hamas has a one-state transition plan: kill or drive out the Jews, or enslave the ones with technical expertise. The Israel far right has a transition plan: kill or drive out the Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza, except for the few that don't cause them problems. Partition of disputed territory is the least bad solution in the world we live in. "One world" government remains a utopian fantasy. Dividing the world…
The American civil war occurred, in part, because Lincoln decided to end the institution of slavery. I know this is an oversimplification and justifies the means with the end, but I think if "bad"-ness of the civil war is compared to the "bad"-ness of an eternity of black people being enslavement in the U.S., I'd argue the war was significantly less "bad".
I think your other point about Hamas's supposed desire to genocide Jews lacks nuance, and your resignation to a world of ethno-nationalist states is a just-so story bordering on nihilism, but I suspect addressing those enters territory of tightly-held opinion, so I will just leave it at that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They all for the removal of the people who stole their land, from their land. I support this obviously logical and moral position.
But the "removal" they desire is by death. And it wasn't their land in the first place. It had been the Ottoman Empire, at the time it was under the control of the British.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If self-determination means an enthnostate then no people has that right. If every ethnic group had its own state in which it was guaranteed supremacy, the world would be a complete mess. It doesn't work. We are seeing in Israel/Palestine a thoroughly worked out example of why it doesn't work, and what the consequences are when you try to make it work.
How is ethnicity related? Judaism isn't an ethnicity, and there are Jews in Israel from Poland, from Ethiopia and from India. In terms of ethnicity, Israel is probably one of the most diverse places on Earth.
And Judaism is a religion founded on the idea of a "chosen people" formed from the "seed of Israel" after all. And the Tanakh says this chosen people is entitled to the Palestine region. So we can easily see how this is a mythos made of an ethnostate, when interpreted through an extremist (Zionist) lens.
Unfortunately this article and the conversation here is taken in the context of the entirety of Israel is bad, the whole military war against Hamas and its patrons was bad, and that there is a genocide in Gaza. It leaves little room to have meaningful conversations about difficult conditions in the war and whether soldiers acted incorrectly or not and if they should be tried or not with regards to this single inciden…
That makes no sense.
I would like to know: is there even a single person here, who actually changed his opinion regarding this whole matter upon seeing this report? Not confirmed anything, but actually was forced to re-evaluate his opinion. Like, previously you thought that IDF are good guys, and all Israel does is justified self-defense measures, and now you see this as genocide of Palestinians? Of course, I assume, the answer is — no o…
This report is too biased for a critical thinker to change their mind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know Zionism as the idea that Jewish people have the right to self-determination. Do you: 1 - Think that it is something different? 2 - Think that it is, but Jewish people specifically do not have it? (I believe this is racist) 3 - Think that no people have it? 4 - Something else? If you think that Jewish people have it but just not in Palestine, where in the world do you think they should have had it?
> I know Zionism as the idea that Jewish people have the right to self-determination. I think the notion that any group has rights is problematic at best. Individuals have rights, not groups. Individuals can act collectively as a group, but the idea that that somehow imbues the group with some sort of right seems strange or confused to say the least.
This matches the "individuality thesis" [1] (often debated among philosophers).
For those who haven't explored the territory, I recommend the journey. There is no rush to figure it out. I suggest trying out various viewpoints and taking your time with it: maybe even remaining a bit uncertain for your entire life!
- Uncertainty often takes an unfair beating. Uncertainty is preferable to confused or premature certainty. I would actually go further and say there is deep virtue in uncertainty -- there is an openness there. Absolute certainty closes doors; in a way it closes its eyes to new experience.
- There is value in being uncertain about one's values! For individuals, locking in one's ethics can be unwise. [2] For cultures, value lock-in can be stifling or even oppressive. For AI, value lock-in is sometimes called incorrigibility and can be problematic or worse. Humans have a tendency to grow and change, all the way down to our value systems.
Anyhow, I digress. Here are some relevant selections from Wikipedia's entry on Will Kymlicka:
> In Multicultural Citizenship (1995), Kymlicka argues that group-specific rights are consistent with liberalism, and are particularly appropriate, if not outright demanded, in certain situations.
> For Kymlicka, the standard liberal criticism, which states that group rights are problematic because they often treat individuals as mere carriers of group identities, rather than autonomous social agents, is overstated or oversimplified. The actual problem of minorities and how they should be viewed in liberal democracies is much more complex. There is a distinction between good group rights, bad group rights, and intolerable group rights.
[1]: https://philarchive.org/archive/HABTIT-2
[2]: I learned this from What We Owe The Future by William MacAskill. Did he borrow it from someone else? Maybe Derek Parfit? I'll need to research more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
If they're such crazy violent outliers, why doesn't the Israeli government crack down and prosecute them? They could treat them the same way they treat a Palestinian who throws rocks, for example. But they don't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds as if you're defending genocide style killing civilians.
Israel was attacked, you are mixing that up.
But that's what you're apparently supporting, looking at how you're writing.
Plus you are misrepresenting what I said.