7 ms·

It's probably not in your interest since you'd go to jail and the whole metaphor seems quite simplistic to me. Since you seem to be talking about ethics, not in

It's probably not in your interest since you'd go to jail and the whole metaphor seems quite simplistic to me. Since you seem to be talking about ethics, not interests, If Israel supports Egypt's El-Sisi is that immoral? Yes he is a despot, but the opposition is worse. Same can be said about Israel's support to the Palestinian Authority. It's quite difficult to know what the right thing to do is. Israel wants good relation with these countries for obvious reasons.

cmmeur01 5y ago
They support who they can control, that’s it. Nothing to do with them thinking one is better for the citizens living under their selected rulers control. Israel doesn’t care about half the people within its borders. Saying they choose who to support based on how that person will treat their citizens is laughable.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- joelbluminator 5y ago
  > They support who they can control, that’s it. Or they support who won't try to destroy them, see - I said it in a non demonizing way. > Saying they choose who to support based on how that person will treat their citizens is laughable I wasn't saying that. I was just saying, at least in the case of Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia (and also the Palestinian Authority), it's not clear at all that selling them tech/arms is immoral.
pessimizer 5y ago
> Yes he is a despot, but the opposition is worse. As long as you're just willing to make things up, everything is justifiable.
ashtonkem 5y ago
> Yes he is a despot, but the opposition is worse. This is the exact mental process that has brought most dictators into power.
- joelbluminator 5y ago
  It's either a true statement in the general case of that region of the middle east or it isn't. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    1) It’s a false dichotomy. There are more paths forward other than “tolerate <ally>’s misbehavior” and “let <perceived threat> control the region”. The fact that this line is used by those who want more power should make anyone wary. 2) Tolerating the gross misbehavior of one state or leader because you perceive them as a bulwark against other worse leaders is an extremely foolish course. Not only does it expose ones ideals as being hollow and situational, but it often creates new problems that must be contained later.
    - andrepd 5y ago
      > 2) Tolerating the gross misbehavior of one state or leader because you perceive them as a bulwark against other worse leaders is an extremely foolish course. Not only does it expose ones ideals as being hollow and situational, but it often creates new problems that must be contained later. The summary of US foreign policy since WW2 x)

cmmeur01 5y ago

They support who they can control, that’s it. Nothing to do with them thinking one is better for the citizens living under their selected rulers control. Israel doesn’t care about half the people within its borders. Saying they choose who to support based on how that person will treat their citizens is laughable.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
joelbluminator 5y ago
> They support who they can control, that’s it. Or they support who won't try to destroy them, see - I said it in a non demonizing way. > Saying they choose who to support based on how that person will treat their citizens is laughable I wasn't saying that. I was just saying, at least in the case of Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia (and also the Palestinian Authority), it's not clear at all that selling them tech/arms is immoral.

pessimizer 5y ago

> Yes he is a despot, but the opposition is worse. As long as you're just willing to make things up, everything is justifiable.

ashtonkem 5y ago

> Yes he is a despot, but the opposition is worse. This is the exact mental process that has brought most dictators into power.

joelbluminator 5y ago
It's either a true statement in the general case of that region of the middle east or it isn't. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  1) It’s a false dichotomy. There are more paths forward other than “tolerate <ally>’s misbehavior” and “let <perceived threat> control the region”. The fact that this line is used by those who want more power should make anyone wary. 2) Tolerating the gross misbehavior of one state or leader because you perceive them as a bulwark against other worse leaders is an extremely foolish course. Not only does it expose ones ideals as being hollow and situational, but it often creates new problems that must be contained later.
  - andrepd 5y ago
    > 2) Tolerating the gross misbehavior of one state or leader because you perceive them as a bulwark against other worse leaders is an extremely foolish course. Not only does it expose ones ideals as being hollow and situational, but it often creates new problems that must be contained later. The summary of US foreign policy since WW2 x)