6 ms·

There is a double standard but it's not the one you think. Israel is the only state that can get away with such behavior without a single sanction. Russia is u

There is a double standard but it's not the one you think. Israel is the only state that can get away with such behavior without a single sanction. Russia is under a severe package of sanctions for doing something that is not fundamentally different. Israel is also a particular focus in the West (and especially in America) because it's done with US support (in the UN) and US weapons. So, yes, people are talking about it more than, say, the situation in Myanmar. Note that there are also sanctions against Myanmar, among other things a ban on military sales to them for what they are doing; so can we now similarly ban the sales of weapons to Israel?

tptacek 3y ago
I think a lot of what Israel has done is hard to defend, but it is all very much unlike what Russia has done. An organized military organization didn't invade Russia from Ukraine and kill hundreds upon hundreds of civilians, face to face, and then return to Ukraine vowing to repeat the attack. That did in fact happen to Israel.
- runarberg 3y ago
  They don’t offer exemptions on human rights if you have the right motive. Human rights are supposed to be kept regardless of past wrongs. So what happened to Israel prior to their violations of international agreements is irrelevant. The double standard here is that both Russia and Israel are guilty of breaking human rights but instead of ordering sanctions against Israel, many nations offered them more weapons to double down on their atrocities. And in fact Israel’s crimes against humanity far exceed those of Russia. So the double standard is even amplified. EDIT: Executive’s director of Human Rights Watch on the international double standard https://aje.io/ussvy1?update=2613047 https://aje.io/ussvy1?update=2613047
  - tptacek 3y ago
    You're rebutting an argument I didn't make. Not being like Russia doesn't excuse war crimes.
    - runarberg 3y ago
      Sorry, I’m not that good at making my argument clear. What I’m rebutting—or rather making a poor attempt to rebut—is your hinting that the international double standard doesn’t exist, or at the very least is understandable. The interviewee in the al-Jazeera interview makes a much better argument for the existence, the importance of recognizing, and the inexcusableness of this international double standard, better than I ever could.
      - tptacek 3y ago
        The international double standard does not in fact exist. The two situations are not comparable. That observation does not exonerate Israel.
        runarberg 3y ago
        This particular criticism is not directed at Israel, but at countries supporting Israel, such as the USA and the UK. The point is that human rights violations are enabled and even supported by third countries when Israel is the perpetrator, but not when Russia is the perpetrator.
        tptacek 3y ago
        Again: the situations are not comparable. Russia was unprovoked and has a stated objective of annexing a sovereign country. Israel is in fact under military threat (was, in fact, attacked, gravely), from territory it has occupied since 1967. It is unsurprising that the international responses are not equivalent. A short way to sum this up is: regardless of the distaste many in the west (myself included) have for the means by which Israel is pursuing it's goal, the west is unanimous in support of that actual goal: no western state believes Hamas should be left to govern Gaza, even as many probably do quietly hope to haul Netanyahu to the Hague (if the Israelis don't imprison him first). Meanwhile: every western state actively, viscerally opposes Russia's goal.
        3y ago
wslh 3y ago
> Israel is also a particular focus in the West (and especially in America) because it's done with US support (in the UN) and US weapons. You are nitpicking historical events. It's critical not to view events in isolation, they are deeply linked to the past, rather than being a series of unrelated incidents. In 1948, following the UN Partition Plan of Palestine approved the creation of two states (this decision was made by the same United Nations to which you referred) Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq attacked Israel (yes, Israel because it was approved as a new country by the UN in the same way it happened to other nations). US did a weapon embargo [1] that no benefited Israel (and the five other attackers). In this conflict, Israel was in a defensive position and Israel won that war without US support. The history is fluid. Also, at that time Iran mas a monarchy and in 1979 after the Iranian revolution converted into a theocracy. Iran uses proxies for igniting more fire into the region. Not an opinion. We can talk in the future again once Iran, probably, converts into a nuclear power. [1] https://pluto.huji.ac.il/~slonims/publications/48_American_Emabargo_on_Arms_to_Palestine.pdf https://pluto.huji.ac.il/~slonims/publications/48_American_E...
- johnnyworker 3y ago
  > You are nitpicking historical events. In response to the straw man that people who criticize Israel never do so based on principles they apply to everything else as well, which warrants no response at all. It's not even worth taking note of at this point, it's just a square on a bingo card that got real old real quick.
  - wslh 3y ago
    The problem here about fallacies is that these discussions have real world implication and are not a theorem in a chalkboard. People kill and die based on ideas, power, etc and not following logical rules. That is the main fallacy: applying [only] logic to the human world.
    - johnnyworker 3y ago
      I was just saying that there is no such thing as an insufficient counter-argument to something that can't even stand on its own. "People who say X NEVER say Y" is just.. nothing. And when I "apply logic to the human world" there is not an instance in which I'm not fully "inside" the human world myself. Logic isn't some magical outside thing, and like conversation it doesn't have to be a means to an end.

tptacek 3y ago

I think a lot of what Israel has done is hard to defend, but it is all very much unlike what Russia has done. An organized military organization didn't invade Russia from Ukraine and kill hundreds upon hundreds of civilians, face to face, and then return to Ukraine vowing to repeat the attack. That did in fact happen to Israel.

runarberg 3y ago
They don’t offer exemptions on human rights if you have the right motive. Human rights are supposed to be kept regardless of past wrongs. So what happened to Israel prior to their violations of international agreements is irrelevant. The double standard here is that both Russia and Israel are guilty of breaking human rights but instead of ordering sanctions against Israel, many nations offered them more weapons to double down on their atrocities. And in fact Israel’s crimes against humanity far exceed those of Russia. So the double standard is even amplified. EDIT: Executive’s director of Human Rights Watch on the international double standard https://aje.io/ussvy1?update=2613047 https://aje.io/ussvy1?update=2613047
- tptacek 3y ago
  You're rebutting an argument I didn't make. Not being like Russia doesn't excuse war crimes.
  - runarberg 3y ago
    Sorry, I’m not that good at making my argument clear. What I’m rebutting—or rather making a poor attempt to rebut—is your hinting that the international double standard doesn’t exist, or at the very least is understandable. The interviewee in the al-Jazeera interview makes a much better argument for the existence, the importance of recognizing, and the inexcusableness of this international double standard, better than I ever could.
    - tptacek 3y ago
      The international double standard does not in fact exist. The two situations are not comparable. That observation does not exonerate Israel.
      - runarberg 3y ago
        This particular criticism is not directed at Israel, but at countries supporting Israel, such as the USA and the UK. The point is that human rights violations are enabled and even supported by third countries when Israel is the perpetrator, but not when Russia is the perpetrator.
        tptacek 3y ago
        Again: the situations are not comparable. Russia was unprovoked and has a stated objective of annexing a sovereign country. Israel is in fact under military threat (was, in fact, attacked, gravely), from territory it has occupied since 1967. It is unsurprising that the international responses are not equivalent. A short way to sum this up is: regardless of the distaste many in the west (myself included) have for the means by which Israel is pursuing it's goal, the west is unanimous in support of that actual goal: no western state believes Hamas should be left to govern Gaza, even as many probably do quietly hope to haul Netanyahu to the Hague (if the Israelis don't imprison him first). Meanwhile: every western state actively, viscerally opposes Russia's goal.
        3y ago

wslh 3y ago

> Israel is also a particular focus in the West (and especially in America) because it's done with US support (in the UN) and US weapons. You are nitpicking historical events. It's critical not to view events in isolation, they are deeply linked to the past, rather than being a series of unrelated incidents. In 1948, following the UN Partition Plan of Palestine approved the creation of two states (this decision was made by the same United Nations to which you referred) Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq attacked Israel (yes, Israel because it was approved as a new country by the UN in the same way it happened to other nations). US did a weapon embargo [1] that no benefited Israel (and the five other attackers). In this conflict, Israel was in a defensive position and Israel won that war without US support. The history is fluid. Also, at that time Iran mas a monarchy and in 1979 after the Iranian revolution converted into a theocracy. Iran uses proxies for igniting more fire into the region. Not an opinion. We can talk in the future again once Iran, probably, converts into a nuclear power. [1] https://pluto.huji.ac.il/~slonims/publications/48_American_Emabargo_on_Arms_to_Palestine.pdf https://pluto.huji.ac.il/~slonims/publications/48_American_E...

johnnyworker 3y ago
> You are nitpicking historical events. In response to the straw man that people who criticize Israel never do so based on principles they apply to everything else as well, which warrants no response at all. It's not even worth taking note of at this point, it's just a square on a bingo card that got real old real quick.
- wslh 3y ago
  The problem here about fallacies is that these discussions have real world implication and are not a theorem in a chalkboard. People kill and die based on ideas, power, etc and not following logical rules. That is the main fallacy: applying [only] logic to the human world.
  - johnnyworker 3y ago
    I was just saying that there is no such thing as an insufficient counter-argument to something that can't even stand on its own. "People who say X NEVER say Y" is just.. nothing. And when I "apply logic to the human world" there is not an instance in which I'm not fully "inside" the human world myself. Logic isn't some magical outside thing, and like conversation it doesn't have to be a means to an end.