3 ms·

> Either they treat Palestine as an independent country with all the same rights as Israel Are you saying that as an independent country, Gaza's sovereignty ca

> Either they treat Palestine as an independent country with all the same rights as Israel Are you saying that as an independent country, Gaza's sovereignty can't be violated? This isn't absolute; there are exceptions like self-defense, whether we're look at this from a legal perspective (UN article 51) or an ethical one. Indeed my point was never about law; this thread began with your argument which seemed to be about utilitarian ethics. So the ICJ order isn't related to my point, unless we consider the ICJ an arbiter of morality.

ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
> Are you saying that as an independent country, Gaza's sovereignty can't be violated? This isn't absolute; there are exceptions like self-defense, whether we're look at this from a legal perspective (UN article 51) or an ethical one. Not Gaza, Palestine. That includes Gaza and the West Bank, which has been under Israeli apartheid for a long time. There is rarely an unrestrained right to self-defense of a country engaging in apartheid and genocide, against those upon whom they are perpetrating it. Does Israel grant Palestinian-born subjects in the West Bank (a territory Israel dominates) freedom, self-determination, safety? Does it treat them equally to Israeli-born subjects? No, and that's illegal (and apartheid). The "self defense exception" was cited by Israel, and the court judged that their illegal actions go beyond legal self defense. If we take a moral perspective rather than a legal one, it would be immoral to substitute Israel's judgement for that of the ICJ, a less biased and more informed body. From a utilitarian objective standpoint, we arrive at the same conclusion: It's unlikely Israel has some magical higher understanding that all other countries lack. Plus, legitimizing claims by defendants like Putin, Bibi, Sinwar, Kony, Gallant, or Haniyeh et. al, that they somehow know better than the court, would kinda defeat the purpose of the court.
- dlubarov 2y ago
  It seems like you're veering into a different topic with the assertion that West Bank is an apartheid system. If we're talking about Gaza still, Hamas is the de facto government there, having won the election and the subsequent war. The PLO's declaration and aspirational claim of Gaza doesn't change the reality of Hamas' rule. From a moral perspective, it seems like you're saying the ICJ would be a better arbiter of morality than Israel, but my point didn't involve an appeal to any authority; that just doesn't seem necessary when discussing morality.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
    We've covered Israel's actions being illegal in the eyes of the world, immoral in the eyes of the world, and unhelpful to peace in the eyes of the world. I appreciate your offering of another viewpoint, because a diversity of viewpoints is good, and indeed your viewpoint is valid. Valid enough that the world has heard it, and took it into account when forming the above consensus. > [consensus] just doesn't seem necessary when discussing morality. That would not be an entirely unexpected claim from any given person who doesn't like the humanitarian consensus, Just like it was not entirely unexpected to see Israel claim that international laws don't seem necessary when violating international laws they don't like. I think we're both smart enough to realize what would happen if each person on earth decided that they were the true arbiter of law and morality, and had the right to do whatever they wanted, regardless of the law or what anybody or almost everybody else thought. So it is good that the consensus is that consensus is indeed necessary when writing and enforcing and judging the laws we wrote, around such moral standards as "don't genocide people". By rejecting the concept of this consensus, which you call an "appeal to authority", it seems this topic is indeed being reduced to whether Bibi will say "whatever, I do what I want" like Putin or Cartman or Kony or Sinwar, while his country continues to spiral into international pariah status. So, I will submit a bet that he will, and leave it at that.
    - dlubarov 2y ago
      It seems like you're treating law and ethics as more or less interchangeable, which I think is a mistake. International law is more about politics than ethics. For example, parts of international law come from UN security council resolutions, which are passed based on 9/15 security council votes, and no vetoes from the 5 permanent members. The permanent members include Russia and China, and non-permanent members often include other authoritarian states, like UAE until recently. Trump may soon have authority over US votes. Do you trust these political entities as bastions of morality?
      - 2y ago

ImPostingOnHN 2y ago

> Are you saying that as an independent country, Gaza's sovereignty can't be violated? This isn't absolute; there are exceptions like self-defense, whether we're look at this from a legal perspective (UN article 51) or an ethical one. Not Gaza, Palestine. That includes Gaza and the West Bank, which has been under Israeli apartheid for a long time. There is rarely an unrestrained right to self-defense of a country engaging in apartheid and genocide, against those upon whom they are perpetrating it. Does Israel grant Palestinian-born subjects in the West Bank (a territory Israel dominates) freedom, self-determination, safety? Does it treat them equally to Israeli-born subjects? No, and that's illegal (and apartheid). The "self defense exception" was cited by Israel, and the court judged that their illegal actions go beyond legal self defense. If we take a moral perspective rather than a legal one, it would be immoral to substitute Israel's judgement for that of the ICJ, a less biased and more informed body. From a utilitarian objective standpoint, we arrive at the same conclusion: It's unlikely Israel has some magical higher understanding that all other countries lack. Plus, legitimizing claims by defendants like Putin, Bibi, Sinwar, Kony, Gallant, or Haniyeh et. al, that they somehow know better than the court, would kinda defeat the purpose of the court.

dlubarov 2y ago
It seems like you're veering into a different topic with the assertion that West Bank is an apartheid system. If we're talking about Gaza still, Hamas is the de facto government there, having won the election and the subsequent war. The PLO's declaration and aspirational claim of Gaza doesn't change the reality of Hamas' rule. From a moral perspective, it seems like you're saying the ICJ would be a better arbiter of morality than Israel, but my point didn't involve an appeal to any authority; that just doesn't seem necessary when discussing morality.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
  We've covered Israel's actions being illegal in the eyes of the world, immoral in the eyes of the world, and unhelpful to peace in the eyes of the world. I appreciate your offering of another viewpoint, because a diversity of viewpoints is good, and indeed your viewpoint is valid. Valid enough that the world has heard it, and took it into account when forming the above consensus. > [consensus] just doesn't seem necessary when discussing morality. That would not be an entirely unexpected claim from any given person who doesn't like the humanitarian consensus, Just like it was not entirely unexpected to see Israel claim that international laws don't seem necessary when violating international laws they don't like. I think we're both smart enough to realize what would happen if each person on earth decided that they were the true arbiter of law and morality, and had the right to do whatever they wanted, regardless of the law or what anybody or almost everybody else thought. So it is good that the consensus is that consensus is indeed necessary when writing and enforcing and judging the laws we wrote, around such moral standards as "don't genocide people". By rejecting the concept of this consensus, which you call an "appeal to authority", it seems this topic is indeed being reduced to whether Bibi will say "whatever, I do what I want" like Putin or Cartman or Kony or Sinwar, while his country continues to spiral into international pariah status. So, I will submit a bet that he will, and leave it at that.
  - dlubarov 2y ago
    It seems like you're treating law and ethics as more or less interchangeable, which I think is a mistake. International law is more about politics than ethics. For example, parts of international law come from UN security council resolutions, which are passed based on 9/15 security council votes, and no vetoes from the 5 permanent members. The permanent members include Russia and China, and non-permanent members often include other authoritarian states, like UAE until recently. Trump may soon have authority over US votes. Do you trust these political entities as bastions of morality?
    - 2y ago