4 ms·

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

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?
  - ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
    I'm not treating law and ethics as interchangeable, simply pointing out that the global consensus is that Israel's behavior is wrong in both a legal sense and an ethical sense (and a moral sense, if you distinguish that from the former), and thus is unhelpful to peace. I understand Israel disagrees with this consensus. I understand you may disagree with this consensus. I accept that if global consensus hasn't already changed their minds, I might not, either. That is okay. Consensus doesn't require buy-in from any single particular person or country. But as a general rule of thumb, if a great majority say you're in the wrong, and you say they're all in the wrong for saying you're in the wrong, that means you're probably in the wrong, so it's worth seriously considering the possibility. Your latter observation doesn't seem to apply here, as it seems the ICC and ICJ based their findings and rulings on laws and ethics, not politics or bias, and it doesn't seem like the laws themselves are biased against Israel in particular, either.
    - dlubarov 2y ago
      Okay that fair, but it's a rough consensus among political entities, each with their own flaws. Some are authoritarian, some don't share Western values, some represent countries with deeply ingrained antisemitism. It's not a consensus among impartial ethicists or something.
      - ImPostingOnHN 2y ago

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?
- ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
  I'm not treating law and ethics as interchangeable, simply pointing out that the global consensus is that Israel's behavior is wrong in both a legal sense and an ethical sense (and a moral sense, if you distinguish that from the former), and thus is unhelpful to peace. I understand Israel disagrees with this consensus. I understand you may disagree with this consensus. I accept that if global consensus hasn't already changed their minds, I might not, either. That is okay. Consensus doesn't require buy-in from any single particular person or country. But as a general rule of thumb, if a great majority say you're in the wrong, and you say they're all in the wrong for saying you're in the wrong, that means you're probably in the wrong, so it's worth seriously considering the possibility. Your latter observation doesn't seem to apply here, as it seems the ICC and ICJ based their findings and rulings on laws and ethics, not politics or bias, and it doesn't seem like the laws themselves are biased against Israel in particular, either.
  - dlubarov 2y ago
    Okay that fair, but it's a rough consensus among political entities, each with their own flaws. Some are authoritarian, some don't share Western values, some represent countries with deeply ingrained antisemitism. It's not a consensus among impartial ethicists or something.
    - ImPostingOnHN 2y ago