| International
|
[
International ] [ Main Menu ] |
|
|
|
55575 |
|
|
Date: September 18, 2024 at 11:20:52
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Palestine-Israel and A Moral Dilemma Concerning War Crimes |
URL: https://www.counterpunch.org/2024/09/18/palestine-israel-and-a-moral-dilemma-concerning-war-crimes/ |
|
September 18, 2024
Palestine-Israel and A Moral Dilemma Concerning War Crimes
by Lawrence Davidson
Most American Jews perceive the conflict between Jewish Israelis and Palestinians according to some variation of the Zionist narrative. That is that Israel’s creation was a legitimate response to historical antisemitism and particularly the Holocaust. The Palestinians are classified in much the same category as the American Indians. That is, the struggle is between a modern democratic society (Israel) vs. primitive, religious, anti-democratic society (Palestine). Even many of those who now condemn Israel’s genocidal actions in Gaza believe this lashing out by Israel is just a product of a tactical wrong turn—an unfortunate, though more or less understandable, reaction to that “unprovoked” sneak attack on 7 October 2023.
According to a Pew Research Center survey released on 2 April 2024, some of the relevant numbers, indicating Jewish attitudes, break down this way:
+ 93% of adult American Jews believe “the way Hamas carried out its Oct. 7 attack was unacceptable.”
+ 52% think the way Israel is conducting itself in Gaza is acceptable. For those over 50 years old the number goes up to 68%.
+ 77% of all Jewish adults responding think Hamas’ reasons for fighting Israel are not valid. 89% see Israel’s reasons for fighting as valid.
+ Nine in ten responding have a favorable view of the Israeli Jewish people. Four in ten have a favorable view of Palestinians.
What this all suggests is that, despite the really courageous actions of Jewish organizations such as Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), and Not in My Name, and despite the really brave Jewish protesters on many American campuses, most American Jews still retain the visionary perception of Israel they were raised with. Such people and the groups that represent them (main line American Jewish organizations) resist all revision of their views and dismiss as antisemitic any facts that conflict with their beliefs. This supports a position that excuses Israeli violence as just acts of “self defense.”
Others, such as members of JVP, have come to realize that the story they have so long been told is true is, in fact, seriously flawed. When this happens, they may well actively support new positions that could help lead to a just resolution of conflict.
Yet there is a third position that can be taken, one that is attractive to many liberal American Jews because, among other reasons, it sidesteps an historical situation in which the Israeli Jews have begun to resemble their own past persecutors. This position asserts that there exists moral absolutes that all sides are failing to adhere to and thus, all sides are equally guilty. This is a proposition that demands that historical context must be set aside when it comes to judging historical behavior. It is to an example of this claim that we now turn.
A Moral Dilemma
As American Jews go, Peter Beinart, professor and liberal political commentator, is a remarkably open-minded fellow. He readily admits that Israel has a bad case of racist ethnic-nationalism, and is now engaged in wanton ethnic cleansing. I often listen to Beinart, if for no other reason than to be reminded that there are a number of Jews who are willing to support Palestinian rights.
Yet, alas, Peter Beinart has chosen to assert moral absolutes into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. This, in turn, creates a common moral dilemma—one that might in fact be unsolvable. Beinart, unknowingly, set out this dilemma in the opening of a brief monologue he delivered on line on 1 September 2024. It was entitled “To Save the Remaining Hostages, End the War Now.”
Beinart began by listing the six Israeli hostages recently found dead in Gaza. Then he continued, “The first thing, which I think should be obvious, is that the responsibility for their deaths lies with Hamas, which should never have abducted them in the first place, and that to do so, to abduct, to kill civilians is a war crime. Period. … What Hamas did on October seventh or what Hamas has just done now, are war crimes. … In my mind, [in so doing, Hamas] abdicates the moral responsibility that any group of people, no matter how brutal their oppression, is obligated to maintain” [my emphasis]. He does go on to say that the Israeli government shares responsibility due to their refusal to agree to a cease fire.
Ok. So what is the moral dilemma here? Let’s try to tease it out by considering the following point:
+ Beinart posits an absolute. He asserts that “any group or people” are morally obligated to act in accordance with international law prohibiting war crimes. On the face of it, this seems to be a reasonable goal.
+ However, in this regard, he asserts that context and circumstances do not matter. “No matter how brutal their oppression” one cannot escape this obligation. Here, one is reminded of the Ten Commandments. Yet, it is to be noted that not even God gets full compliance.
+ Beinart then identifies Hamas as the party that has “abdicated its moral responsibility” in this regard by taking civilian hostages and then (allegedly) killing them. Both acts are war crimes.
The moral dilemma is created by the two-sided nature of the situation presented above: (1) on the one hand, the fact that laws forbidding war crimes are absolutes. That is, they are not the sort open to compromise or attenuated by circumstance. (2) On the other hand, historically, no one (except perhaps saints) has ever consistently acted in such an absolute way when “brutally oppressed.” Positing an absolute is like positing an ideal. They are great standards to aim for, but in the long run, ideals don’t shape our behavior as much as do circumstances. In the present case, we are caught between a morally powerful ideal not to commit war crimes and “brutal oppression” that itself involves war crimes. What then are the Palestinians to do?
Right & Wrong
It is not that Beinart is wrong in terms of morality. The definitions of war crimes he cites are accurate and their criminal nature is beyond doubt. However, he misjudges what is actually possible when he demands, or expects, that people who are suffering “brutal oppression” follow such imposed rules. Historically, there is no precedent for such voluntary surrender of the use of violence (violence that approximates the kind used by the oppressor) in the process of resistance—except in particular cases where the victims have been rendered totally defenseless. For instance, isolated groups of slaves, concentration camp inmates, ill-treated prisoners in well-guarded confined spaces. But large numbers of “brutally oppressed” people are hard to monitor effectively. And, as suggested above, even if they recognize the depraved nature of crimes against humanity, they are not generally going to refrain from using such criminal tactics if the same are being used consistently against them. Put another way, if given the chance, the violence of the oppressed will rise to the level of the violence of the oppressor. Historically, this is just how things go.
The positing of an absolute ideal of moral behavior leads to a position where the oppressor and the oppressed must be judged as equals. The slaver and the slave, the concentration guard and the inmate are not to be judged by the power differential that defines their circumstances, but by an absolute code of conduct. That is what Peter Beinart’s “Period” implies. The slaver and the guard might toss all moral codes to the wind and savagely oppress away, but in theory the victim remains bound, not only to his bondage but to the moral restrictions that hem in his or her allowed reactions. Now, what once sounded reasonable, sounds unreasonable.
Nonetheless (and here is the dilemma again), it remains true that good ends (say the realization of Palestinian rights under an egalitarian and democratic government) should not be seen as justifying bad means (the use of terror tactics in the process of resistance) because, as Aldous Huxley once observed, “Good ends … can be achieved only by the employment of appropriate means. The end cannot justify the means, for the simple and obvious reason that the means employed determine the nature of the ends produced.” Thus, even if the Palestinians somehow escape the clutches of the Israelis, it is doubtless the case that a century of ruthless struggle to resist their oppressors will have changed them (and not necessarily for the better) both as individuals and as a national collective.
Conclusion
Peter Beinart is a well meaning and intelligent man. He knows the Israelis are in the wrong. He knows that their errant ways are not the product of one corrupt prime minister, but go deeper. Yet, he does not know, in practical terms, how to reconcile this knowledge with his moral principles—and here he is certainly not alone.
When good people are faced with this sort of situation, they tend to fall back on their personal ethical standards, the ones that supposedly maintain their own propriety, and they project them out onto the world as a whole. The problem with this is that such folks almost always live in an environment that allows them to practice a modicum of morality, while the environment shaping their area of concern (in this case the area in which the Palestinian resistance operates) allows no such luxury.*
In the end being morally correct is not enough. In the year 1520, Martin Luther told the German peasants that their only option to “brutal oppression” was “passive resistance.” That was not, and is still not, a convincing, let alone effective argument. It has been replayed multiple times throughout history and it has never worked. Now Peter Beinart asserts a morally correct imperative and says that’s it. “Period.”
It is unreasonable to insist on obedience to the law when the authorities themselves rank among the worst criminals. At that point the absolute ideal is rendered null and void. We do this to ourselves, usually in the name of “national security” or some such rallying cry. The resulting moral dilemma would seem to be unsolvable. In the meantime, it is the Palestinians who must be defended.
*Sometimes there are exceptions. It should be noted that while the Israelis consistently destroy hospitals, shoot up ambulances and torture Palestinian doctors, the Palestinian resistance has, at least in this to date, refrained from using the same tactics. They have not attacked the medivac helicopters or ambulances called in to evacuate wounded Israeli soldiers.
Lawrence Davidson is a retired professor of history at West Chester University in West Chester, PA.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[55595] [55610] [55576] [55577] [55586] [55590] [55598] [55583] [55585] [55596] [55581] [55584] [55587] [55588] [55589] [55591] [55592] [55594] [55579] [55582] |
|
55595 |
|
|
Date: September 19, 2024 at 04:26:22
From: akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Historical Precedents for US Support of Mass Murder & Ethnic Cleansing |
URL: https://www.counterpunch.org/author/lawrence-davidson/ |
|
another piece by Lawrence Davidson
Historical Precedents for U.S. Support of Mass Murder and Ethnic Cleansing
President Joe Biden appears exceptional when it comes to the degree of
personal loyalty he gives to an ethically questionable ideal (the Zionist ideal of a
Jewish state), despite its inhumane consequences (the disregard for
Palestinian lives). We might assume the possibility that, now confronted with an
Israeli policy of mass murder in the Gaza Strip, Mr. Biden would start feeling
conflicted—that is begin experiencing cognitive dissonance over the arming of
a nation “plausibly” involved in the commission of genocide. Cognitive
dissonance is, “the discomfort a person feels when their behavior [say,
supplying offensive weapons used for mass murder] does not align with one’s
[assumed] values or beliefs [mass murder is never a good thing].” Keep in mind
that, eventually, this discomfort can be circumvented as one embraces one side
of the contradiction and rationalizes away the other. This might be the case
with Joe Biden as he persists in perceiving Israeli actions as “defensive.”
This is all very awkward for President Biden and has a potentially big political
cost. So he has to wear his alleged discomfort on his sleeve, so to speak. Thus,
there are numerous reports of how frustrated, even angry, he is with Israeli
Prime Minister Netanyahu. Jack Mirkinson, writing in The Nation, lists over a
dozen reports telling us that the relationship between Biden and Netanyahu is
tense, fraught, critical, strained, frustrating, etc. Mirkinson’s assessment is that
Biden must be reaching the outer limits as to how ticked off, out of patience,
and tense a person can be without combusting. But anyone who has paid even
a modest amount of attention to what is really happening can see right through
this stuff….In the real world, Biden and his legislative partners have continued to
arm Israel … . In the real world, Biden has blocked efforts for a permanent
cease-fire at the United Nations and refuses to put any public pressure on
Israel to help implement one.”
Here is a sample scenario: On 9 February 2024, “Joe Biden acknowledged the
widespread humanitarian catastrophe caused by Israel’s war on the besieged
Gaza Strip, saying ‘it’s gotta stop.’” Then on 11 February, Biden told Netanyahu
that “urgent and specific” steps should be taken on “humanitarian aid.”
Netanyahu seems to have ignored both of these requests. On 20 February,
Biden’s response was to instruct his ambassador at the United Nations to veto
a Security Council resolution for a permanent cease-fire.
Who takes Biden’s regrets about the carnage in Gaza seriously? Not
Netanyahu, not the Arab and Muslim American voters coast to coast, not
Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur for Palestinians. On 19
February, she put the contradiction succinctly, “How can US gov’s concern for
the safety of Palestinians in Gaza be taken seriously when the same gov
concomitantly plans to send more weapons to ISR [Israel] and block the
demand for ceasefire at the Security Council?” The answer is that fewer and
fewer Americans—among those paying attention to this issue—can take Biden’
commiserations with the Palestinians seriously, and probably more and more of
them are becoming embarrassed and/or very angry about apparently
disingenuous hand-wringing over Israel’s murderous behavior.
Biden’s behavior is reprehensible. However, is it exceptional in the behavior of
American presidents? Actually, it is not. And what about the effort to somehow
rationalize away cognitive dissonance? Biden is certainly not unique in this
either. Engaging in reprehensible behavior which contradicts stated U.S.
principles has happened before in American history.
Some Historical Examples
Let’s take a look at some of Biden’s predecessors taking ethically problematic
actions.
Andrew Jackson and the Indian Removal Act of 1830
Jackson, the 7th president of the U.S., saw native Americans as aborigines who
could not be assimilated into white society, and were therefore a roadblock to
“progress.” In the late 1820s he, along with many of the southern U.S. states,
particularly Georgia, hatched a scheme to ethnically cleanse land east of the
Mississippi River of all “savage tribes.” As a result, some 60,000 Native
Americans were forcibly moved west by the U.S. Army. Many were allowed to
die from hardship along the way.
Jackson believed his policy was necessary for the U.S. to “progress.” It did not
matter that some of the Indian tribes like the Cherokee had largely adopted
white American culture and law. Blinding himself by assuming extreme
alternatives, he proclaimed, “What good man would prefer a country covered
with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive Republic,
studded with cities, towns, and prosperous farms … occupied by more than
12,000,000 happy people … ?”
Woodrow Wilson and the resegregation of the U.S. government (1913)
Woodrow Wilson was by culture an antebellum southerner. He was born in
Virginia and raised in Georgia. He was taught to view African Americans as
inferior. Thus, upon taking office in 1913, one of the first things he did was to re-
segregate the government bureaucracy and the military. Oswald Garrison
Villard, a white journalist and civil rights activist at the time, remarked on
Wilson’s racism and reactionary policies. He said that Wilson had a “distinct
hostility to the colored people,” and that “to the colored workers all this
segregating has been more brutal than a slap in the face. It is as if the great
Government of the United States had gone out of its way to stamp them
publicly as lepers, as physically and morally contagious and unfit for
association with white people.”
Essentially, based on his personal prejudices, Wilson (whose racism reminds
one of Andrew Jackson) was willing to turn back the clock for an entire country
that was fitfully moving away from its segregationist history. All the while
presenting himself as a promoter of political and economic freedom.
Lyndon Johnson and the abandonment of the U.S. naval ship Liberty (1967)
During the Six Day War of June 1967, Israel knowingly attacked a U.S. naval
reconnaissance ship in international waters off the coast of the Gaza Strip. The
attack killed 34 U.S. sailors and wounded 173 others. The probable cause for
the attack was an ill-conceived scheme to draw the U.S. into the war on Israel’s
side (see Joan Mellen, Blood in the Water).
In a true precedent to Joe Biden’s misplaced faith in the U.S.-Israeli
relationship, the reaction of President Lyndon B. Johnson to being told of the
attack was to conclude that “his chief responsibility was to protect Israel from
harm and criticism.” Therefore, he recalled U.S. fighter aircraft that had been
sent to defend the Liberty.
Did Johnson ever have second thoughts about this decision? Any cognitive
dissonance? If so, there is no evidence of it. Thus, “after the assault, Johnson …
took immediate steps to protect Israel from any public protest that might arise.
He quickly accepted Israel’s excuse of mistaken identity, which his
administration knew to be false. He ordered an immediate Navy Court of Inquiry
but instructed the chairman, Admiral Isaac Kidd, to absolve Israel of guilt. …The
president also ordered Kidd to keep survivors from talking about their ordeal …
by threatening the sailors with court martial and imprisonment if they said
anything publicly.”
Like Biden, Lyndon Johnson had been educated by family and his Christian
faith to see Israel as a God-blessed country. Also, like Biden, he had been
tutored to have a pro-Zionist outlook during the early years of his political
career. Finally, Johnson was born and raised as a Texan, and identified Israelis
with an alleged rugged Texas character. He was a confirmed Zionist until the
day he died.
George W. Bush and invasion/occupation of Iraq (2003 – 2011)
Like President Johnson before him and Joe Biden after, President George W.
Bush was raised to see the world in a culturally, religiously, and politically
specific way. For instance, he would have us believe that “God told me to end
the tyranny in Iraq,” This turned out to be the perfect fallback position once it
became clear that all of his other claims, such as Iraq’s possession of nuclear
weapons, support for Al-Qaida, and the country’s alleged involvement in the
9/11 attacks were false.
Despite massive domestic opposition to the invasion, Bush pushed ahead with
his war plans. In his own mind, he appeared to counterbalance popular
opposition and lack of direct evidence for his accusations with the so-called
intelligence being passed to the administration by Iraqi ex-patriots. These
exiles were so determined to bring down Saddam Hussein that they found it
acceptable to mislead the U.S. government. Bush in turn was so determined to
transform Iraq into an American outpost in the Middle East that he chose to
credit the word of the Iraqi expats over his own internal, institutional sources of
intelligence. Ultimately, Bush would blame the invasion and failed occupation,
which killed up to a million Iraqis, on “faulty intelligence.”
The list offered here is certainly not exhaustive. In modern times, one could
have included Reagan and the brutality of the Contras; Nixon/Kissinger and the
military massacres in Chile; and Ford/Kissinger and the massacres in East
Timor, and more.
The Superior and the Inferior
The amount of cognitive dissidence experienced by these presidents cannot be
known for sure. However, it may well have been little to none. All of them were
products of an American society that was/is culturally biased enough to believe
that some groups are superior to others whose futures were of little account.
Jackson saw native Americans as inferior and seems to have been unmoved by
the hardships of their mass deportation; Wilson saw African Americans as
inferior, a status he also ascribed to the Germans when compared to the British;
Johnson believed the Israelis were a special people very much like Texans (and
thus superior), to be admired and supported; Bush believed U.S. political
culture was far superior and the political culture of the Arabs and Iraq
dangerously inferior. Thus, the latter had to be forced, by conquest, to adopt the
political ways of the former.
In each of the above cases, it was the interests of the supposed superior
groups that defined these leaders’ decisions and policies. The situation
appears to be no different when it comes to President Joe Biden. His worldview
(much like that of Lyndon Johnson) ascribes special, superior status to the
Israelis. In comparison, the needs and interests of the Palestinians are inferior.
Indeed, violent resistance to Israeli oppression becomes, in Biden’s view, “pure
evil.” He has noted Israel’s “over the top” tactics only late into their invasion of
Gaza (an observation that can be made for the West generally) and probably
dismisses what the ICJ designates as “plausible genocide” as a reasonable
consequence of Israeli domestic anger over the October 7 Hamas attack.
Having such an overriding perspective may well hold at bay cognitive
dissonance. In other words, Joe Biden’s worldview, which makes him complicit
with acts of racially-generated barbarity, is not unique.
Conclusion
It might be noted that the worldviews of the first three presidents cited above
were ones not contradicted by international laws. The consequence of
repeated breakdown and horror in international relations led to the signing of
post-World War II treaties and international rules that subsequently apply to the
behavior of the United States and Israel. Ironically, Israel has never taken these
laws seriously because they get in the way with their ethnocentric political and
territorial goals. In this they have acted as a barrier to an international world
trying to govern itself by the rule of law (see my essay “How We Got To An Era
of De-Civilization”). In this the United States has long sided with the
reactionaries.
That might become harder for the U.S. to do in the Israeli case in a post-
Biden/Trump era. Enough American voters may be finding the carnage in Gaza
so unacceptable of an ally that American administrations will find it too
politically costly to support Israel’s continued ethnic cleansing. But then
memories will start to fade (unless the Israelis repeatedly reinforce them) and
the special interest money offered by American Zionists will continue to be
spread about like bait. Fading memories of horrors and the rich bribes of
special interests are one of the best combinations to induce policymakers into
making bad mistakes over and over again—especially when not-white-enough
people are the ones denied their human rights. Surely, American politicians will
eventually be tempted to take that bait once more.
Lawrence Davidson is a retired professor of history at West Chester University
in West Chester, PA.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[55610] |
|
55610 |
|
|
Date: September 19, 2024 at 09:33:47
From: chaskuchar@stcharlesmo, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Historical Precedents for US Support of Mass Murder & Ethnic... |
|
|
i just emphasize Johnsons' view of israel and the
liberty.
Lyndon Johnson and the abandonment of the U.S. naval
ship Liberty (1967)
During the Six Day War of June 1967, Israel knowingly
attacked a U.S. naval
reconnaissance ship in international waters off the
coast of the Gaza Strip. The
attack killed 34 U.S. sailors and wounded 173 others.
The probable cause for
the attack was an ill-conceived scheme to draw the U.S.
into the war on Israel’s
side (see Joan Mellen, Blood in the Water).
In a true precedent to Joe Biden’s misplaced faith in
the U.S.-Israeli
relationship, the reaction of President Lyndon B.
Johnson to being told of the
attack was to conclude that “his chief responsibility
was to protect Israel from
harm and criticism.” Therefore, he recalled U.S.
fighter aircraft that had been
sent to defend the Liberty.
Did Johnson ever have second thoughts about this
decision? Any cognitive
dissonance? If so, there is no evidence of it. Thus,
“after the assault, Johnson …
took immediate steps to protect Israel from any public
protest that might arise.
He quickly accepted Israel’s excuse of mistaken
identity, which his
administration knew to be false. He ordered an
immediate Navy Court of Inquiry
but instructed the chairman, Admiral Isaac Kidd, to
absolve Israel of guilt. …The
president also ordered Kidd to keep survivors from
talking about their ordeal …
by threatening the sailors with court martial and
imprisonment if they said
anything publicly.”
Like Biden, Lyndon Johnson had been educated by family
and his Christian
faith to see Israel as a God-blessed country. Also,
like Biden, he had been
tutored to have a pro-Zionist outlook during the early
years of his political
career. Finally, Johnson was born and raised as a
Texan, and identified Israelis
with an alleged rugged Texas character. He was a
confirmed Zionist until the
day he died.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
55576 |
|
|
Date: September 18, 2024 at 12:35:51
From: old timer, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Palestine-Israel and A Moral Dilemma Concerning War Crimes |
|
|
interesting article that basically states israel is in the wrong and makes
the case that due to the israeli oppression in gaza it might mean hamas
didn’t commit war crimes in their attacks. not sure i agree, 2 wrongs don’t
make a right
i do think this sentence sheds light on the ethical standards of some
posters here
“When good people are faced with this sort of situation, they tend to fall
back on their personal ethical standards”
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[55577] [55586] [55590] [55598] [55583] [55585] [55596] [55581] [55584] [55587] [55588] [55589] [55591] [55592] [55594] [55579] [55582] |
|
55577 |
|
|
Date: September 18, 2024 at 12:48:02
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Palestine-Israel and A Moral Dilemma Concerning War Crimes |
|
|
as always, you spin it from your own bias...and then use it to attack other posters here...i think a better take away is:
"...there exists moral absolutes that all sides are failing to adhere to and thus, all sides are equally guilty."
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[55586] [55590] [55598] [55583] [55585] [55596] [55581] [55584] [55587] [55588] [55589] [55591] [55592] [55594] [55579] [55582] |
|
55586 |
|
|
Date: September 18, 2024 at 15:43:51
From: akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: did you read the last 2 paragraphs? |
|
|
seems the author doesn't see "all sides as equally guilty" at all.
"It is unreasonable to insist on obedience to the law when the authorities
themselves rank among the worst criminals. At that point the absolute ideal is
rendered null and void. We do this to ourselves, usually in the name of “national
security” or some such rallying cry. The resulting moral dilemma would seem to
be unsolvable. In the meantime, it is the Palestinians who must be defended.
*Sometimes there are exceptions. It should be noted that while the Israelis
consistently destroy hospitals, shoot up ambulances and torture Palestinian
doctors, the Palestinian resistance has, at least in this to date, refrained from
using the same tactics. They have not attacked the medivac helicopters or
ambulances called in to evacuate wounded Israeli soldiers."
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[55590] [55598] |
|
55590 |
|
|
Date: September 18, 2024 at 19:22:40
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: did you read the last 2 paragraphs? |
|
|
|
then why did he say that? i don't find the two thoughts mutually exclusive...
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[55598] |
|
55598 |
|
|
Date: September 19, 2024 at 06:39:24
From: akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: did you read the last 2 paragraphs? |
|
|
if you don't find the two thoughts mutually exclusive, why'd you ask, "then why
did he say that?" :)
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
55583 |
|
|
Date: September 18, 2024 at 13:34:51
From: chaskuchar@stcharlesmo, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Palestine-Israel and A Moral Dilemma Concerning War Crimes |
|
|
one sidwe is israel. the other side would be hamas.
did you mean to put palestine on the one side? what
about the3 west bank. israel has been mistreating them
since 1967. i hope you would reconsideeer.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[55585] [55596] |
|
55585 |
|
|
Date: September 18, 2024 at 15:03:34
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Palestine-Israel and A Moral Dilemma Concerning War Crimes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[55596] |
|
55596 |
|
|
Date: September 19, 2024 at 05:44:58
From: chaskuchar@stcharlesmo, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Palestine-Israel and A Moral Dilemma Concerning War Crimes |
|
|
i guess that includes the usa. a primary contributor to
terrorism.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
55581 |
|
|
Date: September 18, 2024 at 13:17:33
From: old timer, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Palestine-Israel and A Moral Dilemma Concerning War Crimes |
|
|
we all see things through the lens of our own biases. and not attacking
anyone, just damned odd the way certain people don’t see the
moral/ethical wrong in israel’s indiscriminate killing of civilians
i do agree “...there exists moral absolutes that all sides are failing to
adhere to and thus, all sides are equally guilty." not sure if everyone here
agrees all sides are equally guilty though
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[55584] [55587] [55588] [55589] [55591] [55592] [55594] |
|
55584 |
|
|
Date: September 18, 2024 at 15:03:11
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Palestine-Israel and A Moral Dilemma Concerning War Crimes |
|
|
|
don't think that's any of your business really...
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[55587] [55588] [55589] [55591] [55592] [55594] |
|
55587 |
|
|
Date: September 18, 2024 at 16:20:58
From: old timer, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Palestine-Israel and A Moral Dilemma Concerning War Crimes |
|
|
on the contrary it helps explain one of the most outspoken people here
and why he just can’t seems to grasp the moral/ethical wrongness of
indiscriminately killing civilians
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[55588] [55589] [55591] [55592] [55594] |
|
55588 |
|
|
Date: September 18, 2024 at 18:21:53
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Palestine-Israel and A Moral Dilemma Concerning War Crimes |
|
|
|
none of your business really...
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[55589] [55591] [55592] [55594] |
|
55589 |
|
|
Date: September 18, 2024 at 18:46:11
From: old timer, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Palestine-Israel and A Moral Dilemma Concerning War Crimes |
|
|
sources are something that should always be considered and that person
is the source of a huge amount of the content here. as your article said
it is a moral dilemma and his views always lacked both logic and empathy
and now we have context as to why he can’t grasp this moral dilemma
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[55591] [55592] [55594] |
|
55591 |
|
|
Date: September 18, 2024 at 19:23:42
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Palestine-Israel and A Moral Dilemma Concerning War Crimes |
|
|
|
says you...rebut the positions, not the person...easy...
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[55592] [55594] |
|
55592 |
|
|
Date: September 18, 2024 at 23:44:00
From: old timer, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Palestine-Israel and A Moral Dilemma Concerning War Crimes |
|
|
|
is that sarcasm? or do you not see the irony of you saying that?
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[55594] |
|
55594 |
|
|
Date: September 19, 2024 at 04:20:34
From: akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Palestine-Israel and A Moral Dilemma Concerning War Crimes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
55579 |
|
|
Date: September 18, 2024 at 13:09:52
From: akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: that's bullshit |
|
|
" all sides are equally guilty."
It's lazy and profoundly dishonest.
Israel has created an existential crisis for the Palestinian people. This fact is
being exploited by various entities towards their own ends. Israel's
unwillingness to make peace with the Palestinian people by treating them as
equals, by giving them back their land, their autonomy & their sovereignty is the
primary reason for Israel is so insecure as a state. Remember, Netanyahu
intentionally nurtured Hamas specifically to prevent Palestinians from having its
own state.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[55582] |
|
55582 |
|
|
Date: September 18, 2024 at 13:28:30
From: old timer, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: that's bullshit |
|
|
i tend to agree with bopp and the author that there are moral absolutes
that all sides are failing to adhere to
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
[
International ] [ Main Menu ] |