So it would be ethical for the Palestinians to nuke Israel?
The Ethical Warrior
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
So it would be ethical for the Palestinians to nuke Israel?
This is a silly argument. Political methods, rather than military ones, would be more effective if one considers Arab rule to be a threat, not just to your political organization, but your lives. In fact, there are political rules in place that would prevent Arabs gaining significant power, even if they became the majority.
But none to prevent Jews from "gaining significant power"? Is that ethical?
No, because Israel is not engaged in regular war with the Palestinian people, much less total war.
Correct. It is ethical if the purpose of your country was as a homeland for Jews. Have we stopped talking about military ethics?
No, I'm trying to figure out how power ethics are practised ethically. So it would be ethical for majority populations to have such laws in place as a matter of course? i.e. ensure legal measures that prevent minorities from gaining significant power?
An ongoing occupation and a determination of a "Jewish" homeland on Palestinian lands created and sustained by military force that prevents repatriation of non-Jewish refugees is not total war?
If the situation were reversed, would it be war? If the Palestinians declared a non-Jew state where Jews were not allowed to stay except as a minority, would it be war?
Last edited:
SAM, total war is where the entire population (or close to it) of a country is actively engaged in the war effort. The war can only ended by the utter destruction or (presumably unconditional) surrender of one party.
The closest thing to total war in recent history is probably world war 2.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is absolutely not total war.
The closest thing to total war in recent history is probably world war 2.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is absolutely not total war.
I think you'll find that Palestinians who are blockaded 24 hours a day and cannot enter or leave their own country without permission and cannot go to parts of their lands or return home because they are not Jews, would disagree with you.
Which is probably why they consider it ethical to kill Jews who have taken over their land. Ethics is very subjective, after all.
According to you the ethical thing they could do is run away. But perhaps they think the ethical thing Jews could do is allow them to come home, rather than bring in random Russians, Europeans, Africans, Asians and Americans who are Jews.
Would it be ethical for non-Jewish countries to insist that Jews who are native to their lands are not permitted to come to their country?
Last edited:
That has nothing to do with the matter at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_War
50% of Palestinians are refugees not permitted to come home. The other 50% lives under occupation. Thats total war.
Israel uses all its resources to ensure this remains the status quo [in fact, it wants to ensure even less Palestinians living in Palestine by making life so difficult they will go away].
They have locked them in behind wall, control entry/exit, control food, water, fuel, use weaponry against unarmed civilians, steal land and resources, deny identity and history, wipe out villages and replace them, removing any signs of previous occupancy, deny them repatriation, use snipers against children, block access to self defence measures, bomb indiscriminately, replace indigenous populations by demolishing homes and replacing with Jews.
How is this not total war?
So, would it be ethical for all 100% Palestinians to move in to their lands? If Israel is not at "total war" with them?
Last edited:
It's not a law, it's built into the structure of their government, specifically the parlimentary system, common to many nations. It prevented Zipi from being Prime Minister, even though she won the popular vote.
No. Israel is on Israeli land by definition. The occupied territories exist because the Arabs tried to destroy Israel, and the nationhood of those territories has not been established. Of course, you consider all of Israel to be an occupation force, an opinion not shared by most of the world.
No, that already applies to most of the Middle East.
You don't allow people into your country that are trying to kill you. Do you think their resentment will pass once they get into Israel? Do the ethics of land ownership take precedence over the ethics of violence?
If Israel was engaged in total war against the Palestinians, the whole thing would be over in about a week or less. Militant Palestinians are killing Israeli civilians on purpose, so Israel's actions are theoretically ethical. Specific instances of violence may not be, depending on circumstances.
As usual, your hatred supercedes logic. It was much more ethical to keep Palestinians out than to have killed them in a brutal civil war.
Since more Palestinians are killed than Israelis, e.g. the recent massacre in Gaza and since one does not allow people into a country that want to kill you [or convert it into a Jewish/Jew-free state], what makes the actions of Palestinians unethical? Or even "militant"?
Exactly. Do they?
You seem to count only the number of deaths as important, rather than the circumstances and motivations which must be considered. Palestinians violence preceeded the attacks on militants hiding in Gaza, they even preceeded the formation of Israel. They killed Jews before they were fighting for land.
I do not believe that the ethics of personal land ownership take precedence over international politics. The Palestinian people as a whole have no ownership of land above personal ownership. I believe any Palestinian who personally owned land in what has become Israel should be re-imbursed a fair amount.
In a similar fashion, do Jews who lost both land and property have a right to commit terrorism against modern Germany? Not at all. It was war, and shit happens. Personal property is lost forever when the entities that granted ownership no longer exist.
I do not believe that the ethics of personal land ownership take precedence over international politics. The Palestinian people as a whole have no ownership of land above personal ownership. I believe any Palestinian who personally owned land in what has become Israel should be re-imbursed a fair amount.
In a similar fashion, do Jews who lost both land and property have a right to commit terrorism against modern Germany? Not at all. It was war, and shit happens. Personal property is lost forever when the entities that granted ownership no longer exist.
Don't take this the wrong way, but the US M84 conventional bomb, one of the largest of the commonly used dumb bombs for bombers, can create a crater 50 meters wide with a lethal shrapnel radius of 366 meters, and costs like 3,400 dollars Of course you can add Jdam and guided systems, but that only adds at the most several thousand more dollars.
There were Arab militia too. Arab massacres of Jews, Jewish massacres of Arabs. The whole affair was completely unethical.
Kiss my ass. If you want to talk about ethics, fine. If you just want to whine about the cowardly Palestinians fleeing from their own marauding armies and then crying about their loss, I don't care.
In 1907? Who?
Of course. Its not like Jews run away and cry about their loss. Ever. Certainly not for several thousand years. That would just be...ridiculous, innit?
Wait a minute, back up. Since when is it ethical to bomb countries? The only way fighting can be ethical is if it doesn't end in murder.
Hmm so you think bombing countries is unethical? And fighting that ends in murder is unethical? Which planet are you from?:bugeye:
Obviously not yours. Are you saying it is ethical to murder? What society deems killing as ethical? Your first post is so vague, that it is border line loaded question.
War is not ethical. Justice is an ethical ideal. It is just to make war to prevent a bigger war or stop a current war. Any other reasons for war are unjust, and therefore unethical. Indiscriminate bombing of a country is unethical. There must be a just reason to perform bombing.