Look, in all honesty… both Palestinians and Israeli have failed at democracy: one side put Hamas into power (well, in Gaza) and the other side gave power to Netanyahu…
I couldn’t say which is worse between the two governments, nor I think debating it will get us anywhere; what I can say (with absolute certainty and no fear of being disproved) is that neither one reach the minimum level of decency human beings should expect from any government.
Let’s stop debating who is more wrong between Israel and Hamas: they are both unimaginably wrong.
Personally, I do blame both the Palestinian and Israeli people (not only their governments) for what is happening now, and for what has been happening for decades beforehand (of course this doesn’t mean that each and every Palestinian person is to blame, and the same is true on the Israeli side).
I even dare saying that I think neither people deserve to self-govern, since they have shown to be unable to do it responsibly.
I think you don’t get what “arrogance” means (not a fault: English is not my first language either and it just happens that the English concept of “arrogance” exists with the same nuances in my language - I guess it’s not the same for yours).
In layman’s terms, arrogance is when one dismisses another’s opinion not for its (de)merits, but because they believe their own is a priori the right one.
Ironically, that describes more closely your “the amount of arrogance dripping off of this comment omg” than me expressing a position 1) without refusing another’s, 2) explaining the reasoning behind it, and 3) explicitly stating that it is my opinion (“I think”) and not factual reality.
You’re assuming you get to say who deserves self governance.
I am in fact allowed to say who I think (you conveniently omitted this) deserves to self-govern… What do you mean I don’t get to say that? Why? Do you get to say what I can say and what I can’t?
Regardless, I’ll try to explain my reasoning further… hopefully this will bring this discussion back into productive lands.
It is normal that people can be stripped of their rights if they can’t use them responsibly (where I live this only applies to most rights, but in those backwards countries that still have the death penalty even the very right to be alive can be retracted).
Drive carelessly and your license gets taken away, show you are unstable and your gun+carry permit get taken away, kill and your freedom gets taken away, etc.
Specifically, for serious crimes (IIRC where I live it’s those with 5+ years of detention, but IANAL) people have their very right to vote taken away.
Now, self determination is not more fundamental a right than voting (in fact, in a democracy it’s the same thing, only for the populace at large instead of individuals)… why should that be inviolable?
Thanks for the long comment. It’s clear you’re engaging in good faith. I am not going to litigate colonialism, national sovereignty, and postcolonial thought with you here however. I apologize if this is disappointing to you, and again, thanks for engaging in good faith.
I’m not thinking of 17th century colonialism or anything like that, I’m just wondering if giving them (by force) a constitution and keeping them under control (by force) while they adapt would work (think, post-WWII West Germany or Japan).
Please note I am not saying that this would really solve the problems between Israel and Palestine or that it is in any way feasible… in fact, I didn’t even want to write down this thought, which is why I stopped at “they don’t deserve” without going further on (which in hindsight was probably not the smartest choice).
I don’t really see the point in ranking who is worse (I mean… what do you/mankind get once such a ranking is established?), but for the sake of argument: what criterion are you going by?
what do you/mankind get once such a ranking is established
From principles potentially comes a clarity of opinion.
what criterion are you going by?
There are plenty of ways in which Israel is bad and if you look at any of those, Hamas is worse. But the overall bottom line difference is visible when we look at what would be the ideal end game for both of these entities: Israel wants to live in peace. Hamas (and many others in that area) wants to destroy Israel, and the liberal west in general too.
That they are unable to do so doesn’t remove the fact that they would very much want to. Global Jihad is not a conspiracy theory.
Look, in all honesty… both Palestinians and Israeli have failed at democracy: one side put Hamas into power (well, in Gaza) and the other side gave power to Netanyahu…
I couldn’t say which is worse between the two governments, nor I think debating it will get us anywhere; what I can say (with absolute certainty and no fear of being disproved) is that neither one reach the minimum level of decency human beings should expect from any government.
Let’s stop debating who is more wrong between Israel and Hamas: they are both unimaginably wrong.
They didn’t say “Hamas” , they said “Palestinians”, i.e. the ethnic group.
Just for exposition, let’s flip it round and see how disgusting it is:
Personally, I do blame both the Palestinian and Israeli people (not only their governments) for what is happening now, and for what has been happening for decades beforehand (of course this doesn’t mean that each and every Palestinian person is to blame, and the same is true on the Israeli side).
I even dare saying that I think neither people deserve to self-govern, since they have shown to be unable to do it responsibly.
The amount of arrogance dripping off of this comment omg.
Can you elaborate?
You’re assuming you get to say who deserves self governance.
That’s a presumptuous claim manifesting an attitude of superiority in quite an overbearing manner.
I think you don’t get what “arrogance” means (not a fault: English is not my first language either and it just happens that the English concept of “arrogance” exists with the same nuances in my language - I guess it’s not the same for yours).
In layman’s terms, arrogance is when one dismisses another’s opinion not for its (de)merits, but because they believe their own is a priori the right one.
Ironically, that describes more closely your “the amount of arrogance dripping off of this comment omg” than me expressing a position 1) without refusing another’s, 2) explaining the reasoning behind it, and 3) explicitly stating that it is my opinion (“I think”) and not factual reality.
I am in fact allowed to say who I think (you conveniently omitted this) deserves to self-govern… What do you mean I don’t get to say that? Why? Do you get to say what I can say and what I can’t?
Regardless, I’ll try to explain my reasoning further… hopefully this will bring this discussion back into productive lands.
It is normal that people can be stripped of their rights if they can’t use them responsibly (where I live this only applies to most rights, but in those backwards countries that still have the death penalty even the very right to be alive can be retracted).
Drive carelessly and your license gets taken away, show you are unstable and your gun+carry permit get taken away, kill and your freedom gets taken away, etc.
Specifically, for serious crimes (IIRC where I live it’s those with 5+ years of detention, but IANAL) people have their very right to vote taken away.
Now, self determination is not more fundamental a right than voting (in fact, in a democracy it’s the same thing, only for the populace at large instead of individuals)… why should that be inviolable?
Thanks for the long comment. It’s clear you’re engaging in good faith. I am not going to litigate colonialism, national sovereignty, and postcolonial thought with you here however. I apologize if this is disappointing to you, and again, thanks for engaging in good faith.
I’m not thinking of 17th century colonialism or anything like that, I’m just wondering if giving them (by force) a constitution and keeping them under control (by force) while they adapt would work (think, post-WWII West Germany or Japan).
Please note I am not saying that this would really solve the problems between Israel and Palestine or that it is in any way feasible… in fact, I didn’t even want to write down this thought, which is why I stopped at “they don’t deserve” without going further on (which in hindsight was probably not the smartest choice).
Hamas. Hamas is worse, but then again it’s barely a government. Which is one of the many reasons why palestine is not a country.
I don’t really see the point in ranking who is worse (I mean… what do you/mankind get once such a ranking is established?), but for the sake of argument: what criterion are you going by?
From principles potentially comes a clarity of opinion.
There are plenty of ways in which Israel is bad and if you look at any of those, Hamas is worse. But the overall bottom line difference is visible when we look at what would be the ideal end game for both of these entities: Israel wants to live in peace. Hamas (and many others in that area) wants to destroy Israel, and the liberal west in general too.
That they are unable to do so doesn’t remove the fact that they would very much want to. Global Jihad is not a conspiracy theory.
Israel wants to live in peace? What the actual fuck are you talking about. It is an apartheid regime committing genocide.