Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Count Lucanor]

A common maneuver of sophistry among advocates of colonialism is to appeal to double standards, even at the expense of being too cynical. Once the blatant hypocrisy of the discourse on their supposedly “civilized and morally superior society” is called out, and they can’t no longer pontificate and boast about it, an easy resource at hand is the old “law of the jungle” argument. So they pound their chests and pretend that might makes right. That plays out conveniently until the law of the jungle comes to bite the colonialists themselves, and so the chest-pounding gorilla turns into a crying Bambi, calling foul play and invoking all the usual prejudices and resentments against the enemy: brutish, evil, subhuman, uncivilized monsters that behave as if we had returned to the times of barbarism and (hold your breath)…the law of the jungle. “What have they done to our precious ideals of civility? “, they say. “How dare those savages ignore our principles of equal rights? “Ignore our own savagery, our own brutality, the law of the jungle is right and justifiable for us, not for you”. All that cynicism to uphold the supposedly unquestionable superiority of the colonialists.

The issue is not whether the colonial powers were brutal or not in the past. They were, but so has been most of human history. The issue is not whether they set or not a NEW standard for society where human life is dignified, a set of norms we can ALL live by. They did. The issue is not whether we can hold or not those principles as a measure of social progress. We can. The issue is that once we have accepted those principles, turning our back on them entails becoming reactionary. The issue is that applying AT THE PRESENT TIME those principles only to the privileged members of a society, or to some nations, excluding others, or to ignore them for convenience of the powerful and rich, therefore appealing to double standards, becoming cynical and hypocritical, using those norms as a mere PR stunt, directly contradict the principles themselves and the ethical stance of those who pretend to abide by and promote those norms.

So, no, the long history of barbarism does not justify the CURRENT ethnic cleansing carried out by Israel, nor the illegal occupation, nothing the Zionists have done for the last 100 years. Also, no, the long history of rule by force and colonialism does not justify CURRENT rule by force and colonialism. And no, having conflicting sets of values with the victims of discrimination, genocide, colonialism, etc., does not give the perpetrators the green light to CURRENTLY execute those crimes without the consequences of being denounced and prosecuted. No postmodernism, no idealism, just plain old consistency.

[Sy Borg]

I note that you have no problem with or Arabic slavery or the ethnic cleansing of Jews in the rest of the Middle East. Why is that? Let me guess ... you, as a dedicated Marxist, naturally despise Israel and the rest of the west because they are The Oppressor.

I also note that you ignore the value of a more advanced society taking over a barbaric society like Palestine whose people are so cruel and violent that none of their neighbours will take any refugees. In your post-modern conception, all societies are equal. The crimes of Arabs are seemingly not your concern.

Israel is largely justified in what it's doing, even if it's harsh. You ignore that Hamas started the latest war and they continued it by choice, especially to gain international support from self-hating dupes in western media, many of whom are Marxists like yourself. Marxists love the "west is evil" narrative. Hamas could have stopped this a year ago. They should take full responsibility for the deaths and suffering but they take none.

These wars are part of a much larger process that precedes civilisation. The idea that powerful states should set new standards is ungrounded and overly idealistic. The strong will set standards as they see fit, as it's always been. That's the point of power. Of course, the standards that Israel set are vastly better than those of hate-filled Palestinians, who murder gay people and treat women like chattel.

[Count Lucanor]

More of the same: fully open advocacy of colonialism, prejudices against the victims of ethnic cleansing and genocide, double standards and full denial of the evident, widely acknowledged, barbaric criminal behavior of the state of Israel, with full praise and support of the Zionists carrying out the policies of extermination of innocent civilians and displacement of an indigenous population, all explicitly prohibited by the Geneva convention. Nothing that surprises me at all.

About all the false claims, lacking any reference or statement of mine, I will not lose my time. The long list of red herrings and whataboutisms don’t even deserve attention. This is a thread about Israel, started as a defense of its actions against the background of imperial conquests. I’m on topic, someone else is not, but I get that defending genocide and colonialism must be a hard task.

[Sy Borg]

You have zero objectivity. Your anti-Semitism is made very clear above. It's pure hatred. Your post ignored all philosophical aspects and focuses on your incandescent hatred. This thread, as it stands, is of no philosophical value - a vehicle for political hatred.

This forum is about PHILOSOPHY. It should not be used as a vehicle for hatred.

You call Jews "barbaric", something you'd never say about Rwandans, Sudanese, (black) South Africans or Congolese, all of whom are acting comparably to Israel, actually worse.

You ignore their barbaric behaviours and would probably call me racist if I said they were "barbaric". So I will say it - the barbarism and human rights violations in Africa dwarfs anything that Israel does.

You are not "on topic". Still, the thread is inherently biased and probably should not have been approved.