My move? It’s not a chess game, and since I fundamentally disagree with a number of premises behind your long post, I will not engage with you. Also, your first sentence says all too much about your worldview. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at the notion that the neo-fascists who make up Netanyahu’s egregious coalition apply “unive…
My move? It’s not a chess game, and since I fundamentally disagree with a number of premises behind your long post, I will not engage with you. Also, your first sentence says all too much about your worldview. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at the notion that the neo-fascists who make up Netanyahu’s egregious coalition apply “universal human rights laws consistently.” If you have any liberal friends in Israel, ask them what they think of that statement. I will not reply to you after this.
It's just an expression, and since you cannot even be bothered to take this seriously enough to explain one single " fundamental disagreement with a number of premises behind your long post" you're not even arguing in good faith! That's likely because you CANNOT explain why the Hamas terrorists (or any other group anywhere, at any time, for any purpose - none of this has anything to do with Hamas, Israel, Netanyahu, Neo-Fascism per se, whether on the part of Hamas, which would be much too charitable a description, and I AGREE THAT NETANYAHU IS HORRENDOUS, BACKWARDS, A TERRIBLE LEADER, but so what?
This is all about different conceptions of UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS, not personalities! AT NO JUNCTURE in this did it ever become my duty to agree with what policies Netanyahu follows, and if you go back and read what I wrote more closely you will see why - moreover I have been thinking and researching this and connected topics since the early 1970s at Macalester, and especially since my Theories of Justice course and work in graduate school at the U. of Minnesota -Twin Cities, and then in law school, have my own views based on those readings and reflections, and am also familiar with the general position you are taking BECAUSE I USED TO BELIEVE IT WAS CORRECT!
"Also, your first sentence says all too much about your worldview."
??????? You cannot be seriously arguing from that kind of egregiously smug and condescending position, can you? Because we deeply disagree about allowing terrorists to be granted carte blanche immunity from as direct a retaliation as possible - maybe it should be emphasized that it would require taking all steps to AVOID killing civilians, thus it might well involve a lengthy campaign of gathering intelligence to insert commandos who would speak fluent Arabic and be able to bluff out a very short-term mission as Gazans, ok, it will be difficult to say the least, but I didn't commit myself to any "mass area bombings," that may be your assumption but that's all it is - it's supposed to ME who is the "bad guy" here?
No, we just sincerely disagree, but it would reflect better on you if you respected someone who disagreed with you, without implying they are so gullible they trust Netanyahu, or are some kind of "crypto-fascist" because they want to be able to retaliate legally and as carefully as possible (after those massive leaflet drops, after soliciting Hamas to release the kidnap victims and unilaterally surrender since they are the genocidal aggressors IN THIS INSTANCE, after exploring all other reasonable means of military engagement that could possibly help kill Hamas leadership, arrest them for war crimes trials if possible, etc.)
So there you have it: you need to either defend your wildly implausible claims or admit you can't consistently apply them - without leading to something bordering on complete surrender by legal authorities all over the planet, to whichever gang or cult or terrorist group or narco-state or drug cartel or ad hoc rebel group, as in my THUGB hypothetical, seizes hostages amongst a civilian population and starts murdering people from behind their human shields.
It's OBVIOUSLY not a "game," except in the sense that all reasoned debates allow disagreeing parties to take turns, and so on. I am playing fair and will defend my views, you seem to want to engage more in smear tactics and unilateral declarations of "moral superiority," so that ends it.
I will be sure to occasionally feature exactly this kind of discussion / debate, on exactly this kind of highly controversial topic on my Substack column - forthcoming, so thanks for at least providing useful data points for further analysis, Kathryn, and we can both cordially ignore each other henceforth, right?
My move? It’s not a chess game, and since I fundamentally disagree with a number of premises behind your long post, I will not engage with you. Also, your first sentence says all too much about your worldview. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at the notion that the neo-fascists who make up Netanyahu’s egregious coalition apply “universal human rights laws consistently.” If you have any liberal friends in Israel, ask them what they think of that statement. I will not reply to you after this.
It's just an expression, and since you cannot even be bothered to take this seriously enough to explain one single " fundamental disagreement with a number of premises behind your long post" you're not even arguing in good faith! That's likely because you CANNOT explain why the Hamas terrorists (or any other group anywhere, at any time, for any purpose - none of this has anything to do with Hamas, Israel, Netanyahu, Neo-Fascism per se, whether on the part of Hamas, which would be much too charitable a description, and I AGREE THAT NETANYAHU IS HORRENDOUS, BACKWARDS, A TERRIBLE LEADER, but so what?
This is all about different conceptions of UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS, not personalities! AT NO JUNCTURE in this did it ever become my duty to agree with what policies Netanyahu follows, and if you go back and read what I wrote more closely you will see why - moreover I have been thinking and researching this and connected topics since the early 1970s at Macalester, and especially since my Theories of Justice course and work in graduate school at the U. of Minnesota -Twin Cities, and then in law school, have my own views based on those readings and reflections, and am also familiar with the general position you are taking BECAUSE I USED TO BELIEVE IT WAS CORRECT!
"Also, your first sentence says all too much about your worldview."
??????? You cannot be seriously arguing from that kind of egregiously smug and condescending position, can you? Because we deeply disagree about allowing terrorists to be granted carte blanche immunity from as direct a retaliation as possible - maybe it should be emphasized that it would require taking all steps to AVOID killing civilians, thus it might well involve a lengthy campaign of gathering intelligence to insert commandos who would speak fluent Arabic and be able to bluff out a very short-term mission as Gazans, ok, it will be difficult to say the least, but I didn't commit myself to any "mass area bombings," that may be your assumption but that's all it is - it's supposed to ME who is the "bad guy" here?
No, we just sincerely disagree, but it would reflect better on you if you respected someone who disagreed with you, without implying they are so gullible they trust Netanyahu, or are some kind of "crypto-fascist" because they want to be able to retaliate legally and as carefully as possible (after those massive leaflet drops, after soliciting Hamas to release the kidnap victims and unilaterally surrender since they are the genocidal aggressors IN THIS INSTANCE, after exploring all other reasonable means of military engagement that could possibly help kill Hamas leadership, arrest them for war crimes trials if possible, etc.)
So there you have it: you need to either defend your wildly implausible claims or admit you can't consistently apply them - without leading to something bordering on complete surrender by legal authorities all over the planet, to whichever gang or cult or terrorist group or narco-state or drug cartel or ad hoc rebel group, as in my THUGB hypothetical, seizes hostages amongst a civilian population and starts murdering people from behind their human shields.
It's OBVIOUSLY not a "game," except in the sense that all reasoned debates allow disagreeing parties to take turns, and so on. I am playing fair and will defend my views, you seem to want to engage more in smear tactics and unilateral declarations of "moral superiority," so that ends it.
I will be sure to occasionally feature exactly this kind of discussion / debate, on exactly this kind of highly controversial topic on my Substack column - forthcoming, so thanks for at least providing useful data points for further analysis, Kathryn, and we can both cordially ignore each other henceforth, right?
Shoshana Bryen on closely connected issues:
https://www.sdjewishworld.com/2009/12/28/security-for-israel-by-israel/
Less snark, please.
hahaha