Carnism as compared to Statism

[teo123]

Anyway, @brimstoneSalad, @EquALLity and @Jebus, do you agree with me that we should cut all the military support for Israell? It seems to me like a no-brainer that Israel is not a legitimate state.
The modern state of Israel got established by the UN in 1948, because they came to an insane idea that the solution to the Hitler's crimes was to declare a Jewish state... on the territory of Palestine. Why should the Palestinians be forced to pay for the Hitler's crimes with their land? Why not the Germans, if there even is a need for that? Because there was, according to some tradition, a giant Jewish temple somewhere in or near Jerusalem 1900 years before that. So, the state of Israel got established not because a significant amount of people on that territory wanted it to get established, it got established because the UN claimed (without holding any kind of a referendum, of course) the Holocaust survivors wanted it to get established. That's just yet another piece of evidence of how deatached from reality the UN can be.
Even if Israel is a legitimate state, it hardly follows we are actually helping by attacking the Middle East. In the 1970s, the Middle East mostly had functioning societies which respected civil rights, it's only since the US started its War on Terror that there has been that mess there.
Yet, the current president of Croatia, Kitarovic, strongly supports Israel for some reason. Which is also weird because Hezbollah fought on the Croatian side in the Battle of Sarajevo in 1995.
I mean, I get that some people think that Israel is some force fighting for human rights there. But the fact is that it isn't successful at that. And we don't see what would have happened if the UN hadn't established Israel in the first place. Maybe then there would have been a chance for the Jews to actually build their long-wanted temple in Jerusalem by now. Maybe the Anti-Semitism in the Arab world would have long been a thing of the past by now.

[brimstoneSalad]

Anyway, @brimstoneSalad, @EquALLity and @Jebus, do you agree with me that we should cut all the military support for Israell? It seems to me like a no-brainer that Israel is not a legitimate state.

No, any stable extant state should probably receive some form of support whether a thousand years old or a decade old, I don't believe in rights like that, BUT they should be severely sanctioned for their treatment of Palestinians.
The U.S. should also be severely sanctioned at the moment for the concentration camps it's operating, but it's kind of hard for that to have any meaning when it's one of the largest economies.
Sanctions only work in certain situations.

[teo123]

No, any stable extant state should probably receive some form of support whether a thousand years old or a decade old,

I didn't mean that it matters that it's a decade old, I think what matters is how it got established in the first place. Croatia got established because people who lived on the territory of modern-day Croatia wanted it to be established for centuries. United States got independent because the United Kingdom held a tyranny on its territory, and people wanted to get a government that will respect their needs.
Israel got established not because a significant percentage of people who lived on the territory of modern-day Israel wanted it to get established, but because the UN bureaucrats came up with an insane idea that the solution to the Hitler's crimes is to declare a Jewish state on the territory of Palestine.
That said, I also find the idea of providing military support for some country rather weird. Like, how do you know who are the good guys and who are the bad guys? Is a solution to street fights providing support to those who we think are the good guys? Well, if we try to do that, we will be wrong quite a lot of times.

BUT they should be severely sanctioned for their treatment of Palestinians.

First of all, it's the UN that basically forced them to be in a long-term war against Palestine. If you declare a large state on the territory of some country, where most of the people don't want independence from that country, a long-lasting war is bound to happen. Even when you do have a large percentage of people who want independence, a war can still happen, but Israel is even worse. Slovenia managed to peacefully leave Yugoslavia, but Montenegro, Croatia and Bosnia didn't. We can speculate about the reasons. What played a major role is probably the fact that Serbians, Croatians, Bosnians and Montenegrians all speak one language, and there is always feeling that people who speak the same language are somehow a single nation. Also, in Croatia, a significant portion of the population wanted to remain in Yugoslavia because they were afraid that Tudman was the next Pavelic, that we will get another fascist government if we leave Yugoslavia. That's why Raznatovic and Milosevic had some support among Croatians, which certainly contributed to there being a war. Pavelic also ruled, in the 1940s, a significant part of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which certainly made a significant part of the population afraid of leaving Yugoslavia. Yet, the situation in the Palestine in 1948 was even worse, in that almost nobody there wanted Israel to be established.
Second, what kind of sanctions do you think Israel should receive? Do you mean economic sanctions? When have those helped? They just make things worse, they make ordinary people poorer and more willing to accept a tyrrant to rule them. The economic sanctions have played a major role in Hitler coming to power, and they certainly make things in Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea and Iran a lot worse. What we should do is to make sure that Israelites who want that can safely and easily move to safer countries.

but it's kind of hard for that to have any meaning when it's one of the largest economies.

I agree. The US always manages to manipulate the media to make itself look like the good guys. Sure, the way immigrant children are kept in the US is not nearly as bad as it was in the Hitler's concentration camps, but it's not justifiable. I always find it ironic that Croatia is so often criticized for unfair treatment of national minorities, and yet the US is only rarely criticized for what the BIA does to Native Americans. It's much better to be a Serbian in Croatia than it is to be a Native American in US.

Sanctions only work in certain situations.

In what situations, according to you?

[brimstoneSalad]

It doesn't matter how it was founded, what matters is how it operates today and the consequences of destabilization.

That said, I also find the idea of providing military support for some country rather weird. Like, how do you know who are the good guys and who are the bad guys? Is a solution to street fights providing support to those who we think are the good guys? Well, if we try to do that, we will be wrong quite a lot of times.

I don't mean military support against internal forces, but outside/invading ones.

We should probably be supporting Palestine against invasion by Israel too.

In what situations, according to you?

Economic ones against industries in well developed countries where corporations have large political influence. Otherwise it's not so useful.
Israel is a rare case where it probably would be. A relatively free press also helps.

[teo123]

It doesn't matter how it was founded

It doesn't matter that countless Palestinians were forced by the (almost directly) UN to flee their homes, so that their insane idea of founding a Jewish state on the territory of Palestine could be realized?

We should probably be supporting Palestine against invasion by Israel too.

Giving the weapons to countries in war will make the war stop? What kind of twisted logic is that?
Maybe giving weapons to civilians, so that they can defend themselves against the repressive government, helps a little bit. But giving weapons to failed and repressive governments, that engage in wars, makes things worse, don't you agree?
Paene omnia bella horum temporum pugnae sunt, ut omnia bella cessent. Sed bella numquam bella inhibere succedent. Et tela solummodo raris temporibus veniunt ubi debentur, arma bonorum hominum saepe veniunt in malas manus.

Economic ones against industries in well developed countries where corporations have large political influence.

Is there any evidence that would hurt the government more than it would hurt the civilians?

[brimstoneSalad]

It doesn't matter how it was founded

It doesn't matter that countless Palestinians were forced by the (almost directly) UN to flee their homes, so that their insane idea of founding a Jewish state on the territory of Palestine could be realized?

It sucks obviously, but it's not material to the question. What's done is done, the question is whether a the consequences of letting a stable state fall or get taken over by aggressors is more good or bad.

Giving the weapons to countries in war will make the war stop? What kind of twisted logic is that?

When did I say anything about weapons?

Food, medical aid, defensive technology. Maybe sort range civilian-grade weapons for home defense from foreign troops who want to rape and loot.
Might not be a bad idea to establish no-fly zones. Doesn't mean giving them the weapons, it could be run by a small number of U.S. troops with a few surface to air missile bases.

Economic ones against industries in well developed countries where corporations have large political influence.

Is there any evidence that would hurt the government more than it would hurt the civilians?

It's not about hurting the government, it's about compelling the companies to steer the government in a different direction.
When corporations have control of a government, they act in their financial interests very reliably rather than pursuing ideology (for better or worse).

[teo123]

What's done is done

It's not really. Some of those Palestinians, who would like to return to their homes, homes taken over by the Israelites, are still alive today.

Food, medical aid, defensive technology. Maybe sort range civilian-grade weapons for home defense from foreign troops who want to rape and loot.

That's almost exactly what I am saying. I might have misread you. Of course, as with any kind of charity, it's good only if those things actually get to the people in need.
However, what Croatia and the US are doing is giving weapons to Israel, rather than something that would actually help the civilians, right?

Might not be a bad idea to establish no-fly zones.

How would that help? Don't you think that would just make it harder for people who want to leave Israel to do that, because the airplane traffic might stop working because of those policies?

It's not about hurting the government, it's about compelling the companies to steer the government in a different direction.

Which companies do you think control Israeli government? Do you think we should put some kind of sanctions on Intel, just because (if I am not mistaken) it does much of its job in Tel Aviv?
I mean, this sounds rather authoritarian and against the rule of law. It reminds me of how Donald Trump put an embargo on Huawei, accusing it for technologically unfeasible spying of its users, just because it's seated in China.

[teo123]

@Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, I am waiting for a response: If it's fair to say that what they have in Venezuela is not real socialism, do you also think it's fair to say that what they had in Germany, Italy and Spain wasn't real fascism? I mean, the philosopher of fascism, Giovanni Gentile, as far as I know, didn't explicitly advocate massively murdering people of other nations by the state.

[brimstoneSalad]

It's not really. Some of those Palestinians, who would like to return to their homes, homes taken over by the Israelites, are still alive today.

They should be given citizenship and compensation for lost property. They should be able to sue the government, and they should be assisted in doing so.

However, what Croatia and the US are doing is giving weapons to Israel, rather than something that would actually help the civilians, right?

I'm skeptical that Israel needs any assistance defending its borders. It IS Goliath in this real world parable. The opposition are using primarily primitive weapons.

The U.S. government is just influenced by the fundamentalist lobby that wants the temple rebuilt so the end-times prophecies can be fulfilled and Jesus can come back to destroy the world.
Very little of U.S.-Israeli relations make sense outside that context. Any other country and we'd be sanctioning them as being military aggressors.

How would that help? Don't you think that would just make it harder for people who want to leave Israel to do that, because the airplane traffic might stop working because of those policies?

Commercial planes can fly around, but flight permissions can be granted to specific flights.

Which companies do you think control Israeli government? Do you think we should put some kind of sanctions on Intel, just because (if I am not mistaken) it does much of its job in Tel Aviv?

Yes, if there's reason to believe Intel can exert pressure on the Israeli government. I don't know which companies would be able to exert the needed pressure.
Settlements are matters of economics, if it hurts more TO settle than to not settle, they will end the practice. Until then it's a cost of doing business.

I mean, this sounds rather authoritarian and against the rule of law. It reminds me of how Donald Trump put an embargo on Huawei, accusing it for technologically unfeasible spying of its users, just because it's seated in China.

Well you can't be stupid about it. Any such policy should follow from extensive research.

[teo123]

Any such policy should follow from extensive research.

And isn't that a typical example of the Unicorn Fallacy?