> Whether it's right or not, we want to believe it or not, might has always become rite
Ah, ok, if might is right then we're fine. Of course you cannot complain if someone else exercises this rule in a more local way: I might explode a bus, then I'm right to do it. I might throw rockets, then I'm right in doing so. I might get into your house and shoot you without being caught, so I'm right. I might think that my nation has the means to exterminate entire populations to establish some "vital space", then I'm right (and this was exactly H's reasoning).
Of course since a long time people have concerned themselves with devising rules that reduce as much as possible the occasions for conflict and disagreement. The law is nothing else than a system of rules designed to minimize grievances, starting from the observation that whoever has being wronged tends to seek satisfaction in every possible way, usually exercising violence.
Who ever said that was right? I merely said that's the effective standard humanity applies. Murder is always murder, whether it's sanctioned by a people, a government, or an individual.
Sure, and conflict and murder and genocide is also the standard that humanity applies. And also wars to stop all of those, sanctions, international blame, loss of moral standing, these are also standards that humanity applies.
So the standard is that Israel will keep doing what it pleases, people will still argue that it is completely wrong and needs to be stopped, and in the end if someone throws a nuclear weapon over the country we'll just shrug our shoulders and say- 'hey, might is right, that's how the world goes'. Is this the world you want?
This is at best ingenious. For the most part (emphasis most) conflict hasn't been started by Israel. Genocide is literally not something of which it can be accused. Arab citizens of Israel have democratically elected representation in government, social services, and public schools. Arabic is one of the two official languages, and citizens are entitled to 100% of their services in Arabic.
Could it be better, absolutely. Many of us are working to change that. But today one can go to Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Netanya, and pretty much all the cities and see Arabs and Jews. We converse, we live together, we call each other cousins. But let's never pretend it's not equal - that's what we're striving towards, together.
Now, it can be accused of not being a peace partner. It can be accused of creating negative conditions. It can be accused of murders. But ethnic cleansing is at best untrue, and baiting at worst.
Haha. Well, for what it's worth, I wasn't even referring to Israel with those examples. I was just pushing your argument that "might is right" to its rightful conclusion, to prove its (ethical) absurdity.
> For the most part (emphasis most) conflict hasn't been started by Israel.
Well, so now you're abandoning the "might is right" thing and returning to a sane moral argument, by talking about responsibilities and faults? Excellent. So what should Israel do with those territories that has misappropriated? Don't you think that the precondition for ending a dispute about a stolen good is to return it?
It's an interesting intellectual argument. Is might is right wrong? Does the ethical validity of it depends on culture? Are there cross species ethics and moral, or are they the product of culture?
I'm neither abandoning, nor condoning the stance. I'm merely stating that this is how conflicts are resolved.
This is a common misconception and lie. The National State Law was elevated to become one of Israel's Basic Laws. It explicitly declares that Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people, that we have the right to self-determination in our own language Hebrew). It explicitly spells out that that language will forever be the language of the state, as it has been our language forever.
Further, it explicitly says that "Nothing in this article shall affect the status given to the
Arabic language before this law came into force.". This means that there are ZERO changes to Arabic as it applies to anything in the country. To wit, I a Jewish citizen in Israel can request services in Arabic should I choose to do so. Arabs in Israel request services in Arabic and Hebrew depending on comfort levels.
Ah, ok, if might is right then we're fine. Of course you cannot complain if someone else exercises this rule in a more local way: I might explode a bus, then I'm right to do it. I might throw rockets, then I'm right in doing so. I might get into your house and shoot you without being caught, so I'm right. I might think that my nation has the means to exterminate entire populations to establish some "vital space", then I'm right (and this was exactly H's reasoning).
Of course since a long time people have concerned themselves with devising rules that reduce as much as possible the occasions for conflict and disagreement. The law is nothing else than a system of rules designed to minimize grievances, starting from the observation that whoever has being wronged tends to seek satisfaction in every possible way, usually exercising violence.