Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is not completely false. The issue is not equal treatment, but unequal enforcement. You naïvely believe that if the findings of the International Court of Justice are enforced unequally, i.e. on just one party, when both parties were found by the same body to have committed war crimes, that the conflict would end. It would not.You also categorize one party as a perpatrator and the other as a victim, because they are unequally matched opponents. However, once a party commits war crimes, they lose any claim to status as a victim, and are now a participant. If you believe war crimes are categorically wrong, then you do not get to make exceptions.
Yes it should be enforced on one side because one side is the oppressor, and fighting for supremacy rule. The other is just fighting for their land and homes back and to have equal rights. So treating both sides "equally" would only lead to favouring the Oppressor here.
It would be like ignoring the plight of black slaves because Nat Turner did terrorist attacks on innocent white families of the slave owners. But fact was the only solution there was to free the slaves. Not to go after Nat Turner and a couple of particularly brutal slave owners. That would all be secondary in any viable solution.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I am not rooting for anyone, because it is not a competition. The goal should be peaceful co-existence, and rhetoric which does not advance that is counter-productive.
Depends on your definition of "peace". Israeli's for the most part live in peace. Palestinians in the West Bank could not fight back and let Israeli settlers (essentially terrorists) take their homes. Hamas could give up it's arms and surrender. That would all be a very Trumpian middle east peace. But it wouldn't solve any problems for the Palestinians except cease the current mass slaughter going on in Gaza.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Yes it should be enforced on one side because one side is the oppressor, and fighting for supremacy rule. The other is just fighting for their land and homes back and to have equal rights. So treating both sides "equally" would only lead to favouring the Oppressor here.It would be like ignoring the plight of black slaves because Nat Turner did terrorist attacks on innocent white families of the slave owners. But fact was the only solution there was to free the slaves. Not to go after Nat Turner and a couple of particularly brutal slave owners. That would all be secondary in any viable solution.
Enforcing the law on only one side will not stop the violence. It will only stop the violence on one side. You are too caught up in your rhetorical framing to recognize that.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Depends on your definition of "peace". Israeli's for the most part live in peace. Palestinians in the West Bank could not fight back and let Israeli settlers (essentially terrorists) take their homes. Hamas could give up it's arms and surrender. That would all be a very Trumpian middle east peace. But it wouldn't solve any problems for the Palestinians except cease the current mass slaughter going on in Gaza.
Stopping the violence should be the immediate goal. Only after that can negotiations for a peaceful resolution begin.
"Trump teases 'official' cryptocurrency project"
Trump was strongly against crypto, used to call it a "scam", then someone told him it's a pyramid scheme where he could personally make millions (or billions) off of idiots, especially while using the leverage the office of the POTUS gives and now he's all in.