> Third, in cases such as Gaza, and the west bank, they don't have stable governments because of actions by Israel. You can't expect them to behave like a nation state in those circumstances, so yes I do expect more of Israel.

Exactly. They are oppressed so are incapable of wrong. You can't expect them to not kidnap and murder people at a concert.

Exactly my point

▲

benj111 2 days ago | parent [-]

I didn't say they are incapable of wrong. I'm saying you can't hold a group that doesn't have law and order, and therefore control to the same standard as a group that does have control.

If protesters throw rocks at police, would you hold the entire group responsible? Even though most were there to protest peacefully? Would you take the same view if it was the police throwing rocks?

▲

bko 2 days ago | parent [-]

It's a pretty low standard. But even worse it denies them autonomy and control of their own actions. They're victims, mere observers. You deny that group self determination, you do not view them as equals. It's like I get upset if my child bites someone, but not if my cat bites someone, because it's a cat. That's why that oppressor / oppressed mentality is so dehumanizing to the people it purports to empathize with

▲

benj111 2 days ago | parent [-]

Why is it dehumanising? I'm not talking on the level of humans, I'm talking on the level of nation states.

Plus I'm not even saying it's oppressor and oppressed, it's that one group has organisation and one doesn't.

I go back to my police and protestor example? Do you apply the same rules to each? Do you think the leader of the police is more or less culpable than the leader of the protestors?

It isn't dehumanising the protestors. If anything it's the opposite, it's dehumanising the police, they are supposed not to have agency. And that's the point.

▲

bko 2 days ago | parent [-]

Seems pretty organized that an open air prison that has severe restrictions on travel and trade can plan something like Oct 7.

Yeah to say say protestor can't control himself from throwing rocks is pretty offensive to the protestor. Put another way, if my son was at a protest and started throwing rocks at police I wouldn't excuse that behavior like he had no choice. You always have a choice.

	▲	benj111 a day ago \| parent [-]
		I'm not saying the protestor can't control himself. I'm saying the organisers of the protest has less control over that individuals actions so has less culpability. Whereas the police should have a culture of not throwing rocks, so serious questions should be asked of the leadership. If you have a failed state such that large areas aren't under government control. And some warlord attacked your country, would you say that was a declaration of war from that entire country? Or would you accept the government didn't have control? Gaza is a messed up place. You wouldn't necessarily expect all the groups to hold to a cease fire, like you would a nation with a single unified command structure. A breach of a cease fire by Gaza says something different than a breach of a cease fire by Israel. I'm not saying anything about individuals, I'm saying different group structures have different amounts of control over individuals in that group, so it isn't reasonable to hold them to the same standard. To go back to your last example. Should you be held responsible for your son throwing rocks? Should that not depend upon the level of control? Or should we treat a dad handing his 5 year old a rock and instructing him to throw the rock at the police, differently to the 25 year old son that went there by him self?