This is the typical throwaway line used by liberals when it’s pointed out that Israel should stop doing war crimes, but I’m not sure what it’s trying to convey.

Rights are always a tricky abstraction, doubly so at the international level, so I’m not sure what asserting the existence of some right is supposed to do. Israel obviously has the capability to defend itself1, so what good is asserting some intangible right to do so? Are they actually saying “We should not stop Israel from doing what it wants to defend itself”? I imagine even they would object to Israel use of sarin or nuclear weapons, so I don’t think that’s what they mean. Is it “Israel should be given wide but not unlimited latitude by the US to respond as it sees fit”? Cause if that’s what they mean, the easy answer is “not with our tax dollars”.

Anyway this just seems like one of those empty pat expressions used during arguments I hate.


  1. When they aren’t busy doing racialist dismissiveness of Palestinian military capability.
You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
20 points
*

If I punch you, but then you punch me back, I have a right to defend myself by punching you back. But you don’t have a right to punch me if I punch you. Only me. Basically.

permalink
report
reply

and also I will keep punching you until you die and also your entire family and the fight started because I moved into your house and told you to fuck off out

permalink
report
parent
reply