Is a Palestinian Genocide morally justifiable?
Reply #35 - August 05, 2014, 02:51 PM
I don't know morally, but history is full of big wars or genocides. Could you argue that some of these wars/genocides resulted in a more stable or better society afterwards? Probably.
There's a Chinese movie called Hero (~2002) or so. Basically, there's this emperor going around overtaking land. This group of rebels plot to kill him. The hero of the movie is within range to kill the emperor. In the end, he chooses not to kill the emperor because the emperor has a vision of a united China. To put an end to the constant fighting of cities and clans...
I'm not saying I agree with that. I'm just saying, I entertain the thought.
Similarly with say Israel/Palestine. This has been going on for what 60 years now. Just a constant grind.
Would everyone be better off if Israel just decided on its own border, built a huge wall and defended the crap out of it. Maybe...
Let's face it, if this conflict had happened 200 years earlier, the genocide/expulsion of the Palestinians would have just been considered an artifact of history.
Heck, I'm Canadian and this land used to belong to the Natives. Many of them died and the Europeans took their land. Yet, today, Canada is a pretty peaceful place. Whose to say if the Europeans hadn't forcefully won the land, that we wouldn't be involved in a constant civil war for generations to come.
How do you weight the death of thousands/millions versus the continuing deaths, war, strife, and poor living conditions of people in the future? I guess that's the equation you try and solve if you're looking to morally justify it.
I'm not wise enough to answer that question, but I guess it exists.