For further disambiguation: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/

Let me know once you’ve read the Einstein-Freud Correspondence and re-assessed your opinions to be non-machiavellian. Then I will be happy to continue to engage with you.

Summary provided by https://notegpt.io/pdf-summary

Summary The International Court of Justice has found that Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, violate international law. The Court determined that Israel’s actions, such as its settlement policy, acts of annexation, and discriminatory legislation and measures, constitute a breach of international law, including the prohibition on the use of force and the non-acquisition of territory by force. Israel’s presence in the territory is deemed unlawful, and the Court has called for an end to settlement activities, evacuation of settlers, reparations for damages caused, and non-recognition of the illegal situation by states and international organizations.

Key Insights The International Court of Justice has determined that Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, violates international law. Israel’s settlement policy, acts of annexation, discriminatory legislation, and measures were found to be in breach of international law. The Court has called for an end to settlement activities, evacuation of settlers, reparations for damages, and non-recognition of the illegal situation. The General Assembly and Security Council of the United Nations are tasked with considering further action to end Israel’s presence in the territory. The Court emphasizes the importance of achieving a just and lasting peace in the region for the benefit of all parties involved. Frequently Asked Questions Question

What actions were deemed unlawful by the International Court of Justice in the Occupied Palestinian Territory? Answer The Court found Israel’s settlement policy, acts of annexation, discriminatory legislation, and measures to be in violation of international law.

Question

What measures did the Court call for to address Israel’s presence in the territory? Answer The Court called for an end to settlement activities, evacuation of settlers, reparations for damages caused, and non-recognition of the illegal situation.

Question

Which international organizations are obligated not to recognize the illegal situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory? Answer All states and international organizations are obligated not to recognize the illegal situation in the territory.

Question

What role do the General Assembly and Security Council of the United Nations play in addressing Israel’s presence in the territory? Answer The General Assembly and Security Council are tasked with considering further action to end Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

deleted by creator

Agreed. Let me see what I can do.

They’re just categorically different, there isn’t an “inside” or an “outside” in the sense of spatial structure as that is something derived a posteriori as part of thought.

So… there are things that are either within the category of thought or not? Is thought mutually exclusive to material? Is thought composed of material or the other way around? Or are they both the same?

I’m not sure what it would even mean to say reality is “thought”.

That is the standard definition of idealism, is it not? That existence is immaterial?

But what justification is there that what is thought of is actually in existence outside of thought? One can think of things that do not exist outside of thought.

What justification is there that reality isn’t thought by it’s very nature?

How do you justify the premise that reality is objectively-existent?

In your belief.

I encourage you to read the letters between Einstein and Freud which lay the theoretical groundwork for human rights.

[1931-1932] [resource] The Einstein-Freud Correspondence

edit: still short on time, but i will re-read your post and reply to the legitimate, non-political questions.

laws are tools. binding treaties create laws.

Human rights aren’t a tool at all

This is where you are wrong. They are more than just a set of ideals. They are also a set of binding international treaties.

I am short on time right now, but if this is a perennial issue for you, then I will reply in more detail soon.

The status quo use the NGO industrial complex to cynically wield human rights rhetoric

No disagreement there, other than you should be careful not tot throw out the baby with the bathwater.

In reality, Human Rights are our best tool in the fight against war. Human Rights do not make sense as a concept without understanding that. Equal rights for all means no more fighting for rights. The economic, social, and cultural rights outlined in the UNUDHR are quite obviously not the status quo.

. Instead we see “human rights” - based on what?

-==- Must Read -==-

• UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights
  • UN UDHR Illustrated Book
• International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
  • Easy-to-read version of the Human Rights Covenants

Language like that plus the failure to treat the subject of discussion to dignity was almost enough for me to remove this comment, on it’s own. Thankfully, the community has spoken using the tools available to them to indicate that your behavior is unacceptable. Keep it up and you’ll be removed.

Thanks for taking the time to reply, db0! That is much appreciated.

also, apologies to everyone at lemmy.sdf.org if i am flooding local for you. i’ve been busy adding a bunch links

they also have an email address: membership at sdf dot org, but yeah, the internal BBS is where it is at.

We are a public access UNIX system, so it’s not as much of a void as it might seem :D

Well, please do share what you find!

You are on the right track w/ idealism vs materialism in psychology, at least.

The question there arose from the brain: how do you rectify the mind/soul with the brain/body? Dualism apparently fails (the idea that there is a separate mind from the brain) which leaves only some form of monism. A sort of hybrid materialism-idealism seems to make the most sense, where consciousness is a property of the universe, like time or space, and different entities have differing consciousnesses. In that sort of a philosophy, when talking about the brain of a person you are equally talking about the experience that person is having, just in different terms.

I suspect that in sociology that would be some sort of unified anarcho-marxism, if such a thing exists. The atomic theory of society seems to be the thing where they are working on unifying language. If society is fully atomized, asking whether a new society arises due to free choice or resource demands is like asking whether rivers rise due to rain or sewer overflow, if that makes sense?

this was one of my favorite childhood games, thanks for posting this!

apparently, depending on the language used, it will drive the easily angered on the right to insanity