For Thoughts and Thinking: In Remembrance of Principled Protests and Police (pig) Violence... Past.
What Would Hannah Arendt Say... Mill or Locke or Popper?
In remembrance of Principled Protests and Violence... Past.
In my opinion, The Protests are justified, and the Pigs are similar to the Pigs of 1968… The protests justified… Because of the ongoing genocide in Gaza.
The Past and Present: Observations on Israeli Murders. "The Mai Lai Massacre, which occurred during the Vietnam War in 1968, resulted in the deaths of between 347 and 504 unarmed civilians. To compare this to the situation in Palestine, particularly Gaza, since the escalation of hostilities involving Israel, we can look at recent data.
According to reports, the conflict between Israel and Palestine has resulted in significant casualties, especially in Gaza. As of mid-2024, the death toll in Gaza due to Israeli military actions has exceeded 38,000 people, (and according to the Lancet over 186,000) with many of these being civilians.
This figure far surpasses the number of deaths in the Mai Lai Massacre.
Furthermore, during a particularly intense period of conflict, the daily death rate in Gaza reached an average of 250 people per day, which is higher than any other major conflict in the 21st century.
These numbers reflect the severe and ongoing humanitarian crisis in the region, characterized by high civilian casualties and widespread destruction. The scale of deaths in Gaza over recent years highlights the intensity and tragic human cost of the conflict.
Protests, Arrests, and Violence.
On the night of August 20, 2024, pro-Palestinian demonstrators clashed with police outside the Israeli consulate in Chicago, leading to significant unrest and numerous arrests. The protest was part of a broader wave of demonstrations coinciding with the Democratic National Convention (DNC) being held in the city. The protest was organized by a group called Behind Enemy Lines, which is known for its militant stance and anti-imperialist views. The protest began with demonstrators gathering outside the consulate, carrying Palestinian flags and chanting slogans such as "Free Palestine" and "Shut down the DNC." The situation escalated when protesters attempted to breach police lines, resulting in confrontations with law enforcement officers. Police used bicycles to create temporary barricades and attempted to disperse the crowd, leading to at least 67 arrests. The demonstration was marked by tension and some acts of defiance, such as burning an American flag. Protesters were vocal in their criticism of U.S. support for Israel, with some accusing the U.S. government of complicity in what they described as genocide in Gaza. The protest was deemed illegal as the organizers did not obtain a permit. The Israeli consulate, located in a building connected to a major transportation hub, has been a focal point for protests since the onset of the Gaza conflict in October. Security was heightened around the area, and the protest caused disruptions, including the closure of entrances to nearby transportation facilities. Overall, the protest outside the Israeli consulate in Chicago reflects ongoing tensions and divisions over U.S. foreign policy and its support for Israel amid the conflict with Hamas. The demonstrations have been a significant aspect of the political landscape during the DNC, drawing attention to the broader geopolitical issues at play.
READ ON IF YOU WISH, NOW THINGS BECOME CONFUSED AND COMPLICATED.
Should the demonstrators burn the consulate down, in exchange for thousands of dead Palestinians?
Burning down a consulate or any diplomatic mission is not only illegal but also violates international law. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 establishes that diplomatic premises are inviolable, meaning they must not be entered or damaged by the host country or any other party without consent from the head of the mission. This principle is crucial for maintaining international relations and ensuring that diplomats can perform their duties without interference. Acts of violence against diplomatic missions can have severe consequences, including the breakdown of diplomatic relations and potential international conflict. Such actions are condemned by the international community and can lead to significant legal and diplomatic repercussions for the individuals and states involved. Therefore, while the loss of life in any conflict is tragic and deeply concerning, responding with violence against diplomatic premises is not a legally or ethically justified course of action.
What are the moral implications of speaking of law to protect a nation's consulate, when that nation is committing Genocide, ongoing and also illegal, in fact much more illegal, and a war crime!
The moral implications of discussing the protection of a nation's consulate while that nation is accused of committing genocide involve complex ethical and legal considerations.
Legal Framework
Genocide as a Crime: The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted in 1948, clearly defines genocide as a crime under international law. It includes acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. Genocide is considered one of the gravest crimes and is universally condemned.
Diplomatic Immunity: The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) establishes the inviolability of diplomatic premises, meaning that diplomatic missions are protected under international law and cannot be violated by the host country. This protection is crucial for maintaining diplomatic relations and ensuring that diplomats can perform their duties without interference.
Moral Considerations
Moral Dissonance: There is a moral tension between upholding the legal protections for diplomatic missions and addressing accusations of serious crimes like genocide. On one hand, diplomatic immunity is essential for international diplomacy; on the other, it can appear morally troubling if it seems to shield a nation accused of severe human rights violations from accountability.
Responsibility to Protect (RtoP): The international community has a moral and legal obligation to prevent and respond to genocide and mass atrocities. This principle can sometimes conflict with diplomatic norms, as prioritizing protection of populations might require actions that challenge traditional diplomatic protections.
Moral Justifications and Self-interest: States often navigate these moral dilemmas by invoking legal norms or moral justifications that align with their strategic interests. This can lead to moral disengagement, where actions are rationalized as necessary for security or other reasons, potentially undermining international legal norms.
Conclusion
The moral implications of protecting diplomatic missions while addressing accusations of genocide involve balancing legal obligations with ethical responsibilities. While the legal framework provides clear guidelines for the protection of diplomatic premises, the moral imperative to prevent and respond to genocide remains a critical consideration for the international community. This tension highlights the complexity of international law and diplomacy, where legal norms and moral imperatives can sometimes be at odds.
This means No! The consulate survives.
How about moral philosophers? What do they think?
What would moral philosophers like Hanah Arendt say?
Hannah Arendt, a prominent political philosopher, is well-known for her exploration of the nature of evil, totalitarianism, and the moral responsibilities of individuals and states. Her thoughts on these issues can provide insight into the moral implications of protecting diplomatic missions while a state is accused of committing genocide.
Arendt's Perspective on Genocide and Evil
The Banality of Evil: Arendt famously coined the term "the banality of evil" in her report on the trial of Adolf Eichmann, a major organizer of the Holocaust. She argued that evil can manifest in ordinary individuals who accept the premises of their state and participate in atrocities without critical reflection or moral consideration.
Moral Responsibility: Arendt believed that individuals have a responsibility to think critically and judge the actions of their governments. She emphasized the importance of personal responsibility and moral judgment, especially in the face of state-sponsored crimes like genocide.
Critique of Violence: Arendt critiqued the use of violence as a means of political action, arguing that it destroys the human capacity for dialogue and mutual understanding. She believed that violence erodes the political space necessary for genuine human interaction and political life.
Moral Implications
Moral and Political Judgment: Arendt would likely argue that while legal frameworks protect diplomatic missions, there is a moral imperative to critically assess and respond to accusations of genocide. The protection of diplomatic premises should not overshadow the need to address and prevent crimes against humanity.
Ethics of Plurality: Arendt's concept of the "ethics of plurality" suggests that political actions should be guided by principles that respect human dignity and promote a shared world. This perspective emphasizes the need for political actions that transcend mere legal compliance and engage with deeper ethical considerations.
Responsibility to Act: Arendt believed in the importance of action and judgment in the political realm. She would likely advocate for international and individual actions that confront and address the moral failings of states accused of genocide, rather than passively accepting legal norms that may protect those states.
In summary, while Arendt recognized the importance of legal structures, she also highlighted the necessity of moral judgment and action in confronting state-sponsored atrocities. Her work suggests that the international community should not only uphold legal norms but also actively engage in preventing and addressing crimes like genocide.
The Ultimate conclusion on Arendt is that she would have opposed burning down the consulate, even if it would stop more Palestinian deaths. When faced with murder she was non-violent and would talk about it, apparently even her own.
Ok, how about three men? Locke, Mill and Popper.
The question of when it is justified to resort to violence in response to oppression or genocide is a deeply complex moral issue, and different philosophers have approached it in various ways. The search results and philosophical perspectives provide some insights:
Philosophical Perspectives
John Locke: Locke's philosophy includes the right to resist tyranny, particularly when a government fails to protect fundamental rights. He argued that when the rule of law is no longer in place, people have the right to oppose unlawful force with force. However, Locke emphasized that resistance should aim at establishing a legitimate and just order afterward, rather than engaging in acts of violence without a clear plan for constructive change.
John Stuart Mill: Mill's utilitarian framework evaluates actions based on their consequences for overall happiness or utility. While a utilitarian might theoretically justify an act of violence if it leads to a greater good or prevents greater harm, Mill also emphasized the importance of individual liberty and the harm principle. He would likely advocate for non-violent solutions that respect individual rights and promote dialogue and reform.
Karl Popper: Popper's "paradox of tolerance" suggests that a tolerant society must be prepared to defend itself against the intolerant, even by force if necessary. This perspective implies that there are limits to tolerance, and in extreme cases, action may be needed to preserve a tolerant society.
Limits and Justifications
Historical Contexts: Historical examples, such as the Holodomor and other genocides, show that the international community has often been slow to respond to mass atrocities. The dilemma of when to intervene and how to balance non-violent principles with the need to stop ongoing violence is a persistent challenge.
Moral and Practical Considerations: Philosophers often emphasize the importance of exhausting non-violent means and considering the broader implications of resorting to violence. The potential for escalation, unintended consequences, and the undermining of moral authority are significant concerns.
Self-Defense and Proportionality: The right to self-defense is widely recognized, but the application of this principle on a larger scale, such as in the context of political violence, requires careful consideration of proportionality and necessity.
Conclusion
While philosophers like Locke, Mill, and Popper provide frameworks that could theoretically justify resistance or intervention, they also emphasize the importance of non-violent means and the establishment of a just and stable order. The question of when the level of oppression or murder becomes intolerable enough to justify violent resistance does not have a clear-cut answer, as it involves weighing moral, legal, and practical considerations. Each situation is unique, and the decision to resort to violence must be carefully evaluated in the context of its potential consequences and alternatives. And time must be taken to evaluate that uniqueness as people die.
Adding to the conclusion: Moral philosophers being what they are, faced with fifty deaths this afternoon: Instead of acting would talk about it. For some of them, if a club were about to smash them in the face, maybe not… Answers and conclusions become ambiguous, and that is the point. Intellectuals think and talk and people die… This places the Democratic convention in the mainstream of human thought, or for that matter, Alfred E Newman thinking, as for almost all big thinkers it all becomes an issue of “what me worry” let’s talk about it!
I think I would burn down the consulate.
"Moral philosophers being what they are,...[i]nstead of acting would talk about it." - You've summed it up.