Self-determination is inconsistent with Kantian morality if one believes that a citizen of any state should not be discriminated against on the basis of religion or ethnicity. Self-determination is the formation of a state on the basis of a shared religion, ethnicity or other cultural manifestation. That type of state formation condemns those citizens who do not conform to the paradigm on which the state is based to second-class citizenship. There should be no Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim or any other state formed on any basis which applies to only part of the citizenry. Every person has the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of religious belief, lack of religious belief or ethnicity. Self-determination violates that right.

Not only is Israel's defence morally acceptable, it is common sense, given that Hamas and Palestine, with backing and financing of Iran, are sworn to wiping Israel off the face of the Earth. Israel is the only democracy the Middle East and it should be supported to the hilt by all Western and democratic countries.

The Jews have a moral point to make, after all, it's well known unless contained or wiped out, they would have driven the occupying Germans in Germany into the sea, and therefore needed to be dealt with, with extreme prejudice, back in the thirties.

Seriously, I just don't see any real intention or appetite to resolve the differences, with a two state solution? Agreed and signed off on or not!

Therefore, the economic boycott needs to exponentially expand and ramp up and against Israel's American/European financiers as well, until a two state solution is both extremely urgent and doable!

Otherwise, we can wait until all that remains are charred ruins and blind toothless widows?
Alan B.

Thank you Alon for this comprehensive analysis!

Regarding the religious argument:

The "state of Israel" is not mentioned in the bible. Period.
The state of Israel is a civic, secular body, of a kind that did not even exist in biblical times. Whether a given territory is within the jurisdiction of that body or otherwise, could not have been a biblical injunction.

---

Dear David,

Self-determination is only immoral if it imposes itself on other people and their natural territory. If you genuinely and legitimately own a piece of land, big or small, then you have every moral right to determine what is to happen on that land.

---

Dear Ttbn,

Certainly, Israel's defence is morally acceptable.
However, for many years now, Israel's prolonged occupation is no longer needed for its defence.
Moreover, this occupation injures Israel from within, thus undermines its security in the long run.

Too much examining this problem from the philosophical viewpoint.
The occupiers tag has been put on the wrong people.
They were there some thousands years before the Arabs.
The Arabs invaded the whole Levant and have killed most of the
Christians and Jews who lived in the area.
The Arab killing of Christians and Jews is continuing.
So any waffle about people of different religions sharing the area is
just not possible.
The Arabs claim the whole area is theirs because they occupied it by
force and so it must remain moslem forever.
After the history of the last 1400 years can anyone think that a joint
occupation of the area by Jews and Arabs is a remote possibility ?

Hungary was at one time occupied by Islamic armies and they do not
want any moslem immigrants. Islamic armies generate long memories.

Good speak Yuyutsu, you did have a nice point.