Professor Michael Sandel "The Law of Return and the Right of Return"

[@josephibraham8127]

if Jews who live in Brooklyn can move to Israel after 2000 years, Palestinians, who's parents were born in Palestine, can return to Palestine

[@quintinout]

That is very anti semetic of you. Do you know that you are full of hate ?

[@hmarouf89]

By bringing up Australia, POWs, and slavery, indicates that Sandel recognises the settler colonial parallels with Israel. The entire thrust of the debate does in fact proceed on the tacit acceptance that a significant historical injustice has been committed by Zionists against Palestinians. Indeed, the forceful speaker named Svee does not reject the reparation by denying injustice was committed, but by arguing that reparation is impractical, also claiming this would detract from addressing the issues of today. His argument is adequately met by the lady from South Africa. Moreover, a philosopher and in particular Sandel could not possibly in good conscience and faithfulness to an honest reading of moral philosophy agree with the commenter Svee. Even a utilitarian would argue, as the South African lady argued, that the greater good is served through acknowledgment and reparation.

[@kalziada1582]

The law of return and the right of return..that question wasn’t answered!

[@denise2169]

You have missed the point of the debate! It's about being human, not about being Jewish or an 'other'.

[@hmarouf89]

If Sandel supports Montesquieu's view that no act beneficial to oneself is acceptable when it comes at a price to others, then he must condemn Zionism. Rousseau does not adequately answer Montesquieu. Sandel offers an answer to the dichotomy Montesquieu and Rousseau through moral relativism. In his metaphor of obligations pointing inwards or outwards, the only arbitrator is self interest. Thus, when it suits you or when you consider yourself desperate enough the obligation points inwards, and you are permitted to harm humanity and save your group. Conversely, when you are not desperate and can afford to be altruistic, the obligation can point outwards. Sandel would likely agree that is not morality, only a self-referenced pragmatism. It seems, from what its possible to make out from a grainy video, that Sandel leaves the question open, though perhaps with a hint as to which direction he himself points. In the case of Palestine, Sandel is clear that Zionists chose obligations that point inwards, choosing to sacrifice others who had done them no harm in order to escape those who had in fact done them harm - centuries of European anti-Semites. Sandel appears to suggest there is something wrong with this model of morality, arguing that if we disown the wrongs of our "fathers" then we must disown also what was good about them and what good they bequeathed us. In other words, if we deny group affinity in one case in order to escape responsibility, then we must deny it in all cases even when their is good in them. Else it is indeed moral relativism.