4 ms·

The counter-take I've heard to that is "if bad guys in the US take 30 hostages in an office building, we don't bomb the building". Other than the overt anti-sem

by boppo1 3y ago

The counter-take I've heard to that is "if bad guys in the US take 30 hostages in an office building, we don't bomb the building". Other than the overt anti-semites, I think everyone[0] agrees about the unacceptable nature of Oct. 7 and the hostage situation. But the number of (alleged) Palestinian civilian casualties dwarfs those attacks. I've seen numerous videos of mangled Palestinian kids (visibly under 10) and bomb-massacred schools (jabalia iirc?). [0] Well, non-skin-in-game people like us at least. I have seen a lot of "progressive/left wing" people actually sympathising with Hamas and saying the attacks were justified because "violence is the voice of the oppressed" but that's nonsense when you target civilians.

edanm 3y ago
I believe this narrative really misses the point. It's not about revenge or "tit for tat", where Hamas killed X people so Israel gets to kill X people back. That would be immoral, no matter what - I don't think any civilian death is justified as an act of revenge. But that's not the situation. Hamas is the controlling government of Gaza, it effectively invaded Israel, killed (horrifically) many other civilians, and has been continuing to bomb Israel for a month. (Their bombing of Israel is very ineffective, because Israel spent a lot of time and money into developing systems to counter the rockets they shoot, but they're trying to continually bomb civilian cities). So this isn't a "they did some terrorism so Israel will kill some of them" situation. This is a "a foreign government showed they are more powerful than you thought, and have effectively declared war on you" situation. In war, you use whatever means you can to stop your enemy. What makes things even worse, and makes Hamas's crimes even bigger, is that they are supposed to help and protect the Gazans they "represent", and yet they are using them as human shields and sacrficing them. So they not only committed crimes against Israel, they are committing crimes against their own people. That is the situation. Israel has no good options here. It's a war, which is horrible and brutal, but was thrust upon Israel (and the Gazans) by Hamas - as their leaders openly say. And right now, almost all of Israel is united in agreeing on one thing - Hamas must therefore be destroyed. I honestly don't see any other stance to take, and it is entirely morally appropriate to destroy Hamas. (None of this is to say the situation doesn't have a long history, or that Israel has behaved well over the years - it really hasn't, and there's plenty of blame to lay at Israel's feet. But that doesn't mean what it's doing now is unjustified - it's not.)
- pxc 3y ago
  > it is entirely morally appropriate to destroy Hamas. Short of entirely depopulating Gaza, Israel isn't capable of 'destroying Hamas', and even if they magically did, they'd only be leaving a void to be filled by more extreme resistance groups (both in terms of violence and in terms of Islamism) like Palestinian Islamic Jihad. One of the things that the October 7 attacks proved is that Israel doesn't in fact know where Hamas are or what they're up to. If Israel had known who the Hamas leadership responsible for the attack were and where to find them prior to the attack, they would have already assassinated them before the attack ever took place. But they don't, which is why Israel has murdered ten thousand civilians in order to kill mere (alleged) 'dozens'¹ of Hamas commanders. That the stated purpose of this bombing campaign is in reality unachievable is part of its function: that the completion condition is infeasible and impossible to verify means that the IDF has no stopping point. There is no amount of carnage and destruction which the impossible mission of 'eliminating Hamas' would 'not unjustify'. Indeed, Israeli officials have said as much on international television. This is an 'opportunity' for Israel to unload (at least) several hundred thousand more of the indigenous population it never wanted within its borders by making Gaza as near uninhabitable as it can. It is also at once why Israel is publicly pressuring neighboring states to take in refugees from Gaza and why those neighboring states refuse: every party involved knows that any refugees who set up camp outside Gaza will never, ever be allowed back in. Israel wants to keep the dowry of 1967 and divorce the bride, to paraphrase a famous Israeli metaphor. — 1: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/08/israeli-airstrikes-on-gaza-have-killed-dozens-of-hamas-commanders-says-idf https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/08/israeli-airstr...
  - pxc 3y ago
    I'm missing a negation before the doubly negated paraphrase, sorry. Should read: > ... wouldn't 'not unjustify' ...

by boppo1 3y ago

edanm 3y ago

I believe this narrative really misses the point. It's not about revenge or "tit for tat", where Hamas killed X people so Israel gets to kill X people back. That would be immoral, no matter what - I don't think any civilian death is justified as an act of revenge. But that's not the situation. Hamas is the controlling government of Gaza, it effectively invaded Israel, killed (horrifically) many other civilians, and has been continuing to bomb Israel for a month. (Their bombing of Israel is very ineffective, because Israel spent a lot of time and money into developing systems to counter the rockets they shoot, but they're trying to continually bomb civilian cities). So this isn't a "they did some terrorism so Israel will kill some of them" situation. This is a "a foreign government showed they are more powerful than you thought, and have effectively declared war on you" situation. In war, you use whatever means you can to stop your enemy. What makes things even worse, and makes Hamas's crimes even bigger, is that they are supposed to help and protect the Gazans they "represent", and yet they are using them as human shields and sacrficing them. So they not only committed crimes against Israel, they are committing crimes against their own people. That is the situation. Israel has no good options here. It's a war, which is horrible and brutal, but was thrust upon Israel (and the Gazans) by Hamas - as their leaders openly say. And right now, almost all of Israel is united in agreeing on one thing - Hamas must therefore be destroyed. I honestly don't see any other stance to take, and it is entirely morally appropriate to destroy Hamas. (None of this is to say the situation doesn't have a long history, or that Israel has behaved well over the years - it really hasn't, and there's plenty of blame to lay at Israel's feet. But that doesn't mean what it's doing now is unjustified - it's not.)

pxc 3y ago
> it is entirely morally appropriate to destroy Hamas. Short of entirely depopulating Gaza, Israel isn't capable of 'destroying Hamas', and even if they magically did, they'd only be leaving a void to be filled by more extreme resistance groups (both in terms of violence and in terms of Islamism) like Palestinian Islamic Jihad. One of the things that the October 7 attacks proved is that Israel doesn't in fact know where Hamas are or what they're up to. If Israel had known who the Hamas leadership responsible for the attack were and where to find them prior to the attack, they would have already assassinated them before the attack ever took place. But they don't, which is why Israel has murdered ten thousand civilians in order to kill mere (alleged) 'dozens'¹ of Hamas commanders. That the stated purpose of this bombing campaign is in reality unachievable is part of its function: that the completion condition is infeasible and impossible to verify means that the IDF has no stopping point. There is no amount of carnage and destruction which the impossible mission of 'eliminating Hamas' would 'not unjustify'. Indeed, Israeli officials have said as much on international television. This is an 'opportunity' for Israel to unload (at least) several hundred thousand more of the indigenous population it never wanted within its borders by making Gaza as near uninhabitable as it can. It is also at once why Israel is publicly pressuring neighboring states to take in refugees from Gaza and why those neighboring states refuse: every party involved knows that any refugees who set up camp outside Gaza will never, ever be allowed back in. Israel wants to keep the dowry of 1967 and divorce the bride, to paraphrase a famous Israeli metaphor. — 1: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/08/israeli-airstrikes-on-gaza-have-killed-dozens-of-hamas-commanders-says-idf https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/08/israeli-airstr...
- pxc 3y ago
  I'm missing a negation before the doubly negated paraphrase, sorry. Should read: > ... wouldn't 'not unjustify' ...