5 ms·

Israel has now killed 20k Palestinians and destroyed half of the Gaza Strip. That is a crime of vastly greater proportion.

ReptileMan 3y ago
Nope. Hamas killed them by designing gaza in such a way as to maximize collateral.
- callalex 3y ago
  If you find yourself on the “she shouldn’t have dressed that way” side of the argument, it’s probably time to take a step back and reevaluate.
  - ReptileMan 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      Comments like this make me grateful for the Geneva convention.
      - ReptileMan 3y ago
        [flagged]
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        smoldesu 3y ago
        > No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited. > Pillage is prohibited. > Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949/article-33 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949/art...
xpe 3y ago
All deaths are tragedies, yes. But it is not valid to say that all deaths are equal crimes. These are not morally equivalent: A. 1,000 people killed in the name of religion B. 1,000 people (civilians) killed despite efforts to target only military targets I don't claim to know the _quality_ of the IDF's efforts to minimize civilian deaths, but I do know that intent matters here. The IDF has attempted (imperfectly of course) to reduce civilian deaths. Hamas does nothing of the sort. They are happy to kill non-combatants; any infidel will do. I want fewer deaths. Yes. It is heartrending to see the suffering on both sides. I welcome pressure on the IDF to minimize non-military casualties. Would any amount of public opinion stop Hamas from murdering again? Only to the extent it reduces their funding, recruiting, and operations. Israel, OTOH, is much more receptive to public opinion, inside and out. Hamas has designed their entire operation so that innocent people take the brunt of even the most targeted military operations. If the IDF attacks, there will be collateral damage and lost Palestinian lives. It is awful. However, this does not mean than IDF attacks are immoral in the big picture. Allowing Hamas to continue risks future violence. So what response is ethically warranted? Netanyahu and the IDF arguably could do better. No major actors in the region are blameless. But blamelessness isn't the standard here; I reject any claims of moral equivalence. Hamas massacres indiscriminately. The comparison matters. The basic argument in favor of Israel goes like this: some degree of IDF incursion into Palestine and aggression against Hamas is required to save future lives from more massacres. It is only question of how much and when. Perhaps the IDF should have waited some length of time to build more of an international coalition? I'll grant this. I'm not an expert. If it were possible to merely assume a defensive posture and stop them, I would say, sure try that. But I think that has been tried and it cannot work. Am I missing something? Minimizing death isn't the perfect ethical metric, but it is a reasonable starting approximation. To do so, we have to factor in all deaths, across a long time scale. I don't think there is any neat way to do it. It is a fucking mess; we chose the least worst option. I have no hate. If someone I knew had been killed, it might be impossible to have any emotional distance. I reject ideas that cause people to hate each other. I don't claim to know the right answers. But I know some answers are worse than others. I'm also less interested in blame. I'm interested in the future. What options might work? What actors would undermine the potential for a lasting peace? Find extremists wherever they are: Palestine, Israel, or the surrounding region. Neutralize them in the least invasive way possible. Use public opinion if possible. Condition aid if needed. Use coercive action, including military action, if the previous options don't work.
oytis 3y ago
[flagged]
- xpe 3y ago
  On what basis does the proportion not matter at all? Do you have a particular ethical justification? A philosophy underpinning this?
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  You might argue about explicit and implicit, but then... Israel "ordered" 1.1 million residents of Northern Gaza (Hamas makes up <40,000 people) to flee south due to their bombing of Northern Gaza on October 13. It then increased bombing of Southern Gaza in the ten days following that evacuation order by eighty five per cent. That's not "collateral damage". Source: https://news.sky.com/story/gaza-war-satellite-data-shows-israel-intensifying-bombing-of-south-12993277 https://news.sky.com/story/gaza-war-satellite-data-shows-isr...
xpe 3y ago
This is clear: the Palestinians have now suffered tremendously more over the last month than the Israelis. But differential _suffering_ is not a valid basis for moral analysis. And _harm_ is not the same thing as _crime_.
- xbar 3y ago
  You are certainly correct. But every ethnic group of people has a right to exist in their place. To my eyes, there is enough evidence to warrant an investigation to determine if Palestinian civilians have been criminally murdered and forcibly relocated en masse. Also to my eyes, there is enough evidence that Hamas military murdered, kidnapped, raped, and brutalized Israeli civilians such that an Israeli military response was justified.

ReptileMan 3y ago

Nope. Hamas killed them by designing gaza in such a way as to maximize collateral.

callalex 3y ago
If you find yourself on the “she shouldn’t have dressed that way” side of the argument, it’s probably time to take a step back and reevaluate.
- ReptileMan 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    Comments like this make me grateful for the Geneva convention.
    - ReptileMan 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - smoldesu 3y ago
        > No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited. > Pillage is prohibited. > Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949/article-33 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949/art...

xpe 3y ago

All deaths are tragedies, yes. But it is not valid to say that all deaths are equal crimes. These are not morally equivalent: A. 1,000 people killed in the name of religion B. 1,000 people (civilians) killed despite efforts to target only military targets I don't claim to know the _quality_ of the IDF's efforts to minimize civilian deaths, but I do know that intent matters here. The IDF has attempted (imperfectly of course) to reduce civilian deaths. Hamas does nothing of the sort. They are happy to kill non-combatants; any infidel will do. I want fewer deaths. Yes. It is heartrending to see the suffering on both sides. I welcome pressure on the IDF to minimize non-military casualties. Would any amount of public opinion stop Hamas from murdering again? Only to the extent it reduces their funding, recruiting, and operations. Israel, OTOH, is much more receptive to public opinion, inside and out. Hamas has designed their entire operation so that innocent people take the brunt of even the most targeted military operations. If the IDF attacks, there will be collateral damage and lost Palestinian lives. It is awful. However, this does not mean than IDF attacks are immoral in the big picture. Allowing Hamas to continue risks future violence. So what response is ethically warranted? Netanyahu and the IDF arguably could do better. No major actors in the region are blameless. But blamelessness isn't the standard here; I reject any claims of moral equivalence. Hamas massacres indiscriminately. The comparison matters. The basic argument in favor of Israel goes like this: some degree of IDF incursion into Palestine and aggression against Hamas is required to save future lives from more massacres. It is only question of how much and when. Perhaps the IDF should have waited some length of time to build more of an international coalition? I'll grant this. I'm not an expert. If it were possible to merely assume a defensive posture and stop them, I would say, sure try that. But I think that has been tried and it cannot work. Am I missing something? Minimizing death isn't the perfect ethical metric, but it is a reasonable starting approximation. To do so, we have to factor in all deaths, across a long time scale. I don't think there is any neat way to do it. It is a fucking mess; we chose the least worst option. I have no hate. If someone I knew had been killed, it might be impossible to have any emotional distance. I reject ideas that cause people to hate each other. I don't claim to know the right answers. But I know some answers are worse than others. I'm also less interested in blame. I'm interested in the future. What options might work? What actors would undermine the potential for a lasting peace? Find extremists wherever they are: Palestine, Israel, or the surrounding region. Neutralize them in the least invasive way possible. Use public opinion if possible. Condition aid if needed. Use coercive action, including military action, if the previous options don't work.

oytis 3y ago

[flagged]

xpe 3y ago
On what basis does the proportion not matter at all? Do you have a particular ethical justification? A philosophy underpinning this?
FireBeyond 3y ago
You might argue about explicit and implicit, but then... Israel "ordered" 1.1 million residents of Northern Gaza (Hamas makes up <40,000 people) to flee south due to their bombing of Northern Gaza on October 13. It then increased bombing of Southern Gaza in the ten days following that evacuation order by eighty five per cent. That's not "collateral damage". Source: https://news.sky.com/story/gaza-war-satellite-data-shows-israel-intensifying-bombing-of-south-12993277 https://news.sky.com/story/gaza-war-satellite-data-shows-isr...

xpe 3y ago

This is clear: the Palestinians have now suffered tremendously more over the last month than the Israelis. But differential _suffering_ is not a valid basis for moral analysis. And _harm_ is not the same thing as _crime_.

xbar 3y ago
You are certainly correct. But every ethnic group of people has a right to exist in their place. To my eyes, there is enough evidence to warrant an investigation to determine if Palestinian civilians have been criminally murdered and forcibly relocated en masse. Also to my eyes, there is enough evidence that Hamas military murdered, kidnapped, raped, and brutalized Israeli civilians such that an Israeli military response was justified.