8 ms·

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 nam

by 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.

FireBeyond 3y ago
> 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. What was the IDF's "intent" in ordering 1.1M Northern Gazan residents to flee to "safety" in Southern Gaza, and then spending the next ten days increasing the bombing of Southern Gaza by 85%? What is the "intent" in "minimizing civilian deaths" by (even before this conflict) routinely turning off Gaza's electricity, often for several days to as much as a week? Or for turning off its fresh water?
- xpe 3y ago
  Assuming these are all true, without any mitigating factors, there is still a significant effort to reduce civilian deaths. Yes, like I can, the IDF can do better. External forces can and should apply pressure to the IDF to minimize civilian casualties. I'll try to clarify: I don't I care as much about any vague notion of "intent". I care about reasonableness in the sense of paying attention, gathering reliable information, and acting rationally based on the probabilities. I can speak about some rough criteria for thinking about the moral tradeoffs, but unless I was very close to the situation, I wouldn't have the specificity to comment on particular choices. For example, did your example about cutting off electricity serve a military purpose? What was the analysis? Again, criticizing the details is important, but we can't forget that the IDF is making some effort. And Hamas is using human shields. So it isn't correct to put the blame solely on the IDF. I get the sense that Hamas' evil is simply taken for granted while the IDF is held to a higher standard. That asymmetry is problematic; it would lead to world public opinion turning against even against the best-possible-version of the IDF. There simply is no amount of civilian deaths that is a good thing. It is all awful. We have to compare this against the horror that would come from the continued existence of Hamas. We have to chose the lesser of the evils. Again, I'm supportive of better options. I'm just not close enough to know what they are. Israel should hunker down and ramp up defenses? Wait until there is an international coalition to manage the attack on Hamas while providing services so that civilian impact isn't as tragic? Maybe that could work. Who would lead that? The UN?
  - 3y ago

by xpe 3y ago

FireBeyond 3y ago

> 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. What was the IDF's "intent" in ordering 1.1M Northern Gazan residents to flee to "safety" in Southern Gaza, and then spending the next ten days increasing the bombing of Southern Gaza by 85%? What is the "intent" in "minimizing civilian deaths" by (even before this conflict) routinely turning off Gaza's electricity, often for several days to as much as a week? Or for turning off its fresh water?

xpe 3y ago
Assuming these are all true, without any mitigating factors, there is still a significant effort to reduce civilian deaths. Yes, like I can, the IDF can do better. External forces can and should apply pressure to the IDF to minimize civilian casualties. I'll try to clarify: I don't I care as much about any vague notion of "intent". I care about reasonableness in the sense of paying attention, gathering reliable information, and acting rationally based on the probabilities. I can speak about some rough criteria for thinking about the moral tradeoffs, but unless I was very close to the situation, I wouldn't have the specificity to comment on particular choices. For example, did your example about cutting off electricity serve a military purpose? What was the analysis? Again, criticizing the details is important, but we can't forget that the IDF is making some effort. And Hamas is using human shields. So it isn't correct to put the blame solely on the IDF. I get the sense that Hamas' evil is simply taken for granted while the IDF is held to a higher standard. That asymmetry is problematic; it would lead to world public opinion turning against even against the best-possible-version of the IDF. There simply is no amount of civilian deaths that is a good thing. It is all awful. We have to compare this against the horror that would come from the continued existence of Hamas. We have to chose the lesser of the evils. Again, I'm supportive of better options. I'm just not close enough to know what they are. Israel should hunker down and ramp up defenses? Wait until there is an international coalition to manage the attack on Hamas while providing services so that civilian impact isn't as tragic? Maybe that could work. Who would lead that? The UN?
- 3y ago