21 ms·

Those are the most serious allegations: "The men and teenage boys were taken to a warehouse where they sat on a bare floor covered in scattered grains of rice.

Those are the most serious allegations: "The men and teenage boys were taken to a warehouse where they sat on a bare floor covered in scattered grains of rice. There they were beaten, interrogated and verbally abused. There was no sleep, and the grains of rice cut their skin as they sat there, undressed." A man claims: "Some people didn’t return from the torture sessions. We would hear their screams and then nothing.” From what I read, it seems typical of counterinsurgency war. A testimony is no proof but humiliation and torture is commonplace is counterinsurgency wars, whether systematic or an initiative of lower ranking soldiers operating on the ground, so it's not an extraordinary statement. And torture can obviously lead to death. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterinsurgency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterinsurgency Now I am going to argue something polemic and I am arguing it in the spirit of discussion. I'd love to read well argued counter-arguments : However supportive of Israel one may be and how repulsed one should be by Hamas, I'd say that we should not fool ourselves in that the military operation in Gaza is Israel defending itself ("Israel's right to defend itself" is now a commonplace phrase) rather than avenging itself. You may think it is justified in doing so but it still is payback imho. In my country's law, individual self-defense is defined as such : 1. It has to happen in the same time as the agression 2. Its only purpose is to defend against the agression 3. The defense has to be proportionate It seems that so 1. is not met since once all the militants having trespassed having been killed, Israel was no more defending itself. and it's hard to believe that the civilian collateral damage is just defending either. I'd say the third criteria is met in so far as Hamas has rockets and automatic weapons. Is that an unreasonable take ?

PoignardAzur 3y ago
The Israeli military also claims to be trying to rescue hostages, though whether it's prosecuting the most effective strategy there is hotly debated.
- dredmorbius 3y ago
  It's ... interesting ... to note that this is precisely the sort of "ticking time bomb" scenario often raised in justification of torture and rampant surveillance: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticking_time_bomb_scenario https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticking_time_bomb_scenario> It would be interesting to see how well the abusive and transgressive approach fares against one that's far more sympathetic to the interrogatee. U.S. experience from the Iraq war was that soft-touch interrogations were far more effective. This past November, U.S. Army Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan, the dean of the United States Military Academy at West Point, flew to Southern California to meet with the creative team behind “24.” Finnegan, who was accompanied by three of the most experienced military and F.B.I. interrogators in the country, arrived on the set as the crew was filming.... Finnegan and the others had come to voice their concern that the show’s central political premise—that the letter of American law must be sacrificed for the country’s security—was having a toxic effect. In their view, the show promoted unethical and illegal behavior and had adversely affected the training and performance of real American soldiers. “I’d like them to stop,” Finnegan said of the show’s producers. “They should do a show where torture backfires.” <https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/02/19/whatever-it-takes https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/02/19/whatever-it-ta...> (There are other instances of F.B.I. and military interrogators reporting both that testimony obtained under torture is either misleading or no more accurate, useful, or timely than that obtained under sympathetic treatment. I believe there was a Fresh Air Interview following 9/11 / the 2nd US-Iraq War though I've yet to locate it. There's a searchable archive for anyone with stronger search-fu here: <https://freshairarchive.org/ https://freshairarchive.org/>. Specifically matching "interrogation": <https://freshairarchive.org/search?keyword=interrogation https://freshairarchive.org/search?keyword=interrogation>.)
tomp 3y ago
re: 1. the aggression is still happening, Hamas is still launching rockets into Israel, so I'd personally say this is Israel defending itself
- lossolo 3y ago
  They have been firing rockets for decades. They killed 28 people over 20 years with 20k+ rockets[1]. Israel killed 17 000 people in two months. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_...
  - liorsbg 3y ago
    This doesn't make it OK.
    - adhamsalama 3y ago
      Yes, killing over 17000 people, most of them women and children is not OK.
      - emptyfile 3y ago
        [dead]
      - liorsbg 3y ago
        I think we agree that civilian deaths are tragic and should be minimized. I'm guessing we disagree on who is responsible for those deaths.
        lern_too_spel 3y ago
        The people who killed them, whether they are Israeli or Palestinian. How is this something that people disagree about?
        3y ago
throwaway6734 3y ago
Nations at war defend themselves by degrading the military might and desire to wage war of the enemy state. I find Israel's actions to be overly callous towards civilian death, but it's important to keep in mind that civilian death was inevitable once the government of Gaza decided to invade Israel and intentionally target civilians.
- kamikazeturtles 3y ago
  With that same logic you can justify the civilian deaths of almost any conflict. Every war crime will be justified. Japanese internment? Justified. Hiroshima? Justified. Agent Orange in Vietnam? Justified. Genocide of 2million Filipinos by the US Army? Justified.... It's exhausting just thinking about these atrocities so I'll take a break
  - throwaway6734 3y ago
    It's not justification, but the reality. War is horrible and innocent people will always die in war.
    - kamikazeturtles 3y ago
      Genocide has no justification
      - ejb999 3y ago
        It depends on the context - just ask the presidents of Harvard, MIT and UPenn
      - nico 3y ago
        [flagged]
        h3rsko 3y ago
        [flagged]
forty 3y ago
Isn't defense also supposed to be targeted against an aggressor? How could the millions of innocent civilians that Israel is displacing, destroying all their houses and belongings and killing (and maybe torturing as described in this article), be considered in any way as aggressor? if a terrorist hid in an appartement building, and the police came, start killing all the inhabitants of the building and destroyed the building, in order to stop that terrorist, would you be wondering if that response is legitimate defense? I don't think so.
- megaman821 3y ago
  What if that terrorist was launching rockets from that apartment? Would it be justified then? These things aren't black-and-white. I don't want to be the person who says how much collateral damage is okay.
  - kevingadd 3y ago
    Israel has a proven ability to do precision strikes on apartment buildings that would basically only target the terrorist - we've seen them do this - but they choose to level entire buildings instead. You can probably figure out why they choose that option.
    - megaman821 3y ago
      Israel also has the proven ability to level all of Gaza, but they fact that they don't doesn't mean much. Outsider speculation on Israeli military objectives is meaningless. Wars don't end when one side gets yelled at. They either end with diplomacy or victory.
      - kevingadd 3y ago
        The photos coming out of the north suggest they have in fact decided to level most or all of Gaza.
- ashirusnw 3y ago
  you and the OP are conflating civil war with laws of war. October 7th was clearly an act of war, and war has been the result. Hamas knew this, but relied on Hezbollah and Houthies pitching in in a much larger way, they miscalculated and Gaza suffers.
pgeorgi 3y ago
> 1. It has to happen in the same time as the agression There are still rockets flying out of Gaza into Israel. > 2. Its only purpose is to defend against the agression The people sending those rockets are in Gaza, so to stop them, Israel has to go there. > 3. The defense has to be proportionate That one is regularly the most difficult point of contention in individual self-defense. Hamas essentially goes by this playbook: https://imgur.com/XX6HVrn https://imgur.com/XX6HVrn So, moving it back to individual self-defense (or coming to somebody's aid, which is covered by approximately the same rules): what should be done about the guy holding a loaded gun at his hostage's head while covering himself in babys?
- leereeves 3y ago
  > what should be done about the guy holding a loaded gun at his hostage's head while covering himself in babys? It's a difficult situation, but I doubt the answer would be to shoot the guy and two babies, which is analogous to Israel's response, if you believe their claim that 1/3 of the people they've killed were Hamas.
  - js212 3y ago
    And the total death counts are coming from a reliable source?
    - leereeves 3y ago
      According to the AP, yes. https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-gaza-health-ministry-health-death-toll-59470820308b31f1faf73c703400b033 https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-gaza-health-mini...
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    >I doubt the answer would be to shoot the guy and two babies not unreasonable if they are pointing the gun at you and your baby. How many children would you kill to save your child? would you just give it up to die?
- enterprise_cog 3y ago
acdha 3y ago
> However supportive of Israel one may be and how repulsed one should be by Hamas, I'd say that we should not fool ourselves in that the military operation in Gaza is Israel defending itself ("Israel's right to defend itself" is now a commonplace phrase) rather than avenging itself. I’ve felt that as well, and I would add that even if you feel every action is justified I am skeptical that it’s not counterproductive. Each civilian killed by mistake has family, friends, and neighbors who might be inclined to avenge them and it’s hard for me to see how this doesn’t end up giving Hamas more recruits than they’re losing. I especially liked this FP piece where the author mentioned that the big driver they saw for terrorism was loss of land. That’s forced so much conflict and it seems likely to keep this raging for years to come. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/israels-failed-bombing-campaign-gaza https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/israels-failed-bombing...
- mminer237 3y ago
  I think an even bigger driver of terrorism than conflict is the fact that most people in Palestine have lived their entire lives in a state wholly governed by terrorists. From birth, children constantly hear how murdering Jewish civilians is one of life's holy accomplishments, how Jews are all racist liars, how Israel shouldn't exist, how Hamas is their rightful glorious leaders, etc. You shouldn't underestimate the impact of decades of racist, nationalist propaganda on young minds. In reality, war and terrorism are awful, and I wonder if the reality of it doesn't disillusion people of its glory. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/04/world/middleeast/to-shape-young-palestinians-hamas-creates-its-own-textbooks.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/04/world/middleeast/to-shape...
  - acdha 3y ago
    I don’t want to discount the effects of that but most people are also capable of knowing when they’re not getting the whole story. Only around a quarter of Palestinians approved of Hamas before the war.
    - yyyk 3y ago
      >most people are also capable of knowing when they’re not getting the whole story. Most people are conformists. >Only around a quarter of Palestinians approved of Hamas before the war. But a lot more approved of violence and terrorism, and they did prefer Hamas over alternatives (that's why no election for 17 years - because everyone knew Hamas would win). Basically, there's nothing Israel can do that will compare with the main driver in Gaza: Hamas control of media and education or ability to just conscript. If there was nothing Hamas could use as propaganda, they'd just invent something. You can't compare the ability to recruit of a terror organization to that of pseduo-state. The state will always win. The state has a tax base, police, media, ways to make one conform. The terror org always needs to compete with the local power and that makes it way more difficult.
ashirusnw 3y ago
It didn't need to be 100% defensive, it can be a calculated deterrent.
banku_brougham 3y ago
I think the self-defense discussion is more of a PR talking point, intl law is pretty clear on the rights and responsibilties of occupying powers. That said, we seem to be entering a new world order where international law means nothing at all.
- blaufast 3y ago
  but did it ever, really? Kissinger died a peaceful death of old age
nahumfarchi 3y ago
No, I don't think that is a reasonable take at all. 1. This is warfare, not civil law. Hamas, which is the sovereign in Gaza (there has been no Israeli military presence there for years), commited an act of war in which hundreds were killed, raped, and kidnapped. Israel, as a state, has the moral duty to fight back and make sure this never happens again. Otherwise, it breaks the most basic contract between citizen and state ("I give up on violence and in turn you protect me from violence"). 2. The aggressors (both in the field and leadership) are still largely out there, and holding kidnapped civilians and soldiers. They don't get a pass just because the "aggression is over" (whatever that means, rockets are still being fired indiscriminately at Israeli cities and towns, which is a war crime by the way...) 3. The responsibility for the safety of the Gazan civilians is that of Hamas since, again, they are the sovereign in Gaza. We shouldn't absolve them of responsibility for picking a fight with a better armed opponent. The defense does not have to be proportionate since that would mean Israel cannot use it's Tanks, warplanes, etc. To imply that Israel should fight with it's hands tied behind its back is ridiculous since war is not fair. There are some international laws intended to reduce the suffering of those that are uninvolved. For example, what does have to be proportionate is the harm caused to civilians when attacking a military target on a case by case basis, to the best of your knowledge (note that, according to international law, the target can in fact be a hospital/school/etc if it's used for military purposes). Finally, an honest question, what would you do? How would you respond in this situation?
- rightbyte 3y ago
  > Finally, an honest question, what would you do? How would you respond in this situation? The situation is by design. I am not going to pretend I don't think Netanyahu wanted this.
  - nahumfarchi 3y ago
    Based on what? He's a cynical real politik kind of guy, but I doubt this is how he hoped this would play out. At the end of the day, I believe that his legacy is extremely important to him, and he probably did not want to be remembered as the one in power during one of the worse massacres against Jews since the holocaust. Not to mention that it's highly likely he'll be voted out during the next elections (TBD...)
throwaway4aday 3y ago
Thinking about a conflict between nations or large groups of people in terms of common law is not the right approach. Before going further I do want to say that I do not condone torture, prisoners of war and/or detained civilians should not be subjected to violence after they have surrendered or been captured. That being said, the only way to think about this is in terms of a war. Israel has officially declared war on Hamas which is the ruling body of the Palestinian territories. A war does not end when the soldiers involved in the first battle are killed, it does not have to only be defensive and it does not have to be proportionate. Other nations may attempt to influence the conduct of nations who are at war but the only recourse beyond political and economic pressure is military action. Israel has no obligation to stop the war until they have achieved their goal which is understandably the complete elimination of Hamas and an end to any further attacks on Israel. This is both a reasonable and an achievable goal given the territory involved and its proximity to Israel. They are not fighting a war halfway around the globe for reasons that may hypothetically affect them at some point in the future. They are fighting on the very borders of their country after just the latest and most horrific attack out of a long history of sustained violence against them. So yes I do think your proposition is unreasonable, I know that if my country was in the same situation that they would respond in the same way and I suspect every last country in the world able to defend itself would do the same.
belorn 3y ago
They sound eerily similar to the reporting done by Wikileaks over what the Americans did over in Iraq and Afghanistan. 1: Define all males killed or captured as combatants and thus valid military target. 2: Either redefine torture or outsource it. 3: Define every military operation as critical to counter terrorism and part of self defense. The media response back then was that this is just normal part of the horrors of war, and that this kind of reporting "don't tell us much that we didn't already know in broad outline".
amluto 3y ago
I don’t think your take is entirely unreasonable, but I do think you’ve missed a critical detail: Hamas continues to attack Israel. So Israel’s military operation is contemporaneous with a threat, and does at least serve some degree of self-defense purpose. As I understand it (and wow, the press coverage is incomplete in so many ways), Hamas has a very large number of, approximately, these things: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qassam_rocket https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qassam_rocket And they fire them, on an ongoing basis, from civilian sites, at Israel. And Israel could, arguably, feel that it defending itself, contemporaneously, from ongoing attacks, thus satisfying #1 and #2. And, while the defense might not be proportionate per se, it’s not that easy to see how, from a purely tactical perspective, Israel is supposed to defend itself more proportionately. Certainly firing an equal number of rockets back at random civilian sites would make no sense. Although Israel could probably find a way for their soldiers to treat people in a much less dehumanizing way. (And I think this situation is horrible. And I suspect it’s intentional on Hamas’s part — see my other comment.)
- edanm 3y ago
  I think the rockets being fired into Israel is one threat, but the far greater threat is just Hamas repeating the October 7th invasion again. They've said, numerous times, that they will do it - invade Israel again and again, killing as many Israelis as they can. (Leaders have also said they will kill Jews anywhere in the world, btw.) If Israel doesn't take out Hamas, it is entirely unclear if it will be able to prevent them from carrying out more attacks in the future.
  - __blockcipher__ 3y ago
    > Leaders have also said they will kill Jews anywhere in the world, btw I'm curious, is your claim that one of the current leaders of Hamas said this? If so I'd love to read the quote. > If Israel doesn't take out Hamas, it is entirely unclear if it will be able to prevent them from carrying out more attacks in the future. One counterargument is that taking out Hamas, if they succeed (I'm not bullish), is likely to just result in another possibly more radical group rising to power. Doubly so when we've seen something like 20,000 casualties in the last two months, overwhelmingly civilian, which is very obviously going to breed another generation that is full of hatred and vengeance. Anyway, moving on I frankly think it should be possible for Israel to prevent another October 7 even in a universe where Hamas is still in power. They have enormous technological and economic superiority as well as the full backing of the US government. It seems like dysfunctional organizational dynamics are a problem here, because Israel had all the intel it could possibly have needed to see this attack coming and stop it, but it didn't. So personally I think looking internally rather than externally is the most likely way to secure the safety of the Israeli populace into the future.
edanm 3y ago
> I'd say that we should not fool ourselves in that the military operation in Gaza is Israel defending itself ("Israel's right to defend itself" is now a commonplace phrase) rather than avenging itself. You may think it is justified in doing so but it still is payback imho. This is absolutely not the case. A few other people have written about why your numbered list makes this clear, but I want to take a different tack. This war is costing Israel a lot. It's costing the lives of soldiers. It's hurting Israel's economy indirectly. It is directly very expensive. It's prolonging an ongoing situation which is very traumatic for many Israelis (rockets shot at them and having to go to bomb shelters). Most importantly, many Israelis want to see the hostages released, and while there are many good arguments for why this war is helping to achieve that goal, there are many good arguments against the war if the purpose is to return hostages. Despite all of the above, Israelis are in general very unified in wanting this war to continue until Hamas is destroyed. This includes many right-wing Israelis who may have nationalistic/territorial aspirations, but it also includes almost the entire Israeli left, who dislike the current government and hate Netanyahu and some members of his cabinet. The reason everyone is willing to pay such a high price, and being for waging a war that is costing so much, is not just revenge. It's because Israelis truly feel, to their core, that Hamas has proven themselves to be an enemy that must be destroyed, otherwise Israelis are just never going to be safe again.
- erokar 3y ago
  > It's because Israelis truly feel, to their core, that Hamas has proven themselves to be an enemy that must be destroyed, otherwise Israelis are just never going to be safe again. Has there been public debate in Israel wheter: 1. It is realistic to eradicate Hamas. 2. To what extent Israel's operation will sow new hate and resistance among the Palestinians, so that the risk of future attacks increases, whether that be by Hamas or any other resistance group.
  - edanm 3y ago
    1. All the time, though not quite as much as outside Israel. I think outsiders don't feel quite as determined as Israelis do - we believe that it's achievable because we feel we are fighting for our lives, to an extent - which makes a lot of things that are hard-but-not-impossible to achieve suddenly achievable. 2. Yes, there is a bit of talk about "the day after" and how to keep the peace. No one really knows or has good answers here. (I have my answers for what should happen short-term and long-term, but luckily I have no part in this government!)
cameronh90 3y ago
Individual self-defense is legally restricted in your (and my) country because you can rely on the state to take up the fight once the immediate threat has passed. If someone tells you that they're going to come and shoot you at some point in the future, you call the police, and the police will pre-emptively use force against them by putting them in jail. At least that's the theory. I agree that Israel are probably being recklessly indifferent to civilian lives and likely committing war crimes, but Hamas explicitly has the genocide of the Jews as their founding principle. For Israel to be safe, Hamas has to go. I can't see any other way this ends, and with the way Hamas embeds themselves within the civilian population, collateral damage is inevitable. Although, to repeat, I do think Israel need to do more to minimise it.
emmelaich 3y ago
I keep hearing "3. The defense has to be proportionate" but how does that make sense? The point is to remove Hamas from a position of power. If that happens with fewer casualties, do they then continue war and kill a few more just to be "proportionate"? That makes no sense. Also regard 2, if you genuinely feel your cause is just, the result you want is unconditional surrender.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > The point is to remove Hamas from a position of power. If that happens with fewer casualties, do they then continue war and kill a few more just to be "proportionate"? Proportionality is a maximum limitation in just war theory, not a measure of minimum acceptable violence. (The same is generally true in more personal law when proportionality is a component of self-defense provisions.) > Also regard 2, if you genuinely feel your cause is just, the result you want is unconditional surrender. No, you want a resolution with acceptable conditions which align with your cause: unconditional surrender necessarily achieves that, but it is by no means generally necessary.
  - ashirusnw 3y ago
    proportionality in laws of conflict also doesn't relate to numbers comparison at all
starik36 3y ago
As others have said, Israel is still under constant rocket/missile shower from Gaza. So I think it's safe to conclude that your point 2 is met as well. You can follow along with the missile alerts at https://www.oref.org.il//12481-en/Pakar.aspx https://www.oref.org.il//12481-en/Pakar.aspx (VPN to Israel required). The alerts aren't as overwhelming as in October and November, but still happen with regularity.
yyyk 3y ago
1. Hamas is still holding hostages and firing missiles and promises to attack over and over, leading to a situation where the border communities are ethnically cleansed because nobody sane is going to just wait there for the next attack. The defence is to remove the threat for good. 2. This formulation is mind-reading. I recall the more correct formulation is asking what the "reasonable person" would do. Or in this case the 'reasonable state'. It's probably impossible to define a reasonable state without sneaking in our preferences. But if we look at the past record of democracies, they were very aggressive in similar situations. 3. There are reams of papers on proportionality with never any clear conclusion, because the definition was intentionally made to be subjective. The better options are to look at other states are doing (a lot more dead in the campaign against ISIS) or to compare the likely futures given each course of action and see where less people are killed: There's no peace with Hamas, and they won't let themselves be unelected peacefully. So at best we can expect having another war. We need to compare the future of continuing this war, to the future of stopping and having another one a bit later. I can see a lot of scenarios where the future war is bigger and more destructive compared to this one (the future war would have to retake areas cleared in this one; Hamas could take over the West Bank in the meantime, or manage to drag Hezbollah into the war next time).
38529977thrw 3y ago
John J. Mearsheimer has weighed in on characterizing what Israel is doing against the Palestinians. "I do not believe that anything I say about what is happening in Gaza will affect Israeli or American policy in that conflict. But I want to be on record so that when historians look back on this moral calamity, they will see that some Americans were on the right side of history. What Israel is doing in Gaza to the Palestinian civilian population – with the support of the Biden administration – is a crime against humanity that serves no meaningful military purpose. As J-Street, an important organization in the Israel lobby, puts it, “The scope of the unfolding humanitarian disaster and civilian casualties is nearly unfathomable.” Let me elaborate [...]" source: https://mearsheimer.substack.com/p/death-and-destruction-in-gaza https://mearsheimer.substack.com/p/death-and-destruction-in-...
nojvek 3y ago
I’d say it’s a reasonable take. Israel’s response is disproportionately aggressive as they’re dropping air bombs on civilian infrastructure and putting a blockade on basics like food, medicine, water. That being said at an international level, it’s an anarchy. If Israel wants to commit genocide and wipe Gaza and Westbank off the map, they likely have the power to do so. At this point, they are seeking pent up revenge and likely no longer see Palestinians on equal footing as humans. I’m likely generalizing but from what I see in TikTok, it’s pretty gore out there. Hamas has achieved the goal of bringing the IDF to its level of inhumanness.
yonatan8070 3y ago
Israel isn't defending itself from an immideate threat at this point, but if Hamas isn't fully destroyed, atrocities like the ones commited on October 7 will happen again. As an Israeli, I've had to sprint for a shelter many times in my life because of Hamas rocket fire toward our cities, and if Hamas remains after this, it would continue to happen, and they would continue to funnel all of Gaza's resources into their terrorist activities while the actual people will continue to starve.
nec4b 3y ago
[flagged]

PoignardAzur 3y ago

The Israeli military also claims to be trying to rescue hostages, though whether it's prosecuting the most effective strategy there is hotly debated.

dredmorbius 3y ago
It's ... interesting ... to note that this is precisely the sort of "ticking time bomb" scenario often raised in justification of torture and rampant surveillance: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticking_time_bomb_scenario https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticking_time_bomb_scenario> It would be interesting to see how well the abusive and transgressive approach fares against one that's far more sympathetic to the interrogatee. U.S. experience from the Iraq war was that soft-touch interrogations were far more effective. This past November, U.S. Army Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan, the dean of the United States Military Academy at West Point, flew to Southern California to meet with the creative team behind “24.” Finnegan, who was accompanied by three of the most experienced military and F.B.I. interrogators in the country, arrived on the set as the crew was filming.... Finnegan and the others had come to voice their concern that the show’s central political premise—that the letter of American law must be sacrificed for the country’s security—was having a toxic effect. In their view, the show promoted unethical and illegal behavior and had adversely affected the training and performance of real American soldiers. “I’d like them to stop,” Finnegan said of the show’s producers. “They should do a show where torture backfires.” <https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/02/19/whatever-it-takes https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/02/19/whatever-it-ta...> (There are other instances of F.B.I. and military interrogators reporting both that testimony obtained under torture is either misleading or no more accurate, useful, or timely than that obtained under sympathetic treatment. I believe there was a Fresh Air Interview following 9/11 / the 2nd US-Iraq War though I've yet to locate it. There's a searchable archive for anyone with stronger search-fu here: <https://freshairarchive.org/ https://freshairarchive.org/>. Specifically matching "interrogation": <https://freshairarchive.org/search?keyword=interrogation https://freshairarchive.org/search?keyword=interrogation>.)

tomp 3y ago

re: 1. the aggression is still happening, Hamas is still launching rockets into Israel, so I'd personally say this is Israel defending itself

lossolo 3y ago
They have been firing rockets for decades. They killed 28 people over 20 years with 20k+ rockets[1]. Israel killed 17 000 people in two months. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_...
- liorsbg 3y ago
  This doesn't make it OK.
  - adhamsalama 3y ago
    Yes, killing over 17000 people, most of them women and children is not OK.
    - emptyfile 3y ago
      [dead]
    - liorsbg 3y ago
      I think we agree that civilian deaths are tragic and should be minimized. I'm guessing we disagree on who is responsible for those deaths.
      - lern_too_spel 3y ago
        The people who killed them, whether they are Israeli or Palestinian. How is this something that people disagree about?
        3y ago

throwaway6734 3y ago

Nations at war defend themselves by degrading the military might and desire to wage war of the enemy state. I find Israel's actions to be overly callous towards civilian death, but it's important to keep in mind that civilian death was inevitable once the government of Gaza decided to invade Israel and intentionally target civilians.

kamikazeturtles 3y ago
With that same logic you can justify the civilian deaths of almost any conflict. Every war crime will be justified. Japanese internment? Justified. Hiroshima? Justified. Agent Orange in Vietnam? Justified. Genocide of 2million Filipinos by the US Army? Justified.... It's exhausting just thinking about these atrocities so I'll take a break
- throwaway6734 3y ago
  It's not justification, but the reality. War is horrible and innocent people will always die in war.
  - kamikazeturtles 3y ago
    Genocide has no justification
    - ejb999 3y ago
      It depends on the context - just ask the presidents of Harvard, MIT and UPenn
    - nico 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - h3rsko 3y ago
        [flagged]

forty 3y ago

Isn't defense also supposed to be targeted against an aggressor? How could the millions of innocent civilians that Israel is displacing, destroying all their houses and belongings and killing (and maybe torturing as described in this article), be considered in any way as aggressor? if a terrorist hid in an appartement building, and the police came, start killing all the inhabitants of the building and destroyed the building, in order to stop that terrorist, would you be wondering if that response is legitimate defense? I don't think so.

megaman821 3y ago
What if that terrorist was launching rockets from that apartment? Would it be justified then? These things aren't black-and-white. I don't want to be the person who says how much collateral damage is okay.
- kevingadd 3y ago
  Israel has a proven ability to do precision strikes on apartment buildings that would basically only target the terrorist - we've seen them do this - but they choose to level entire buildings instead. You can probably figure out why they choose that option.
  - megaman821 3y ago
    Israel also has the proven ability to level all of Gaza, but they fact that they don't doesn't mean much. Outsider speculation on Israeli military objectives is meaningless. Wars don't end when one side gets yelled at. They either end with diplomacy or victory.
    - kevingadd 3y ago
      The photos coming out of the north suggest they have in fact decided to level most or all of Gaza.
ashirusnw 3y ago
you and the OP are conflating civil war with laws of war. October 7th was clearly an act of war, and war has been the result. Hamas knew this, but relied on Hezbollah and Houthies pitching in in a much larger way, they miscalculated and Gaza suffers.

pgeorgi 3y ago

> 1. It has to happen in the same time as the agression There are still rockets flying out of Gaza into Israel. > 2. Its only purpose is to defend against the agression The people sending those rockets are in Gaza, so to stop them, Israel has to go there. > 3. The defense has to be proportionate That one is regularly the most difficult point of contention in individual self-defense. Hamas essentially goes by this playbook: https://imgur.com/XX6HVrn https://imgur.com/XX6HVrn So, moving it back to individual self-defense (or coming to somebody's aid, which is covered by approximately the same rules): what should be done about the guy holding a loaded gun at his hostage's head while covering himself in babys?

leereeves 3y ago
> what should be done about the guy holding a loaded gun at his hostage's head while covering himself in babys? It's a difficult situation, but I doubt the answer would be to shoot the guy and two babies, which is analogous to Israel's response, if you believe their claim that 1/3 of the people they've killed were Hamas.
- js212 3y ago
  And the total death counts are coming from a reliable source?
  - leereeves 3y ago
    According to the AP, yes. https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-gaza-health-ministry-health-death-toll-59470820308b31f1faf73c703400b033 https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-gaza-health-mini...
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  >I doubt the answer would be to shoot the guy and two babies not unreasonable if they are pointing the gun at you and your baby. How many children would you kill to save your child? would you just give it up to die?
enterprise_cog 3y ago

acdha 3y ago

> However supportive of Israel one may be and how repulsed one should be by Hamas, I'd say that we should not fool ourselves in that the military operation in Gaza is Israel defending itself ("Israel's right to defend itself" is now a commonplace phrase) rather than avenging itself. I’ve felt that as well, and I would add that even if you feel every action is justified I am skeptical that it’s not counterproductive. Each civilian killed by mistake has family, friends, and neighbors who might be inclined to avenge them and it’s hard for me to see how this doesn’t end up giving Hamas more recruits than they’re losing. I especially liked this FP piece where the author mentioned that the big driver they saw for terrorism was loss of land. That’s forced so much conflict and it seems likely to keep this raging for years to come. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/israels-failed-bombing-campaign-gaza https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/israels-failed-bombing...

mminer237 3y ago
I think an even bigger driver of terrorism than conflict is the fact that most people in Palestine have lived their entire lives in a state wholly governed by terrorists. From birth, children constantly hear how murdering Jewish civilians is one of life's holy accomplishments, how Jews are all racist liars, how Israel shouldn't exist, how Hamas is their rightful glorious leaders, etc. You shouldn't underestimate the impact of decades of racist, nationalist propaganda on young minds. In reality, war and terrorism are awful, and I wonder if the reality of it doesn't disillusion people of its glory. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/04/world/middleeast/to-shape-young-palestinians-hamas-creates-its-own-textbooks.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/04/world/middleeast/to-shape...
- acdha 3y ago
  I don’t want to discount the effects of that but most people are also capable of knowing when they’re not getting the whole story. Only around a quarter of Palestinians approved of Hamas before the war.
  - yyyk 3y ago
    >most people are also capable of knowing when they’re not getting the whole story. Most people are conformists. >Only around a quarter of Palestinians approved of Hamas before the war. But a lot more approved of violence and terrorism, and they did prefer Hamas over alternatives (that's why no election for 17 years - because everyone knew Hamas would win). Basically, there's nothing Israel can do that will compare with the main driver in Gaza: Hamas control of media and education or ability to just conscript. If there was nothing Hamas could use as propaganda, they'd just invent something. You can't compare the ability to recruit of a terror organization to that of pseduo-state. The state will always win. The state has a tax base, police, media, ways to make one conform. The terror org always needs to compete with the local power and that makes it way more difficult.

ashirusnw 3y ago

It didn't need to be 100% defensive, it can be a calculated deterrent.

banku_brougham 3y ago

I think the self-defense discussion is more of a PR talking point, intl law is pretty clear on the rights and responsibilties of occupying powers. That said, we seem to be entering a new world order where international law means nothing at all.

blaufast 3y ago
but did it ever, really? Kissinger died a peaceful death of old age

nahumfarchi 3y ago

No, I don't think that is a reasonable take at all. 1. This is warfare, not civil law. Hamas, which is the sovereign in Gaza (there has been no Israeli military presence there for years), commited an act of war in which hundreds were killed, raped, and kidnapped. Israel, as a state, has the moral duty to fight back and make sure this never happens again. Otherwise, it breaks the most basic contract between citizen and state ("I give up on violence and in turn you protect me from violence"). 2. The aggressors (both in the field and leadership) are still largely out there, and holding kidnapped civilians and soldiers. They don't get a pass just because the "aggression is over" (whatever that means, rockets are still being fired indiscriminately at Israeli cities and towns, which is a war crime by the way...) 3. The responsibility for the safety of the Gazan civilians is that of Hamas since, again, they are the sovereign in Gaza. We shouldn't absolve them of responsibility for picking a fight with a better armed opponent. The defense does not have to be proportionate since that would mean Israel cannot use it's Tanks, warplanes, etc. To imply that Israel should fight with it's hands tied behind its back is ridiculous since war is not fair. There are some international laws intended to reduce the suffering of those that are uninvolved. For example, what does have to be proportionate is the harm caused to civilians when attacking a military target on a case by case basis, to the best of your knowledge (note that, according to international law, the target can in fact be a hospital/school/etc if it's used for military purposes). Finally, an honest question, what would you do? How would you respond in this situation?

rightbyte 3y ago
> Finally, an honest question, what would you do? How would you respond in this situation? The situation is by design. I am not going to pretend I don't think Netanyahu wanted this.
- nahumfarchi 3y ago
  Based on what? He's a cynical real politik kind of guy, but I doubt this is how he hoped this would play out. At the end of the day, I believe that his legacy is extremely important to him, and he probably did not want to be remembered as the one in power during one of the worse massacres against Jews since the holocaust. Not to mention that it's highly likely he'll be voted out during the next elections (TBD...)

throwaway4aday 3y ago

Thinking about a conflict between nations or large groups of people in terms of common law is not the right approach. Before going further I do want to say that I do not condone torture, prisoners of war and/or detained civilians should not be subjected to violence after they have surrendered or been captured. That being said, the only way to think about this is in terms of a war. Israel has officially declared war on Hamas which is the ruling body of the Palestinian territories. A war does not end when the soldiers involved in the first battle are killed, it does not have to only be defensive and it does not have to be proportionate. Other nations may attempt to influence the conduct of nations who are at war but the only recourse beyond political and economic pressure is military action. Israel has no obligation to stop the war until they have achieved their goal which is understandably the complete elimination of Hamas and an end to any further attacks on Israel. This is both a reasonable and an achievable goal given the territory involved and its proximity to Israel. They are not fighting a war halfway around the globe for reasons that may hypothetically affect them at some point in the future. They are fighting on the very borders of their country after just the latest and most horrific attack out of a long history of sustained violence against them. So yes I do think your proposition is unreasonable, I know that if my country was in the same situation that they would respond in the same way and I suspect every last country in the world able to defend itself would do the same.

belorn 3y ago

They sound eerily similar to the reporting done by Wikileaks over what the Americans did over in Iraq and Afghanistan. 1: Define all males killed or captured as combatants and thus valid military target. 2: Either redefine torture or outsource it. 3: Define every military operation as critical to counter terrorism and part of self defense. The media response back then was that this is just normal part of the horrors of war, and that this kind of reporting "don't tell us much that we didn't already know in broad outline".

amluto 3y ago

I don’t think your take is entirely unreasonable, but I do think you’ve missed a critical detail: Hamas continues to attack Israel. So Israel’s military operation is contemporaneous with a threat, and does at least serve some degree of self-defense purpose. As I understand it (and wow, the press coverage is incomplete in so many ways), Hamas has a very large number of, approximately, these things: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qassam_rocket https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qassam_rocket And they fire them, on an ongoing basis, from civilian sites, at Israel. And Israel could, arguably, feel that it defending itself, contemporaneously, from ongoing attacks, thus satisfying #1 and #2. And, while the defense might not be proportionate per se, it’s not that easy to see how, from a purely tactical perspective, Israel is supposed to defend itself more proportionately. Certainly firing an equal number of rockets back at random civilian sites would make no sense. Although Israel could probably find a way for their soldiers to treat people in a much less dehumanizing way. (And I think this situation is horrible. And I suspect it’s intentional on Hamas’s part — see my other comment.)

edanm 3y ago
I think the rockets being fired into Israel is one threat, but the far greater threat is just Hamas repeating the October 7th invasion again. They've said, numerous times, that they will do it - invade Israel again and again, killing as many Israelis as they can. (Leaders have also said they will kill Jews anywhere in the world, btw.) If Israel doesn't take out Hamas, it is entirely unclear if it will be able to prevent them from carrying out more attacks in the future.
- __blockcipher__ 3y ago
  > Leaders have also said they will kill Jews anywhere in the world, btw I'm curious, is your claim that one of the current leaders of Hamas said this? If so I'd love to read the quote. > If Israel doesn't take out Hamas, it is entirely unclear if it will be able to prevent them from carrying out more attacks in the future. One counterargument is that taking out Hamas, if they succeed (I'm not bullish), is likely to just result in another possibly more radical group rising to power. Doubly so when we've seen something like 20,000 casualties in the last two months, overwhelmingly civilian, which is very obviously going to breed another generation that is full of hatred and vengeance. Anyway, moving on I frankly think it should be possible for Israel to prevent another October 7 even in a universe where Hamas is still in power. They have enormous technological and economic superiority as well as the full backing of the US government. It seems like dysfunctional organizational dynamics are a problem here, because Israel had all the intel it could possibly have needed to see this attack coming and stop it, but it didn't. So personally I think looking internally rather than externally is the most likely way to secure the safety of the Israeli populace into the future.

edanm 3y ago

> I'd say that we should not fool ourselves in that the military operation in Gaza is Israel defending itself ("Israel's right to defend itself" is now a commonplace phrase) rather than avenging itself. You may think it is justified in doing so but it still is payback imho. This is absolutely not the case. A few other people have written about why your numbered list makes this clear, but I want to take a different tack. This war is costing Israel a lot. It's costing the lives of soldiers. It's hurting Israel's economy indirectly. It is directly very expensive. It's prolonging an ongoing situation which is very traumatic for many Israelis (rockets shot at them and having to go to bomb shelters). Most importantly, many Israelis want to see the hostages released, and while there are many good arguments for why this war is helping to achieve that goal, there are many good arguments against the war if the purpose is to return hostages. Despite all of the above, Israelis are in general very unified in wanting this war to continue until Hamas is destroyed. This includes many right-wing Israelis who may have nationalistic/territorial aspirations, but it also includes almost the entire Israeli left, who dislike the current government and hate Netanyahu and some members of his cabinet. The reason everyone is willing to pay such a high price, and being for waging a war that is costing so much, is not just revenge. It's because Israelis truly feel, to their core, that Hamas has proven themselves to be an enemy that must be destroyed, otherwise Israelis are just never going to be safe again.

erokar 3y ago
> It's because Israelis truly feel, to their core, that Hamas has proven themselves to be an enemy that must be destroyed, otherwise Israelis are just never going to be safe again. Has there been public debate in Israel wheter: 1. It is realistic to eradicate Hamas. 2. To what extent Israel's operation will sow new hate and resistance among the Palestinians, so that the risk of future attacks increases, whether that be by Hamas or any other resistance group.
- edanm 3y ago
  1. All the time, though not quite as much as outside Israel. I think outsiders don't feel quite as determined as Israelis do - we believe that it's achievable because we feel we are fighting for our lives, to an extent - which makes a lot of things that are hard-but-not-impossible to achieve suddenly achievable. 2. Yes, there is a bit of talk about "the day after" and how to keep the peace. No one really knows or has good answers here. (I have my answers for what should happen short-term and long-term, but luckily I have no part in this government!)

cameronh90 3y ago

Individual self-defense is legally restricted in your (and my) country because you can rely on the state to take up the fight once the immediate threat has passed. If someone tells you that they're going to come and shoot you at some point in the future, you call the police, and the police will pre-emptively use force against them by putting them in jail. At least that's the theory. I agree that Israel are probably being recklessly indifferent to civilian lives and likely committing war crimes, but Hamas explicitly has the genocide of the Jews as their founding principle. For Israel to be safe, Hamas has to go. I can't see any other way this ends, and with the way Hamas embeds themselves within the civilian population, collateral damage is inevitable. Although, to repeat, I do think Israel need to do more to minimise it.

emmelaich 3y ago

I keep hearing "3. The defense has to be proportionate" but how does that make sense? The point is to remove Hamas from a position of power. If that happens with fewer casualties, do they then continue war and kill a few more just to be "proportionate"? That makes no sense. Also regard 2, if you genuinely feel your cause is just, the result you want is unconditional surrender.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> The point is to remove Hamas from a position of power. If that happens with fewer casualties, do they then continue war and kill a few more just to be "proportionate"? Proportionality is a maximum limitation in just war theory, not a measure of minimum acceptable violence. (The same is generally true in more personal law when proportionality is a component of self-defense provisions.) > Also regard 2, if you genuinely feel your cause is just, the result you want is unconditional surrender. No, you want a resolution with acceptable conditions which align with your cause: unconditional surrender necessarily achieves that, but it is by no means generally necessary.
- ashirusnw 3y ago
  proportionality in laws of conflict also doesn't relate to numbers comparison at all

starik36 3y ago

As others have said, Israel is still under constant rocket/missile shower from Gaza. So I think it's safe to conclude that your point 2 is met as well. You can follow along with the missile alerts at https://www.oref.org.il//12481-en/Pakar.aspx https://www.oref.org.il//12481-en/Pakar.aspx (VPN to Israel required). The alerts aren't as overwhelming as in October and November, but still happen with regularity.

yyyk 3y ago

1. Hamas is still holding hostages and firing missiles and promises to attack over and over, leading to a situation where the border communities are ethnically cleansed because nobody sane is going to just wait there for the next attack. The defence is to remove the threat for good. 2. This formulation is mind-reading. I recall the more correct formulation is asking what the "reasonable person" would do. Or in this case the 'reasonable state'. It's probably impossible to define a reasonable state without sneaking in our preferences. But if we look at the past record of democracies, they were very aggressive in similar situations. 3. There are reams of papers on proportionality with never any clear conclusion, because the definition was intentionally made to be subjective. The better options are to look at other states are doing (a lot more dead in the campaign against ISIS) or to compare the likely futures given each course of action and see where less people are killed: There's no peace with Hamas, and they won't let themselves be unelected peacefully. So at best we can expect having another war. We need to compare the future of continuing this war, to the future of stopping and having another one a bit later. I can see a lot of scenarios where the future war is bigger and more destructive compared to this one (the future war would have to retake areas cleared in this one; Hamas could take over the West Bank in the meantime, or manage to drag Hezbollah into the war next time).

38529977thrw 3y ago

John J. Mearsheimer has weighed in on characterizing what Israel is doing against the Palestinians. "I do not believe that anything I say about what is happening in Gaza will affect Israeli or American policy in that conflict. But I want to be on record so that when historians look back on this moral calamity, they will see that some Americans were on the right side of history. What Israel is doing in Gaza to the Palestinian civilian population – with the support of the Biden administration – is a crime against humanity that serves no meaningful military purpose. As J-Street, an important organization in the Israel lobby, puts it, “The scope of the unfolding humanitarian disaster and civilian casualties is nearly unfathomable.” Let me elaborate [...]" source: https://mearsheimer.substack.com/p/death-and-destruction-in-gaza https://mearsheimer.substack.com/p/death-and-destruction-in-...

nojvek 3y ago

I’d say it’s a reasonable take. Israel’s response is disproportionately aggressive as they’re dropping air bombs on civilian infrastructure and putting a blockade on basics like food, medicine, water. That being said at an international level, it’s an anarchy. If Israel wants to commit genocide and wipe Gaza and Westbank off the map, they likely have the power to do so. At this point, they are seeking pent up revenge and likely no longer see Palestinians on equal footing as humans. I’m likely generalizing but from what I see in TikTok, it’s pretty gore out there. Hamas has achieved the goal of bringing the IDF to its level of inhumanness.

yonatan8070 3y ago

Israel isn't defending itself from an immideate threat at this point, but if Hamas isn't fully destroyed, atrocities like the ones commited on October 7 will happen again. As an Israeli, I've had to sprint for a shelter many times in my life because of Hamas rocket fire toward our cities, and if Hamas remains after this, it would continue to happen, and they would continue to funnel all of Gaza's resources into their terrorist activities while the actual people will continue to starve.

nec4b 3y ago

[flagged]