4 ms·

Nobody is asking you to be a domain expert. When it comes to almost any other issue, people ask how and demand evidence. But when it comes to Hamas's claims of

Nobody is asking you to be a domain expert. When it comes to almost any other issue, people ask how and demand evidence. But when it comes to Hamas's claims of a certain number of dead, nobody seems to ask "How do they calculate it? Are they looking at morgue data? Are they doing photographs of mass burial sites, as Ukraine did? What is their method?" So people are asking you to be scientific and critical rather than to uncritically repeat the claims of a belligerent in combat. Finally, I'm not sure if you're saying this facetiously or if you genuinely don't know what Israel is capable of, or the lengths its gone to to reduce civilian harm but Israel is not doing indiscriminate mass slaughter. That's what Hamas did on October 7.

SauciestGNU 3y ago
Ok, fair. My curiosity about methodology was satisfied when I saw an interview with a UN relief director who explained the retrospective examination of past casualty reporting that had happened. I mean completely seriously that Israeli occupation forces are engaging in deliberate mass slaughter, including widely reported upon declarations of certain zones as safe for civilians followed by the bombing of those zones (https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-news-01-03-2024-3b77b0c36bf2cd9922b7a484234bef5f https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-news-01-03-2024-...).
- richardfeynman 3y ago
  The UN is unfortunately not a credible source when it comes to this issue. Hostages have been held at UN employees' houses; the UN failed to condemn the October 7 attack for months; and they denied that rape occurred for months. While you rely on authorities, I'll do what enlightenment thinkers do. Ask questions like "how" and "what is their method."
  - SauciestGNU 3y ago
    Israel has a vested interest in discrediting the UN, this does not mean that the UN is in fact not a credible source. I'll glaze over their non-condemnation (since nobody required to condemn the IDF to participate in this discourse) and I'll say that independent investigations have yet to substantiate the accusations of sexual violence and infant beheadings that the Israeli state makes. So at least on that accord, the facts are on the side of the UN denials.
    - tptacek 3y ago
      It may well be the case that Israel has a vested interest in discrediting the UN, but it's also pretty clear that the UN doesn't have much of an interest in establishing its own credibility. The Human Rights Council includes military dictatorships and countries responsible for unquestioned genocides. It has had a standing agenda item ("Item 7") regarding Palestine and the "occupied Arab territories"; Israel is the only country to receive such attention. The Special Rapporteur on Palestine, Francesa Albanese, has accused the US and Europe of being "subjugated by the Jewish lobby". The UN itself sponsors several organizations dedicated to the Israel/Palestine conflict, despite drastically more severe human rights issues elsewhere on the globe. None of this is to defend any of the Netanyahu administrations actions in Gaza. I think these discussions on HN are largely cursed, and nobody is going to persuade anybody to "switch sides". You don't have to agree that the UN is, as Israel's supporters would say, so clearly biased against Israel as to be fatal to their credibility. But I don't think you can dismiss the charge easily. If you dig in, you're going to read some uncomfortable stuff.
      - pvg 3y ago
        but it's also pretty clear that the UN doesn't have much of an interest in establishing its own credibility. That's a little glib though, since it's fundamentally not how the UN works.
        tptacek 3y ago
        It felt glib. Can you think of a better way to write it?
        pvg 3y ago
        Probably not, plus as a former UN brat (DISCLOSURE!), this stuff tends to get my goat a little. Since the org is huge, multipurpose and multifaceted (and often less than the sum of its parts), I'd say it's best to stay as specific as possible both when using some UN thing to buttress an argument or to critique the thing - so, what is the thing, by what org, person, representative, etc. In this case, the specific thing is an interview with a UN relief director who explained the retrospective examination of past casualty reporting that had happened Which doesn't seem to be linked? From there the whole thing swerves into a discussion of 'The UN' which turns to vague generalities that are mostly (I think often unintentionally) recycled talking points. 'Israel seeks to discredit the UN' is a recycled talking point itself, of course. But I think 'HRC has bad members' is too - the UN is full of bad members. The Security Council has an aggressor state on it with veto power and everything! UN has a lot of orgs and items dedicated to the conflict? Sure, but Israel and the UN were almost born together and the conflict is one of the closest things the UN has to a foundational, OG issue - state formation, genocide, wars of aggression, right to defense, refugees, it's all there. Special Rapporteurs are kind of unserious (and why is there no Special Raconteur)? A real thing but doesn't seem clearly related to whatever interview the poster read. Anyway, sorry for the grumptone, I just think substantive UN critique is such a fecund orchard of low hanging fruit there's not much point in settling for the frozen trope concentrate stuff.
  - johnnyworker 3y ago
    > The UN is unfortunately not a credible source when it comes to this issue This issue includes the second paragraph of the comment your replied to.

SauciestGNU 3y ago

Ok, fair. My curiosity about methodology was satisfied when I saw an interview with a UN relief director who explained the retrospective examination of past casualty reporting that had happened. I mean completely seriously that Israeli occupation forces are engaging in deliberate mass slaughter, including widely reported upon declarations of certain zones as safe for civilians followed by the bombing of those zones (https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-news-01-03-2024-3b77b0c36bf2cd9922b7a484234bef5f https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-news-01-03-2024-...).

richardfeynman 3y ago
The UN is unfortunately not a credible source when it comes to this issue. Hostages have been held at UN employees' houses; the UN failed to condemn the October 7 attack for months; and they denied that rape occurred for months. While you rely on authorities, I'll do what enlightenment thinkers do. Ask questions like "how" and "what is their method."
- SauciestGNU 3y ago
  Israel has a vested interest in discrediting the UN, this does not mean that the UN is in fact not a credible source. I'll glaze over their non-condemnation (since nobody required to condemn the IDF to participate in this discourse) and I'll say that independent investigations have yet to substantiate the accusations of sexual violence and infant beheadings that the Israeli state makes. So at least on that accord, the facts are on the side of the UN denials.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    It may well be the case that Israel has a vested interest in discrediting the UN, but it's also pretty clear that the UN doesn't have much of an interest in establishing its own credibility. The Human Rights Council includes military dictatorships and countries responsible for unquestioned genocides. It has had a standing agenda item ("Item 7") regarding Palestine and the "occupied Arab territories"; Israel is the only country to receive such attention. The Special Rapporteur on Palestine, Francesa Albanese, has accused the US and Europe of being "subjugated by the Jewish lobby". The UN itself sponsors several organizations dedicated to the Israel/Palestine conflict, despite drastically more severe human rights issues elsewhere on the globe. None of this is to defend any of the Netanyahu administrations actions in Gaza. I think these discussions on HN are largely cursed, and nobody is going to persuade anybody to "switch sides". You don't have to agree that the UN is, as Israel's supporters would say, so clearly biased against Israel as to be fatal to their credibility. But I don't think you can dismiss the charge easily. If you dig in, you're going to read some uncomfortable stuff.
    - pvg 3y ago
      but it's also pretty clear that the UN doesn't have much of an interest in establishing its own credibility. That's a little glib though, since it's fundamentally not how the UN works.
      - tptacek 3y ago
        It felt glib. Can you think of a better way to write it?
        pvg 3y ago
        Probably not, plus as a former UN brat (DISCLOSURE!), this stuff tends to get my goat a little. Since the org is huge, multipurpose and multifaceted (and often less than the sum of its parts), I'd say it's best to stay as specific as possible both when using some UN thing to buttress an argument or to critique the thing - so, what is the thing, by what org, person, representative, etc. In this case, the specific thing is an interview with a UN relief director who explained the retrospective examination of past casualty reporting that had happened Which doesn't seem to be linked? From there the whole thing swerves into a discussion of 'The UN' which turns to vague generalities that are mostly (I think often unintentionally) recycled talking points. 'Israel seeks to discredit the UN' is a recycled talking point itself, of course. But I think 'HRC has bad members' is too - the UN is full of bad members. The Security Council has an aggressor state on it with veto power and everything! UN has a lot of orgs and items dedicated to the conflict? Sure, but Israel and the UN were almost born together and the conflict is one of the closest things the UN has to a foundational, OG issue - state formation, genocide, wars of aggression, right to defense, refugees, it's all there. Special Rapporteurs are kind of unserious (and why is there no Special Raconteur)? A real thing but doesn't seem clearly related to whatever interview the poster read. Anyway, sorry for the grumptone, I just think substantive UN critique is such a fecund orchard of low hanging fruit there's not much point in settling for the frozen trope concentrate stuff.
- johnnyworker 3y ago
  > The UN is unfortunately not a credible source when it comes to this issue This issue includes the second paragraph of the comment your replied to.