3 ms·

<del>You are right.</del><ins>I would argue</ins> Israel is much worse. Israel is a state actor with a state level budget, and a state level arsenal which incl

<del>You are right.</del><ins>I would argue</ins> Israel is much worse. Israel is a state actor with a state level budget, and a state level arsenal which includes nuclear weapons. The damage it can and does inflict is an order of magnitude worse than the horrors any terrorist organization could ever dream of inflicting. But unlike Hamas, Israel also has state level responsibilities, of which it is horrifically failing to uphold. We should judge Hamas as a terrorist organization, but we should also judge Israel as a state actor, and as such any moral failings of Israel is infinitely worse. > The simple fact is that civilian casualties are not all equally and cannot simply be tallied. If true the horrors of 75 years of colonization, occupation and apartheid should be weighted in. Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are under constant threat of being shot at for opening a car gate, going down the wrong street, or simply for protecting their orchards from settlers. That said, atrocities and crimes against humanity should not be ranked in any order. They should all be prevented, and in the worst case scenario prosecuted. What my parent said was: “There is no doubt that Hamas wants to kill all Israelis because we not only have the text of the charter, but we have their actions on October 7th and their subsequent statements.” is the only thing I’m equating. The case against Israel at the ICJ is exploring whether it can be stated without a doubt that Israel intents (wants) to kill (or displace) all Palestinians in Gaza as a group. For this South Africa cites written and spoken statements by Israeli officials (written charter) but also its actions during the current conflict (hindering aid, destroying civil infrastructure, leveling residential neighborhoods, etc.) as well as also actions prior to Oct 7 of which this inferred intent only builds upon. My parent was assuming genocidal intent onto Hamas, all the while many states are doing the very same against Israel. My parent may be right, but if South Africa et.all are right, the results are an order of magnitude more horrific, by the very nature that the perpetrator is not a mere terrorist organization, but a state actor. --- EDIT: Removed an unnecessary name calling from post.

tptacek 3y ago
I don't think you've made a case for Israel being worse here that doesn't rely on simply tallying up civilian deaths; in fact, your argument lowers the bar further for Hamas, by suggesting Israel has special obligations conferred by statehood. Together, this offers a mode of inquiry that would lead one to believe that virtually every industrialized country is far worse than every terrorist organization. If you have an argument that would be persuasive to someone who does not in fact believe that almost every country in the world is worse than Hamas, maybe there's a point in continuing to talk. Otherwise, it's fine that we disagree. While I have you, can you stop writing things to me like that "you are right" barb?
- runarberg 3y ago
  Sorry about my choice of rhetoric. I’ll try to improve. I want to note that Israel does indeed have special obligation coferred by statehood. Formally those are all the international agreements it has signed and promised to uphold. Relevant here are, among others, the Geneva convention, the Genocide convention, Convention on the Rights of the Child, etc. I’ll give special mention to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons which Israel hasn’t signed, thus making it scary as North Korea. When a state signs these obligations but then fails to follow them, they have in fact failed humanity on a moral level. When these failures result in countless deaths and horrors, they are especially bad. To me this is what makes Israel worse then Hamas. You don’t have to agree with me, but I hope you understand where I’m coming from.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    Thank you for the edit! I appreciate it. I think Israel's actions in Gaza have been hard to defend (their motivation: less so) so none of what I'm saying is an apology for Israel. But the idea that they're even morally comparable to Hamas is an extraordinary claim. Many (most?) normal reasonable people will read it and scratch their heads. Every country fails humanity at a moral level in a great variety of ways. Israelis sometimes feel --- with some justification --- that they're held to a standard that does't apply to other western countries, let alone countries in their own region, where the deliberate, planned murder of civilians has occurred within just the past decade or so at scales that dwarf what's happened in Gaza.
    - runarberg 3y ago
      I think the root of our disagreement is in Israel’s motivation. We will see when the ICJ rules whether Israel’s intention is merely counter terrorism or—as it is accused of—to destroy Palestinians in whole or in part. In the latter case (which is what I believe) the motivation is indeed hard to defend.
      - tptacek 3y ago
        When you think about this, remember that there are 2.2MM Palestinians in the Gaza Strip alone, and almost 5MM total. 24,000 is a terrible toll, and I think much of it is reckless and probably criminal, but it isn't a dent in the Palestinian population. There's no way to write that without sounding soulless, as if people were scoring tokens on some sort of strategy game we're all playing. But it's deeply relevant to the formal notion of a "genocide", which is what we're talking about when we talk about the ICJ. Yemen and Syria are instructive comparisons here, and I'll note that while everyone was pretty grossed out at Saudi Arabia bombing Yemen (which had more to do with how we felt about Saudi Arabia than a genuine concern for Yemenis, who, like Palestinians, are for the most part victimized by the combatants on "their side), you didn't see much talk about Yemeni genocide. Further arguing against a finding of genocidal intent on Israel's part is the provocation they responded to, which, again, is among the worst in modern history: a truly, deliberately vile attack done at breathtaking scale.

tptacek 3y ago

I don't think you've made a case for Israel being worse here that doesn't rely on simply tallying up civilian deaths; in fact, your argument lowers the bar further for Hamas, by suggesting Israel has special obligations conferred by statehood. Together, this offers a mode of inquiry that would lead one to believe that virtually every industrialized country is far worse than every terrorist organization. If you have an argument that would be persuasive to someone who does not in fact believe that almost every country in the world is worse than Hamas, maybe there's a point in continuing to talk. Otherwise, it's fine that we disagree. While I have you, can you stop writing things to me like that "you are right" barb?

runarberg 3y ago
Sorry about my choice of rhetoric. I’ll try to improve. I want to note that Israel does indeed have special obligation coferred by statehood. Formally those are all the international agreements it has signed and promised to uphold. Relevant here are, among others, the Geneva convention, the Genocide convention, Convention on the Rights of the Child, etc. I’ll give special mention to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons which Israel hasn’t signed, thus making it scary as North Korea. When a state signs these obligations but then fails to follow them, they have in fact failed humanity on a moral level. When these failures result in countless deaths and horrors, they are especially bad. To me this is what makes Israel worse then Hamas. You don’t have to agree with me, but I hope you understand where I’m coming from.
- tptacek 3y ago
  Thank you for the edit! I appreciate it. I think Israel's actions in Gaza have been hard to defend (their motivation: less so) so none of what I'm saying is an apology for Israel. But the idea that they're even morally comparable to Hamas is an extraordinary claim. Many (most?) normal reasonable people will read it and scratch their heads. Every country fails humanity at a moral level in a great variety of ways. Israelis sometimes feel --- with some justification --- that they're held to a standard that does't apply to other western countries, let alone countries in their own region, where the deliberate, planned murder of civilians has occurred within just the past decade or so at scales that dwarf what's happened in Gaza.
  - runarberg 3y ago
    I think the root of our disagreement is in Israel’s motivation. We will see when the ICJ rules whether Israel’s intention is merely counter terrorism or—as it is accused of—to destroy Palestinians in whole or in part. In the latter case (which is what I believe) the motivation is indeed hard to defend.
    - tptacek 3y ago
      When you think about this, remember that there are 2.2MM Palestinians in the Gaza Strip alone, and almost 5MM total. 24,000 is a terrible toll, and I think much of it is reckless and probably criminal, but it isn't a dent in the Palestinian population. There's no way to write that without sounding soulless, as if people were scoring tokens on some sort of strategy game we're all playing. But it's deeply relevant to the formal notion of a "genocide", which is what we're talking about when we talk about the ICJ. Yemen and Syria are instructive comparisons here, and I'll note that while everyone was pretty grossed out at Saudi Arabia bombing Yemen (which had more to do with how we felt about Saudi Arabia than a genuine concern for Yemenis, who, like Palestinians, are for the most part victimized by the combatants on "their side), you didn't see much talk about Yemeni genocide. Further arguing against a finding of genocidal intent on Israel's part is the provocation they responded to, which, again, is among the worst in modern history: a truly, deliberately vile attack done at breathtaking scale.