Comment by xpe
2 years 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.
Israel knowingly strikes civilian targets. There is an investigation published by Israeli and Palestinian journalists here,[0] which goes into the details of how Israel picks targets.
The long and the short of it is that:
a. Israel does not care how many Palestinian civilians die in its air strikes this time around.
b. The Israelis actually positively want to inflict a huge amount of pain on the Palestinian population in this conflict. That is one of the political goals, in order to demoralize the Palestinians. Israeli officials have publicly said that they want to teach the Palestinians a lesson that they will remember for 50 years.
If you just listen to the vicious, dehumanizing way Israeli politicians and media talk about Palestinians, and look at how indiscriminately Israel is bombing Gaza, all the claims by internet commentators that Israel is trying to minimize Palestinian civilian casualties look absurd.
0. https://www.972mag.com/mass-assassination-factory-israel-cal...
First, thank you for engaging civilly on this.
> Israel knowingly strikes civilian targets.
I prefer to use the term IDF, largely under the control of Netanyahu. This emphasizes the role of his brand of politics. Netanyahu's political aims are despicable, evidenced by his attempt to upend the Israeli Supreme Court. It is also encouraging to see the IDF protest Netanyahu's moves. (Aside: Doesn't this protest by the IDF give you some comfort that they won't succumb to the worse impulses of Netanyahu?)
Now to respond... I'm not trying to zing you in any way, deny atrocities, or oversimplify. I do this out of genuine curiosity. (I'm lucky that I'm relatively removed from the situation. If I was closer, my rationality would probably be out the window. If I were to make one point it would be this: I want people to recognize the clouding effect of emotion more often. Some ethicists call for cooling off periods after tragedies for this exact reason.)
I'm not trying to promote a particular course of action. My aim is to tease apart the ethics, and hopefully I can get a better understanding of the moving parts.
> Israel knowingly strikes civilian targets.
How often, roughly? Percentages matter. All civilian deaths are horrible, but practically, military operations can be assessed by the numbers. I'm sorry if this sounds callous, but it isn't. Not caring about numbers at all would be even worse.
What are the causes? Seems to me:
1. Hamas uses human shields. This changes the decision space for the IDF. I'm leaning towards the view that these deaths cannot be mostly pinned on the IDF, morally. They belong mostly on Hamas. I don't like my intellectual attempt to somehow split culpability like this, but I'm not sure of a better framework. What do you think?
2. You are claiming there is another factor: demoralization of the Palestinians. I would like to think this is small percentage, but I have not looked at it in detail. To the extent this is true, it is abominable. To the extent Netanyahu's warped ideology and corruption are culpable, he should be stopped.
> How often, roughly? Percentages matter.
You're talking about this in such a sanitized, anodyne manner.
Israel is systematically destroying all civilian infrastructure in Gaza. At the end of this campaign, there will be almost nothing left standing in Gaza. That's the obvious goal of the campaign.
To then look at the Israeli military campaign and talk about it as if it were some highly targeted action is just detached from reality.
This is not just Netanyahu's war. The main opposition parties also support it, as does the large majority of the Israeli population.
> You are claiming there is another factor: demoralization of the Palestinians. I would like to think this is small percentage, but I have not looked at it in detail. To the extent this is true, it is abominable.
Have you been following statements by Israeli politicians, government ministers, media personalities, etc.? This is how the campaign is seen and talked about in Israel. Revenge and teaching the Palestinians a lesson are the major motivations.
3 replies →
> 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?
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?
> Assuming these are all true
I should certainly have included a source: https://news.sky.com/story/gaza-war-satellite-data-shows-isr...
> 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
Of course it is. One is considered a terrorist organization. The other is meant to be the disciplined military of a civilized country (Note here I am not trying to imply the Palestinian people are any way uncivilized).
Part of this also ignores that for a long time, Israel fostered and encouraged Hamas because it was politically expedient to do so. For them to pull the "woe is us, whatever are to we to do" is a little on the nose.
typo fix: "like I can" -> "like I said above"