Comment by Aunche
2 years ago
There has never been a war in history where one side stops because they killed enough people. War ends when the enemy surrenders.
The Japanese killed a few dozen civilians in Pearl Harbor. America killed 10,000x as many during their bombings of Japan. Had they not surrendered, they likely would have killed an order of magnitude more. The only alternative would have been for the US to completely blockade Japan indefinitely to prevent them from rebuilding their military. Actually, they wouldn't be able to do that either because that would make Japan an "open air prison."
By most standards, what the US did to the civilian population of Japan was an atrocity.
I don’t have easy answers here. But I think we’ve lost an important piece of the plot here if we can’t look at one terrible human tragedy, and then another, and then ask ourselves whether the first had to beget the second.
For sure we should ask the question, and it's totally valid to criticize Israel's actions. It's also totally in line to be in favor of Israel conducting a war against Hamas, but to be against specific ways in which it is fought.
I think a thing that should give you pause is if the conclusion to a train of thought is "and therefore, no war is ever justified". Some people think that's true! Some people think it's better for them and all their friends and family to die than to risk killing civilians. Most people (including me) disagree with that statement.
Well, the Japanese military was so evil, that the nazis literally had to tell them to chill out. Every civilian death is a tragedy, but as with most wars, the longer it goes on, the more casualties it will take. Sometimes people simply have to make the least evil decision, as the alternative is just worse.
This has been a fairly common rhetorical move for defenders of disproportionate Israeli violence, inflicted primarily upon civilians, in recent months. I've seen it done with the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as the firebombing of Dresden.
On TV in English, which atrocity is used to justify the current and growing civilian death toll in Gaza seems to depend on who the audiences. US audiences are appealed to with comparison to Hiroshima and UK audiences, to Dresden.
It's easy to read it cynically when it's an Israeli official excusing one war crime with another on television. It's stranger and sadder to see it done by an ordinary stranger online.
You think it's cynical to change your argument to fit your audience? I don't understand this.
The basic argument is "If you think it was legitimate when X country did this, then what's different here?" I think it's very valid to find an X that the person you're speaking to will actually agree with.
7 replies →
> The Japanese killed a few dozen civilians in Pearl Harbor.
They killed 20M Chinese.
Japanese did enough evil through Asia during WW2 to more than deserve that.
I’d caution against using the word ‘deserve’ so loosely. While you may see it as meaning ‘imperial Japan had to be stopped by any means necessary’, it comes off more like retribution. It comes off like a bloodlust for revenge.
In general, ‘deserve’ should always be followed with ‘because…’. Just saying x deserves y assumes we agree on: what x did, an ethical/moral system, and that y is the best punishment/reward in that ethical/moral system.
Nobody deserves to die of radiation poisoning. There is no neighborhood on Earth in which all families living there deserve to be vaporized.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't even the most destructive bombings. Firebombing of Tokyo in 1945 killed 100K people in a single night.
1 reply →