Comment by skybrian
2 years ago
Yes, they were attacked first and that’s a traditional justification for war. If a government wants to go to war, this is the time to do it, while they have the support of the public.
However, as we saw after 9/11, that doesn’t necessarily mean that whatever war a government proposes is a good idea. A counter-attack could still be foolish or unnecessarily brutal (as it seems to be). It might still result in a strategic failure.
The kind of explanation I’d be interested in would be why the way Israel is prosecuting this war is something the US (and other countries) should support.
(Your comment is about what Hamas did, and that’s a different sort of thing than a justification for what the Israel military is doing.)
Do you think the NATO invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11 was not a good idea? You are free to your opinion, and there are those idealists who believe such, but it would be counter to widespread consensus. The faults people have with the war on terror were/are (1) the two-decade-long occupation that followed, and (2) the completely unrelated war with Iraq.
But invading Afghanistan to capture/kill the al Qaeda organization, to prevent another 9/11? It is widely understood that the US was in the moral right and on the right side of international norms for its policy actions in 2001-2002.
If one accepts that, then how is what Israel is doing in Gaza any different?
I’m hoping for a utilitarian justification, not something in terms of moral rights. The problem with a moral right to war, while traditional, is that it seems to make whatever follows permissible? Sort of a get-out-of-jail free card for atrocities.
You do make a utilitarian justification with your claim that attacking al Qaeda helped to prevent another 9/11 attack. I haven’t studied it enough to know whether it did that. There have been similar terrorist movements since then. Perhaps increases in airline security did more against that particular attack?
Also, al Qaeda was hiding in the mountains, not under a city. The consequences for civilians are different enough that I don’t think it’s a fair analogy.
For historical background about changing attitudes towards civilian casualties, Bret Devereaux’s latest post [1] seems pretty good.
[1] https://acoup.blog/2023/12/08/fireside-friday-december-8-202...
Traditional utilitarian arguments are out of place here, unless you realistically apply game theory and only consider Nash equilibrium outcomes. Otherwise you end up comparing the present outcome you don't like to a fantasy outcome that could never be.
On October 7th Hamas killed or captured ~1400 Israelis in an indiscriminate and violent cross-border attack, then unleashed a barrage of rockets on Israeli cities. Many failed, and the iron dome intercepted most of those that got through, but not all, and at great cost.
This was an active state of war, started by Hamas, not Israel. Hamas uses the people of Gaza as disposable human shields. These militants will use every unfair trick to gain advantage and kill more Israelis. They have consistently violated cease fires in the past, and turned humanitarian aid into instruments of war (the rockets, for example, are built using water pipes provided by European countries for the Gazan people).
Evil regimes that treat their own people as disposable need to be gotten rid of, and are unwilling to negotiate in good faith for a settlement. War is really the only viable option here, and the IDF tactics have been chosen to make this war as quick as possible, for a variety of reasons including the safety of the populace.
1 reply →
Blowing up civilian infrastructure that they, as an occupier, actually have a duty to protect and restore to order and safety [1], after posing for selfies? [2] Calling people animals, rounding them up just because why not? [3] Talking about making Gaza "unlivable"? [4] The minister of defense handing out automatic weapons to settlers in the West Bank?
Meanwhile, half of the population of Gaza is under the age of 15, in one of the most densely populated areas of the world. It's unadulterated genocide in service of an expansionist, right-wing extremist government. Another difference is this media (and social web, down to HN) effort to silence and smear any and all criticism of it, to turn it into a dichotomy of who you're for (rather than what international law and basic fucking human decency would require), while Joe Biden talks about having seen photos of beheaded babies. Contrast to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_war_in_Af...
[1] https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/misc/634kfc....
[2] https://twitter.com/muhammadshehad2/status/17330661183302657...
[3] https://twitter.com/muhammadshehad2/status/17328125940611608...
[4] https://twitter.com/NimerSultany/status/1731736295666282707
[5] https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20231024-security-minister...
You can't just do random shit and say "it's for X" and that makes it okay. I can't just take everything you own and say it's to achieve world peace, you know? Or nuke the world to prevent car theft since no more world means no more cars means no more car theft. That's the level of the argument you have; zilch, backed by brutality and nothing else.
There are arguments like this everywhere on the web, you can find them anywhere, and it's not really what I was asking about.
(I am looking for serious, well-written arguments for Israel and they seem hard to find?)
2 replies →