site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   30318 thread views

Israel-Gaza Megathread #2

This is a refreshed megathread for any posts on the conflict between (so far, and so far as I know) Hamas and the Israeli government, as well as related geopolitics. Culture War thread rules apply.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

"Would do it" doesn't equal "did do it". For example, Saddam's soldiers did all kinds of messed up stuff, but Nayrah's testimony about babies taken from incubators was still made up.

Of course. But many of these same people also instantly believed that Israel bombed the hospital and took Hamas's word for it. But what annoys me is that they act like Hamas would never do such a thing, which is of course ridiculous (at least in my opinion) based on their track record on the same day based on videos that they uploaded.

"took Hamas's word for it"

Come on, if a particular building is bombed in Gaza nowadays I wouldn't need anyone's word to think it 99% likely that Israel did it, because Israel is definitely bombing other buildings there in retalion for the Hamas attacks.

I wouldn't need anyone's word to think it 99% likely that Israel did it

Roughly one third of Palestinian casualties in any given Israel-Hamas conflict are caused by rockets fired from the Gaza strip that fail in some way such as misfiring, crashing, prematurely detonating, coming apart in midair, and so on and so forth. Might be time to update those priors.

intercepted by the Iron Dome

is Iron Dome actually intercepting rockets over Gaza? Your source does not mention Iron Dome (what makes Israel even less involved)

You are correct, I was mistaken. The Iron Dome appears to only intercept rockets on terminal approach to a populated area in Israel, it does not intercept rockets over Gaza.

And a lot of the same people saying Israel didn't do it were saying that Israel would be 100% justified in doing so the day before.

There's nothing contradictory in those two arguments. A lot of people generally think Israel is excessively soft in how it handles Hamas.

if a particular building is bombed in Gaza nowadays I wouldn't need anyone's word to think it 99% likely that Israel did it

Even if the Bayesian statistics bear this out (I'm not quite as confident as you, but it is probably more likely than not), the better question is whether or not it's sufficient confidence to run "Israel bombs hospital, killing 500" headlines. In this case, it seems like it probably shouldn't have been.

Why not?

The US was way less trigger happy then the IDF during the war on terror and we Kandahar'd the hell out of some hospitals.

It was sensational as hell though; can't argue with that.

A particular building, yes. That particular building, no. This is a group who has put bombs under schools and hospitals in the past. Everything they say should be taken with a massive grain of salt. Israel too, but these people are already skeptical of Israel but believe something said by a literal Islamist organization that is undoubtedly a terrorist group.

Yes, because journalists and politicians did that immediately when it happened! Where do you think the casualty numbers and this news came from?

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats