naraburns nihil supernum
1yr ago
(text post)
30319 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.
This is pretty much the doctrine I've been hearing about in the context of collateral damage to civilians in Gaza from Israeli bombs targeted at Hamas -- so long as you are doing your best to hit military targets, if you accidentally hit a hospital it's OK, right? Hamas' best happens to be indiscriminately spraying crappy rockets across the border.
The point I was making is if you for example attempt to kill a civilian but fail because you suck it doesn’t absolve moral consideration.
If your contention is Hamas was trying to hit a military target, the. That of course is different. But given Hamas targeting civilians this month in deadly encounters I don’t give them the benefit of the doubt.
so long as you are doing your best to hit military targets, if you accidentally hit a hospital it's OK, right?
That is in fact consistent with the laws of war. (Regardless of whether you're referring to Hamas or Israel). For Hamas to have been lobbing rockets at Israel all these years has been acts of war, but not necessarily war crimes if they were trying to hit military installations but just sucked at it. (It seems unlikely that's what they were up to, and certainly their attack a few weeks ago included war crimes, but lobbing rockets at acceptable targets and missing is not a war crime)
That's what it is, though. Likely for the reason that no reasonably honest nation would sign on to a rule of war that required they not kill civilians even by accident.
Oh sure -- but when it comes down to it the 'laws of war' are kind of bullshit that way, and mostly only get applied to the losers of wars. The squishyness is a feature (we have 'collateral damage', you do 'terror attacks') -- but it means there's not much point in thinking too hard about them during ongoing conflicts. You of all people are surely aware of this?
If they're kinda bullshit (and they are, but only 'kinda'), they're kinda bullshit for everyone, and handwringing over Israels "crimes" while ignoring Hamas's is just as wrong in that scenario as it is when you're taking the laws of war seriously.
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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Evidence? The equivalent, Hamas hitting an Israeli hospital, has already happened twice. Did you hear about the that?
I did, yes. I don’t recall there being casualties.
So you are fine with targeting hospitals provided you suck at war and manage (despite your intentions) to not kill anyone?
This is pretty much the doctrine I've been hearing about in the context of collateral damage to civilians in Gaza from Israeli bombs targeted at Hamas -- so long as you are doing your best to hit military targets, if you accidentally hit a hospital it's OK, right? Hamas' best happens to be indiscriminately spraying crappy rockets across the border.
(to be clear, I think this is bad!)
The point I was making is if you for example attempt to kill a civilian but fail because you suck it doesn’t absolve moral consideration.
If your contention is Hamas was trying to hit a military target, the. That of course is different. But given Hamas targeting civilians this month in deadly encounters I don’t give them the benefit of the doubt.
More options
Context Copy link
That is in fact consistent with the laws of war. (Regardless of whether you're referring to Hamas or Israel). For Hamas to have been lobbing rockets at Israel all these years has been acts of war, but not necessarily war crimes if they were trying to hit military installations but just sucked at it. (It seems unlikely that's what they were up to, and certainly their attack a few weeks ago included war crimes, but lobbing rockets at acceptable targets and missing is not a war crime)
The main problem with it is (as with all doctrines that hinge on knowing the intent of belligerent parties) it seems pretty vulnerable to abuse...
That's what it is, though. Likely for the reason that no reasonably honest nation would sign on to a rule of war that required they not kill civilians even by accident.
Oh sure -- but when it comes down to it the 'laws of war' are kind of bullshit that way, and mostly only get applied to the losers of wars. The squishyness is a feature (we have 'collateral damage', you do 'terror attacks') -- but it means there's not much point in thinking too hard about them during ongoing conflicts. You of all people are surely aware of this?
If they're kinda bullshit (and they are, but only 'kinda'), they're kinda bullshit for everyone, and handwringing over Israels "crimes" while ignoring Hamas's is just as wrong in that scenario as it is when you're taking the laws of war seriously.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link