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.
In general in this conflict do you side more with Israel or Hamas?
48% of those 18-24 said Hamas. Of course siding with Hamas more than Israel doesn't necessarily mean approving of Hamas or of the attack. However there is a question about the attack:
Do you think the Hamas killing of 1200 Israeli civilians on Israel can be justified by the grievances of Palestinians or is it not justified?
51% of 18-24 year olds (and 48% 25-34, and 24% overall) said it can be justified by the grievances of the Palestinians. That said, I am suspicious of these poll results and wonder if they might be because of the specific wording of "can be justified", if some interpreted it as meaning "someone could theoretically make an argument trying to justify it" rather than "I personally think it was just".
It's a bit of a stretch, especially because it corresponds to the general lower level of support for Israel among the young. But some of the other results also call it into question. The prior question had a lower percentage siding with Hamas over Israel. 54% of the same age group (45% overall) answered "Should law firms hire or refuse to hire law students who supported Hamas and the attacks on Israeli civilians?" with refuse to hire, indicating at least 5% who would support blacklisting themselves. (It's pretty striking how support for free-speech in younger generations is so low that support for blacklisting rises even as support for Israel falls.) Or I guess some people might interpret "support" as people donating money to Hamas or something. 62% of those 18-24 say the "attacks on Jews" were genocidal.
I don't know if there's a poll asking about support for the attack with better wording. Best I could find with a quick search was this one which didn't make Hamas/Israel support a binary choice:
22% of college students say they sympathize with Hamas and 26% with the Israeli government
And this one which asks about the attack but again in a potentially ambiguous way, and just college students again:
The poll finds 86% of college students saying they’re aware of the Oct. 7 attack on Israel. And of that share, 67% describe the attack as an act of terrorism by Hamas, versus 12% who see it as a justified act of resistance by Hamas. Another 21% describe it as something else other than an act of terrorism or resistance.
I think the role of framing is being underestimated here, and in general. On one hand, sure, Hamas brutally killed over a thousand civilians who presumably were largely innocent beyond whatever guilt they inherit through general support and acceptance of benefits of their country; against the standard of normal morality that most people would claim to subscribe to if asked in a non-charged setting, this was surely unjustified. On the other hand, we are constantly being asked by our authorities to consider it justified that Israel has retaliated by doing the same against Palestinian civilians. You can either try to come up with some additional principle to break the symmetry in favour of Israel's stance (Killing civilians is better when it is done by well-uniformed military members acting professionally than when it is done by shabby guys on pickups? The calculus of retaliation should have a cutoff date somewhere in 2020 so the Israelis can claim to have been attacked first?), or consider both the action and the response justified as many of those 18-24 year olds probably do, or consider neither the action nor the response justified.
At first sight, of course, why not do the last? - but my intuition tells me that this option bumps up against a particular American instinct, captured by the frequently-heard "well, do you have a better idea?" or perhaps even the adjacent "person saying it can't be done should stop bothering person who is actually doing it". Once you have identified something as a problem, whatever countermeasure remains after you have eliminated all the impossible ones must be good, because the alternative would be to shrug and say that nothing can be done which is something for debbie downers, lazy people and those lacking the requisite moral certitude. (I'm reminded of The Quiet American, an early British novel built around calling out the same trait, which at the time hit enough of a nerve that they spitefully made a movie adaptation that inverted its punchline)
On the other hand, we are constantly being asked by our authorities to consider it justified that Israel has retaliated by doing the same against Palestinian civilians.
Are you seriously claiming that the IDF are filming themselves as they go around slaughtering civilians, which is what Hamas did?
Israel was attacked by Hamas, who run the polity of Gaza. Such actions often lead to an unfortunate state called "war". When Imperial Japan attacked Pearl Habor, the casualties were only a factor of two higher than in the Hamas attack. (Of course, these attacks differ in other ways, the victims of Pearl Habor were overwhelmingly military, and Imperial Japan had odds of winning which were orders of magnitude better than Hamas, though still not that high overall.)
While I am sure that today's Guardian would have stories without end on the plight the Japanese civilians would suffer during a war with the US and the power of forgiveness, I do not think that it was morally wrong for the US to enter that war. (This does not extend to morale bombings and the nukes -- especially the second one, though.)
In wars, civilians are often killed as a side effect. This is bad, but totally different from going around and beheading people.
Of course, the question if regime change is the strategically best solution for Israel or the world is debatable.
Why was it morally wrong to drop the second nuke, when Japan still appeared to have no intention of surrendering at the time and even went through a failed coup to prevent a surrender after the second one was dropped?
Are you seriously claiming that the IDF are filming themselves as they go around slaughtering civilians, which is what Hamas did?
No, but I consider the main bad thing to be the part where you slaughter civilians, rather than the one where you try to farm internet points for it.
Israel was attacked by Hamas, who run the polity of Gaza. Such actions often lead to an unfortunate state called "war". When Imperial Japan attacked Pearl Habor, the casualties were only a factor of two higher than in the Hamas attack. (Of course, these attacks differ in other ways, the victims of Pearl Habor were overwhelmingly military, and Imperial Japan had odds of winning which were orders of magnitude better than Hamas, though still not that high overall.)
That's you doing the "calculus of retaliation should have a cutoff date" thing. Rather than ignoring everything that happened before the Hamas attack this time, we could set the arbitrary cutoff date to be December 26th, 2008 instead, and write the same story flipped starting with "Gaza was attacked by the Israeli government, who run the polity of Israel". If we do not set arbitrary cutoffs, surely the story begins in 1948, when IL was formed as a result of an ethnically cleansing invasion of the remains of Mandatory Palestine.
In wars, civilians are often killed as a side effect. This is bad, but totally different from going around and beheading people.
Sorry, but I do not share this perception that killing civilians by bombing them from afar is somehow better or more tasteful, especially considering that I want to correct for a lifetime of consuming propaganda commissioned by the people who have a monopoly on bombing-civilians-from-afar capabilities to make it appear more tasteful.
(I should make clear that I don't think I'm an anti-IL dogmatic; at this point I would consider "recognise that the International Community does not have the collective moral will or executive power to stop them outright and therefore give IL special dispensation to exterminate their uppity charges once and for all" to be a perfectly acceptable course of action to minimise expected total future suffering.)
On the other hand, we are constantly being asked by our authorities to consider it justified that Israel has retaliated by doing the same against Palestinian civilians
Isn't "killing civilians as part of collateral damage from attacking military targets" very much not "doing the same" as "killing civilians by attacking them intentionally"? Using this as an additional principle seems much more obviously legitimate than the ones you mention, and is what I actually see advocated in public discourse. I'm not accusing you of arguing in bad faith, but does "Killing civilians is better when it is done by well-uniformed military members" not seem like an obvious strawman to you?
Once you have identified something as a problem, whatever countermeasure remains after you have eliminated all the impossible ones must be good, because the alternative would be to shrug and say that nothing can be done
Saying that "nothing can be done" is a part of the ideas implied in "well, do you have a better idea?" There have certainly been a sizable fraction of the population calling for a ceasefire. On the other hand, there are of course those in support of continuing the military operation, who would presumably think this to be the least bad of all options, even with civilian casualties and all. And in that case, the Americans stepping aside and "doing nothing" to stop Israel is exactly what is desired -- it's their conflict, let them have at it.
consider both the action and the response justified as many of those 18-24 year olds probably do
I honestly haven't seen anyone support the right of both Hamas and the IDF to hit their respective populations in this way. Rather,
or consider neither the action nor the response justified.
from what I've seen, this seems to be the most common opinion from the people who want a ceasefire. They don't condone Hamas (the "this is what decolonization looks like" people still appear to only be a fringe minority), but they also can't stand the images of civilian casualties from Israeli attacks.
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 -
He might be thinking of polls like this Harvard-Harris poll:
48% of those 18-24 said Hamas. Of course siding with Hamas more than Israel doesn't necessarily mean approving of Hamas or of the attack. However there is a question about the attack:
51% of 18-24 year olds (and 48% 25-34, and 24% overall) said it can be justified by the grievances of the Palestinians. That said, I am suspicious of these poll results and wonder if they might be because of the specific wording of "can be justified", if some interpreted it as meaning "someone could theoretically make an argument trying to justify it" rather than "I personally think it was just".
It's a bit of a stretch, especially because it corresponds to the general lower level of support for Israel among the young. But some of the other results also call it into question. The prior question had a lower percentage siding with Hamas over Israel. 54% of the same age group (45% overall) answered "Should law firms hire or refuse to hire law students who supported Hamas and the attacks on Israeli civilians?" with refuse to hire, indicating at least 5% who would support blacklisting themselves. (It's pretty striking how support for free-speech in younger generations is so low that support for blacklisting rises even as support for Israel falls.) Or I guess some people might interpret "support" as people donating money to Hamas or something. 62% of those 18-24 say the "attacks on Jews" were genocidal.
I don't know if there's a poll asking about support for the attack with better wording. Best I could find with a quick search was this one which didn't make Hamas/Israel support a binary choice:
And this one which asks about the attack but again in a potentially ambiguous way, and just college students again:
I think the role of framing is being underestimated here, and in general. On one hand, sure, Hamas brutally killed over a thousand civilians who presumably were largely innocent beyond whatever guilt they inherit through general support and acceptance of benefits of their country; against the standard of normal morality that most people would claim to subscribe to if asked in a non-charged setting, this was surely unjustified. On the other hand, we are constantly being asked by our authorities to consider it justified that Israel has retaliated by doing the same against Palestinian civilians. You can either try to come up with some additional principle to break the symmetry in favour of Israel's stance (Killing civilians is better when it is done by well-uniformed military members acting professionally than when it is done by shabby guys on pickups? The calculus of retaliation should have a cutoff date somewhere in 2020 so the Israelis can claim to have been attacked first?), or consider both the action and the response justified as many of those 18-24 year olds probably do, or consider neither the action nor the response justified.
At first sight, of course, why not do the last? - but my intuition tells me that this option bumps up against a particular American instinct, captured by the frequently-heard "well, do you have a better idea?" or perhaps even the adjacent "person saying it can't be done should stop bothering person who is actually doing it". Once you have identified something as a problem, whatever countermeasure remains after you have eliminated all the impossible ones must be good, because the alternative would be to shrug and say that nothing can be done which is something for debbie downers, lazy people and those lacking the requisite moral certitude. (I'm reminded of The Quiet American, an early British novel built around calling out the same trait, which at the time hit enough of a nerve that they spitefully made a movie adaptation that inverted its punchline)
Are you seriously claiming that the IDF are filming themselves as they go around slaughtering civilians, which is what Hamas did?
Israel was attacked by Hamas, who run the polity of Gaza. Such actions often lead to an unfortunate state called "war". When Imperial Japan attacked Pearl Habor, the casualties were only a factor of two higher than in the Hamas attack. (Of course, these attacks differ in other ways, the victims of Pearl Habor were overwhelmingly military, and Imperial Japan had odds of winning which were orders of magnitude better than Hamas, though still not that high overall.)
While I am sure that today's Guardian would have stories without end on the plight the Japanese civilians would suffer during a war with the US and the power of forgiveness, I do not think that it was morally wrong for the US to enter that war. (This does not extend to morale bombings and the nukes -- especially the second one, though.)
In wars, civilians are often killed as a side effect. This is bad, but totally different from going around and beheading people.
Of course, the question if regime change is the strategically best solution for Israel or the world is debatable.
Why was it morally wrong to drop the second nuke, when Japan still appeared to have no intention of surrendering at the time and even went through a failed coup to prevent a surrender after the second one was dropped?
More options
Context Copy link
No, but I consider the main bad thing to be the part where you slaughter civilians, rather than the one where you try to farm internet points for it.
That's you doing the "calculus of retaliation should have a cutoff date" thing. Rather than ignoring everything that happened before the Hamas attack this time, we could set the arbitrary cutoff date to be December 26th, 2008 instead, and write the same story flipped starting with "Gaza was attacked by the Israeli government, who run the polity of Israel". If we do not set arbitrary cutoffs, surely the story begins in 1948, when IL was formed as a result of an ethnically cleansing invasion of the remains of Mandatory Palestine.
Sorry, but I do not share this perception that killing civilians by bombing them from afar is somehow better or more tasteful, especially considering that I want to correct for a lifetime of consuming propaganda commissioned by the people who have a monopoly on bombing-civilians-from-afar capabilities to make it appear more tasteful.
(I should make clear that I don't think I'm an anti-IL dogmatic; at this point I would consider "recognise that the International Community does not have the collective moral will or executive power to stop them outright and therefore give IL special dispensation to exterminate their uppity charges once and for all" to be a perfectly acceptable course of action to minimise expected total future suffering.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Isn't "killing civilians as part of collateral damage from attacking military targets" very much not "doing the same" as "killing civilians by attacking them intentionally"? Using this as an additional principle seems much more obviously legitimate than the ones you mention, and is what I actually see advocated in public discourse. I'm not accusing you of arguing in bad faith, but does "Killing civilians is better when it is done by well-uniformed military members" not seem like an obvious strawman to you?
Saying that "nothing can be done" is a part of the ideas implied in "well, do you have a better idea?" There have certainly been a sizable fraction of the population calling for a ceasefire. On the other hand, there are of course those in support of continuing the military operation, who would presumably think this to be the least bad of all options, even with civilian casualties and all. And in that case, the Americans stepping aside and "doing nothing" to stop Israel is exactly what is desired -- it's their conflict, let them have at it.
I honestly haven't seen anyone support the right of both Hamas and the IDF to hit their respective populations in this way. Rather,
from what I've seen, this seems to be the most common opinion from the people who want a ceasefire. They don't condone Hamas (the "this is what decolonization looks like" people still appear to only be a fringe minority), but they also can't stand the images of civilian casualties from Israeli attacks.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link