This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Can we merge Israel-Gaza related posts with the main thread now? The last one is 10 days old. At this point, +200 posts in the main thread should not crowd out other topics.
Al-Shifa hospital in Gaza has gotten a lot of attention lately. The brief siege already has a Wikipedia page longer than the First Battle of Fallujah's. It doesn't yet beat the Second Battle of Fallujah's page word count. Yet. There has been plenty of standard internet hemming and hawing, propaganda wars, and some genuine interest with the ethics civilians stuck in the middle of a war. In case you were worried, the premature babies are safe.
The IDF, which has made public claims that the hospital is used as a headquarters for Hamas operations, released a couple segments of footage since successfully occupying the hospital. One is a video with footage of a tunnel that leads to a blast door around, if not under, the hospital. The second video is allegedly from the hospital's security cameras footage on the 7th of October. One person in the footage is an amputee wheeled in on a gurney; the other hustles on his own two feet, herded by armed men although he could be injured still.
Israel is releasing this footage to try to show the hospital was an active part of Hamas operations. Critics retort well, duh, hospitals are where you take injured
hostagespeople, you baby killers. Critics of those critics say, well how come come they didn't just drop off these hostages at one of the other 6 hospitals on the way back from the border, Mr. Smarty Pants Real Baby Killer? If we get something like the truth eventually, then the wrong baby killers will memory hole it, while the right baby killers will throw it in their face. The war wages on.Within this context, there's questions about the complicity of doctors and NGO's involved in Gaza. People like this guy and other former doctors have denied that there is any Hamas activity in the hospital. The vibe is that NGO's deny their proximity to Hamas in Gaza, and thus are complicit to some degree. This is just some guy but it's a common type of thread.
My question is more general: if you were a doctor in Gaza, and you knew Hamas operated within your hospital, what is the right thing to do? If you alert the Israelis to the presence of their enemy in your building, there is a good chance you are adding yourself, your hospital, and your patients to a target list somewhere. So, aren't you just putting everyone at risk by ratting out Hamas? Does the degree of the operation matter? Say, if Hamas only showed up once every couple of weeks to get medical attention, standard guard, and bring some hostages for treatment every few years, would you trust the IDF to take that into account when determining what kind of response was appropriate? You know Israel is mad, but they probably won't drop a JDAM onto a hospital and say oops, right? But, if you thought they might do that, and Hamas was operating deep in some tunnel system underground, shouldn't you let the IDF know that so they don't just drop a JDAM on the roof?
In this not-so-but-maybe hypothetical, I can't see a good reason why you'd ever talk to the IDF about Hamas being around you. In fact, you might even think it better to deny it and hope the fighters just evacuate before you and your patients get blown to bits. When the IDF shows up to siege you, you try to negotiate the evacuation of the premature babies, but otherwise you keep your mouth shut. When asked, you say you are there to provide medical attention to anyone that walks through the door, but are not responsible for whatever else goes on there. If you talk about Hamas after the fact, then you may get kicked out of the territory and that's just one less doctor around to provide medical treatment. Gun to head, if they find a Vietcong command center under your feet you stick to that story, so you can continue to provide medical treatment to people who need it, at a time when they need it most. This makes you complicit to a degree, but also seems ethical enough for me. What do you guys think?
You know what I'd do as a doctor in such a situation?
Quit.
I'm not quite ready to work under the risk of having a JDAM or two dropped on my head during lunch, even if I was so incensed by Russian brutality during the start of the Ukraine war that I seriously considered signing up. But no, I'm not that altruistic.
More options
Context Copy link
I haven’t very closely followed this but I feel like the IDF has no idea where Hamas “is” other than some vague notion of “inside civilian houses and unreachable tunnels”. And the army must be under tremendous pressure to show some sort of success against Hamas. So somewhere in the command chain they decided taking over this hospital will be what they show to the public as their blow against Hamas.
It could be any other public institution really, since Hamas isn’t an underground organisation but the active government in Gaza. Of course they have ties to everything. Plus, from what I understand it was the Israelis who originally built the bunker structure under the hospital so perhaps they felt much safer going down there to show success than any other tunnel network.
More options
Context Copy link
Does international law make a distinction between a hospital treating enemy soldiers, and one healing only civilians? I ask because during WWII the sinking of hospital ships, whose patients mostly aren't civilians, was (and still is by some) considered controversial and illegal.
Hmm good question. The International Committee of the Red Cross says
So it should not matter who a hospital is treating, so long as it is merely a hospital, and not on an active airbase launching sorties. So a field hospital in the Ardennes that gets artillery'd because it is on the front line does not qualify for a "warning". A field hospital in the Ardennes that is captured by American troops, so long as they aren't resisting, shouldn't be bombed. This seems mostly reasonable. Some of these international law nerds will set us straight.
FWIW above quote they do not provide easy citations near as I can tell from my phone.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't feel good about it, but I can't say I disagree. Like @Rov_Scam said, the medical staff is there to provide medical care first and foremost and you probably don't have the capability to make Hamas go away. This situation isn't too much different that what Doctors Without Borders or other medical NGOs face in a dozen different geographic locations wherever there's an ongoing civil war or armed insurrection. There's almost no way you're only treating innocent civilians without providing medical care to guerillas too.
Yes after making the post I realized we could just be discussing how bad it is to indirectly assist a group like Hamas by simply being present and providing aid. How culpable are these NGOs for providing more "human shield" cover, propping up governance, in order to heal people in need? Not culpable enough to say no more treatment there ever. Journalists would have a harder time convincing me they are doing good by embedding with Boko Haram to cover their atrocities. In that case, I do think coverage is better than no coverage, but doctors in general have a much stronger claim to do gooder status. Even if their involvement is used to the advantage of bad actors.
I do think they probably shouldn't be running cover for Hamas. They don't need to act as spies, but neither do they need to act as propagandists.** The latter is not proven by my post.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Completely unacceptable. The rule protects all the other hospitals. If neutral doctors and observers lying about military presence was morally acceptable, the bombing of hospitals and civilians would have to be morally acceptable. It’s worse than a crime, it’s a perverse exploitation of humanity’s good will, actively destroys it.
More options
Context Copy link
If I'm a doctor I'm there to treat patients, not to spy for a foreign government. I'd also imagine that even if Hamas is using the hospital for nefarious purposes, it's probably reasonably out of public view; I doubt they keep the hand grenades on a shelf next to the nitrile gloves.
I think the professional thing to do is say something like that...
"I'm here to treat patients not spy" is what they should be doing but in my experience they have a tendency to be ideologues who support Palestinians if not Hamas (and sometimes support the latter) and will actively and persuasively lie instead of saying something along the lines "I didn't see shit and if I did it would be unsafe to tell you."
The docs in this environment mostly specifically chose to be there and that means they have INTEREST and a related lack of objectivity and tacit or explicit support for bad behavior.
I think that's the big concern, but it's also difficult to ask them to not lie if Hamas is demanding it. Other than journalists (and NGO headquarters) getting wise to the fact that they can't, in theory, trust anyone on the ground to not be making statements that are under duress, I don't think this problem (them acting as mouthpieces for Hama propaganda) can be solved.
Especially if it's the exact same statement they'd make if the hospital were empty, and they were filled with righteous indignation and a war crime.
It's one thing to be living in Gaza and say "I haven't seen anything weird" while being interviewed on live TV, it's another to come back to your home country and while there try and argue with everyone that no bad stuff is going on.
It's the attempt at persuasive advocacy that bothers me. That makes it complicity instead of keeping your head down.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If they should answer the same either way does it matter how much they support Palestine?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link