|
On August 03 2014 12:49 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2014 12:19 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 12:02 hypercube wrote:On August 03 2014 11:41 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 11:33 hypercube wrote:On August 03 2014 11:02 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 10:19 iDope wrote:The guys harping about Israel's "right" to do what it's doing, how is this defending them against more rocket attacks (or future fighters willing to die to deal some damage to Israel) http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocus/sgspeeches/statments_full.asp?statID=2314#.U9qUwPldV8FA location which is a point of refuge for civilians and mostly women and children, which is operated by the UN and has also been conveyed to the Israeli government as a point of shelter for already traumatized and displaced civilians. I am really amazed at how easily so many are just willing to justify each and every thing Israel is doing under the cover of "the Palestinians started it" or "Hamas is hiding bombs everywhere so Israel should bomb everywhere". I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Are you saying "Israel doesn't care about civilians?" Probably not very much, no. So then can you explain why they're invading on foot, and not just bombing from the sky? Can you explain why they call houses and roof knock before they destroy the weapons inside? Can you explain why they are willing to divert missiles when civilians are around? Can you explain why Israel is willing to treat non-Israeli refugees in their hospitals? And don't give me any "They're only doing that because of international pressure". Neither you nor I are able to dig into the heads of the generals to tell what their motivations are. But fact is that Israel is putting in significant effort to lessen civilian casualties. Sure, I can. They care a little. But not very much. I had no intention to speculate why they care at all, but thanks for the reminder anyway. I don't think we'll have a very productive argument about whether they care "not very much" or "a little" or "a lot", but I guess as long as we agree that they care to some extent, and are doing actions as a function of that care, we're somewhere. Just shows that the question "Israel doesn't care about civilians?" is not well thought out. Clearly they care about them to some extent, after all they could be carpet bombing Gaza AND the West Bank. But do they care enough? "That's extremely subjective and we can't really have a productive argument about it". You should have asked a different question then, shouldn't you? For the record it would have been a legitimate response given that you asked me to speculate on why Israel follows a certain strategy before telling me that I should under no circumstances should use speculation in my answer.
Israel care about its image. They are killing people for "deterrence", for their image, because they want to appear as the tough guy, and they somewhat try to minimize civilian killing because they want to appear as a "moral army", that is as long as minimizing the civilian death toil doesn't, in their mind, go against their desire to appear tough.
|
On August 03 2014 19:17 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2014 18:45 Bulugulu wrote:
Regarding Israels policy with un-proportional retaliation which it has used in the past as well:
The concept in israeli society and especially within military ranks and the political right is that disproportionate retaliation creates greater deterrence for your enemies. Imagine a poker player getting allined every time he raises, he'll be less likely to raise as a result.
While this approach may have been adequate for the earlier wars where Israel was in fact in existential jeopardy whenever a war was declared (being far outnumbered both in soldiers and attacking countries), this situation is completely different.
However the military ranks and the right still employ the same thinking as regards to this notion as well as some others.
One of the main criticism in the Israeli media nowadays is that this war failed to create deterrence. I like your way of describing things. It seems like a very objective analysis of a situation that is usually analyzed in anything but objective terms. A question regarding Israely media: How divided are they on the current actions? The information here would indicate that some kind of action is seen as a necessity against Hamas' tunnels and weapon supplies either today or in the near future, leaving the point of contention at the proportionality question and thus deterrence by fear vs. very targeted actions to avoid too much radicalisation.
The media is almost entirely supportive of the war.
Most of the opposition in main-stream media can be found in the "leftist" mainstream newspaper "Haaretz" (trans-The Country), in the form of "opinion" articles. The regular coverage is still very nationalistic.
The rhetoric used is borrowed from the military, and most of the information is fed from military spokespersons.
Here's their english website if you wanna get some reference from the primary leftist newspaper in Israel -
http://www.haaretz.com/ (you can register for free and view 10 articles a month for free).
|
Israel2209 Posts
What is the virtue of a proportional response - why is it good?
|
I'm really really surprised that the UN is happy for Israel to keep bombing its facilities without actually doing anything about it.
Don't they know how bad it makes them look to keep allowing it?
|
On August 03 2014 19:57 Jockmcplop wrote:
I'm really really surprised that the UN is happy for Israel to keep bombing its facilities without actually doing anything about it.
Don't they know how bad it makes them look to keep allowing it?
Israel / USA too much leverage. Europe is weak.
|
On August 03 2014 19:33 Noam wrote:
What is the virtue of a proportional response - why is it good?
With all due respect, but this question really baffles me ...
Simply asking this question implies having no ethical or moral standards or being a troll in my sincere opinion.
|
he is a big fan of Ender's game.
|
On August 03 2014 19:33 Noam wrote:
What is the virtue of a proportional response - why is it good?
I see a point.
The problem seen from Israel: The militaristic side of Hamas keeps shooting rockets into Israel, collecting stashes of weapons and digging tunnels into Israel for attacking Israel.
The solution: Destroy stashes of rockets and weapons and destroy the tunnels.
The proportionality in the implementation of the solution: How do you achieve the solution? In this regard the big problem is the extensive use of airstrikes. The advantage in areas where the targets have no SAMs and it is even doubtful how many MANPADs they have, there will be no deaths on the Israeli side from that action. Airstrikes have the disadvantage of being indiscriminatory in what they kill and it will often kill a high number of civilians, no matter how you prepare the civilians. In a very densely populated area of the world, that problem gets further enhanced.
The lack of proportionality is getting a lot of negative attention from other countries in the world and even USA has been very hesitant in their comments of support. If Israel keeps doing what appears to be disproportional she may find herself a lot more isolated in the world.
At the same time dead civilians will cause some very strong propagandistic pictures for arabic and particularly palestinean media to anger people against Israel. If a person sees no advantage to staying civilian and staying passive since the Israeli attacks hit so many civilians, joining Hamas can be seen as an advantage. The advantage of "disproportional" response would be if they were more targeted at Hamas, thereby creating a fear of joining Hamas in the first place.
When talking about proportion, the real problem is civilian casualties on the palestinian side and not the damage to Hamas.
|
On August 03 2014 19:33 Noam wrote:
What is the virtue of a proportional response - why is it good?
You really should think that through for yourself.
Some Israelis might even think that more civilian victims now ensures less conflict and fewer victims in the future. If you are going to think that way you have a moral responsibility to be right. It's no good to sacrifice people in the present based on some vague hope that it might just lead to a more secure, more peaceful future.
|
On August 03 2014 19:27 Bulugulu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2014 19:17 radiatoren wrote:On August 03 2014 18:45 Bulugulu wrote:
Regarding Israels policy with un-proportional retaliation which it has used in the past as well:
The concept in israeli society and especially within military ranks and the political right is that disproportionate retaliation creates greater deterrence for your enemies. Imagine a poker player getting allined every time he raises, he'll be less likely to raise as a result.
While this approach may have been adequate for the earlier wars where Israel was in fact in existential jeopardy whenever a war was declared (being far outnumbered both in soldiers and attacking countries), this situation is completely different.
However the military ranks and the right still employ the same thinking as regards to this notion as well as some others.
One of the main criticism in the Israeli media nowadays is that this war failed to create deterrence. I like your way of describing things. It seems like a very objective analysis of a situation that is usually analyzed in anything but objective terms. A question regarding Israely media: How divided are they on the current actions? The information here would indicate that some kind of action is seen as a necessity against Hamas' tunnels and weapon supplies either today or in the near future, leaving the point of contention at the proportionality question and thus deterrence by fear vs. very targeted actions to avoid too much radicalisation. The media is almost entirely supportive of the war. Most of the opposition in main-stream media can be found in the "leftist" mainstream newspaper "Haaretz" (trans-The Country), in the form of "opinion" articles. The regular coverage is still very nationalistic. The rhetoric used is borrowed from the military, and most of the information is fed from military spokespersons. Here's their english website if you wanna get some reference from the primary leftist newspaper in Israel - http://www.haaretz.com/ (you can register for free and view 10 articles a month for free).
That explains alot. I was reading a couple of stories on haaretz, and was confused about that. They seemed to be really smart on one side (very critical towards the slaughtering, pointing out that the three kids weren't kidnapped, the soldier wasn't kidnapped - and criticising the knesset/IDF for "wmod-ing"), and on the other hand you had the typical bs.
Some Israelis might even think that more civilian victims now ensures less conflict and fewer victims in the future. If you are going to think that way you have a moral responsibility to be right. It's no good to sacrifice people in the present based on some vague hope that it might just lead to a more secure, more peaceful future.
This is very shortsighted though. In a concentration camp (and gaza, by definition, is - made by Israel, doesn't matter how outrageous people think that statement is - there's more to "concentration camps" than just the most horrid one, gasing jews), nothing will/can relax. The more civilian victims now, the more terrorists you will have in the next two generations. That they don't give a shit about dying kinda defeats the purpose of killing indescriminately, if you kill the son of someone (or his parents, doesn't matter) - that person will breed hatred to a point where he want's to "retaliate" too.
It's literally what the IDF is doing at the moment. A normal person in gaza (opposite to what some people think, not all people there are terrorists, hardcore suicide bombers and deserve to be nuked), losing his kids/wife/family/whatever, suiciding in Tel Aviv killing 35 people.
Sadly i can't prove anything since there's no sources about this whatsoever, but i will bet you any money that there's "some percentage" in the hamas who simply want to retaliate/revenge something, not fighting for hamas ideals, but themselves.
edit: not disagreeing with you, but the Israelis that think that, didn't really make it clear
|
France266 Posts
On August 03 2014 19:57 Jockmcplop wrote:
I'm really really surprised that the UN is happy for Israel to keep bombing its facilities without actually doing anything about it.
Don't they know how bad it makes them look to keep allowing it?
The UN is walking on thin ice on this issue. The UNRWA had to admit three times during the last two weeks that they had found Hamas' rockets stored in their facilities in Gaza, and it seems that in at least one occasion they handed back these weapons to Hamas. The IDF also claims that they witnessed rockets being launched from others buildings belonging to the UNRWA. For the UN, staging a strong protest against the Israeli bombing of its Gaza facilities would expose the UNRWA shady double-dealing and cast a shadow over the neutrality of this agency, which is something they really can't afford to happen.
On August 03 2014 20:36 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2014 19:33 Noam wrote:
What is the virtue of a proportional response - why is it good? [...] The lack of proportionality is getting a lot of negative attention from other countries in the world and even USA has been very hesitant in their comments of support. If Israel keeps doing what appears to be disproportional she may find herself a lot more isolated in the world. At the same time dead civilians will cause some very strong propagandistic pictures for arabic and particularly palestinean media to anger people against Israel. If a person sees no advantage to staying civilian and staying passive since the Israeli attacks hit so many civilians, joining Hamas can be seen as an advantage. The advantage of "disproportional" response would be if they were more targeted at Hamas, thereby creating a fear of joining Hamas in the first place.
The US officials have made themselves look hesitant in their public comments, but make no mistake, they are fully backing Israel. The US Senate unanimously approved extra funding for Iron Dome a few days ago.
As to the to the risk of arab medias taking advantage of the Israeli strikes to set up a propagandistic agenda, don't worry, it's not like they need any kind of actual facts to achieve this goal anyway, they usually make do with made-up tales, fearmongering and common prejudice. As a Dane, you should be familiar with that; bear in mind that the massive anti-Denmark protest in the muslim world after the Jyllands-Posten's caricatures of Muhammad in 2005 didn't start right after the publication of the cartoons, but after a delegation of Danish imams traveled in middle-east countries and presented them with a summary of the article smeared with false informations (pictures unrelated to the Jyllands-Posten article, derogatory statements about the Danish society...) which was reported as-is by islamic medias.
|
On August 03 2014 22:25 Koorb wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2014 20:36 radiatoren wrote:On August 03 2014 19:33 Noam wrote:
What is the virtue of a proportional response - why is it good? [...] The lack of proportionality is getting a lot of negative attention from other countries in the world and even USA has been very hesitant in their comments of support. If Israel keeps doing what appears to be disproportional she may find herself a lot more isolated in the world. At the same time dead civilians will cause some very strong propagandistic pictures for arabic and particularly palestinean media to anger people against Israel. If a person sees no advantage to staying civilian and staying passive since the Israeli attacks hit so many civilians, joining Hamas can be seen as an advantage. The advantage of "disproportional" response would be if they were more targeted at Hamas, thereby creating a fear of joining Hamas in the first place. The US officials have made themselves look hesitant in their public comments, but make no mistake, they are fully backing Israel. The US Senate unanimously approved extra funding for Iron Dome a few days ago. As to the to the risk of arab medias taking advantage of the Israeli strikes to set up a propagandistic agenda, don't worry, it's not like they need any kind of actual facts to achieve this goal anyway, they usually make do with made-up tales, fearmongering and common prejudice. As a Dane, you should be familiar with that; bear in mind that the massive anti-Denmark protest in the muslim world after the Jyllands-Posten's caricatures of Muhammad in 2005 didn't start right after the publication of the cartoons, but after a delegation of Danish imams traveled in middle-east countries and presented them with a summary of the article smeared with false informations (pictures unrelated to the Jyllands-Posten article, derogatory statements about the Danish society...) which was reported as-is by islamic medias.
Yeah, but at the same time one of the people responsible for the tour has changed his mind after experiencing arguments from both sides. He is actively working against extremism today and has become a target of the domestic religious extremists hatred. The example actually shows that the problem is more of a domestic problem than a problem with a religion/region.
As for US opinion, the Iron Dome is specifically constructed as a defensive system to avoid civilian casualties on the israeli side. It is not really relevant to extrapolate opinions from. When that is said, several of the US politicians would never even think about criticising Israel if they used a couple of atomic bombs against Gaza. The change this time is that the civilian casualties are starting to effect the US public opinion to a larger degree than before. As strong as the pro-israeli stance is in US politics it will be harder to maintain if the public is that strongly against it.
|
Norway28712 Posts
On August 03 2014 14:29 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2014 14:23 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2014 14:16 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 14:11 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2014 14:02 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 13:55 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2014 13:46 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 13:38 hypercube wrote:On August 03 2014 13:33 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 13:28 hypercube wrote:
[quote]
Cool. What do you want to do about it? Er...well, in general, I feel I'm more the responsive type, not the start an argument type. We can...wish each other well? I thought wishing well was implied  Anyway, I don't think the discussion can be saved at this point, so I happy with just ending it here. Mhm, i meant it more as a "nice talking to you, bye", than I "I never was wishing you well". But if you have an argument, and you think I was just misunderstanding you, feel free to try it out again, if you're so inclined. But ya, we can end it here if you'd like. On August 03 2014 13:37 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2014 13:10 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 13:03 Xiphos wrote:
[quote]
You are clearly the one lacking both critical thinking and moral values here by arguing that the army that does more civilian damage to the other side have more moral than an army that does less to its opposition. Take your unmoral stance and gtfo. ... I suggest taking logic 101, and learning about concepts like converse and inverse, before you start shoving words in my mouth. Also, the word you're looking for is "immoral", not "unmoral". Listen, its okay to admit defeat instead trying to weasel your way out by bringing out off-topic concepts in a unwinnable situation. " mor·al ˈmôrəl,ˈmär-/ adjective 2. holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct. "he prides himself on being a highly moral and ethical person" " Source: https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=moral&safe=offYou clearly lost this one. If I can admit that I have misspelled that word, why can't you? Are you really that petty? How long have you exhibited such loser-esque behavior? You won't get anywhere in life with this attitude. Congratulations, you have utterly confused me. I was trying to weasel my way out of what again? Did we ever disagree about the dictionary definition of "moral"? What did I "clearly lose" again? What word am I supposed to admit I misspelled? When did I act petty? What loser-esque behavior are you referring to? I don't remember the last time a post confused me so much. You won't get anywhere in life with this attitude. Gee, thanks life coach Xiphos. Your concern is, as always, greatly appreciated. No you were saying that it is illogical by your "I suggest taking logic 101 [...]" quote that that the army that does more civilian damage to the other side have more moral than an army that does less to its opposition where it is the completely and utterly logical in which you were unable to respond. That is the second time you have accused me of saying something I didn't see. Feel free to read Yoav's post above mine. You cannot simply say that the army that does more or less civilian damage is more or less moral. That is a gross oversimplification, as there are many other factors. If I must, behold logic 101: 1) (Your statement) If an army does less civilian damage, it is more moral. Or, P -> Q 2) (My statement) That is not true. Or, ~(P->Q) 3) (Which is the same as) P and ~Q 4) (Which is not at all the same as) ~P -> Q Which is what you said I said. Follow?
From there, it showcased your lack of understanding to the word "moral". And as aforementioned the quote "[...] and learning about concepts like converse and inverse." is your mechanism of evading the problem at hand by bringing extraneous topics.
This is the poster boy of pettiness.
So it seems that, instead of understanding my response, you assumed I was evading the question. Well done. No I completely understood it. Right there on the 2), that's your mistake. You are assuming in your wildest imagination that it is not true but in reality, it is. This is simple as it is. The one who murdered more people is of course the bigger devil than another that murdered less. The fact that you are arguing against it displayed how separated you are from the reality. Way to avoid it. And we're back where we started. You claim "The one who murdered more people is of course the bigger devil", as an absolute statement. Want some counterexamples? 1) A woman getting raped kills her rapist in self-defense. She is more moral, but according to your definition, she's not.2) A man almost beaten to death shoots the person beating him. The killer is more moral, but according to your definition, he's not. 3) Yoav's example above. Seriously, that is the most simplistic definition of "moral" you can possibly have come up with. Okay I'll let you have that one. But the situation here. On one side, you have Israel, a country with the world's most advanced army vs a third world country that in Gaza. Israel is not in the process of getting raped metaphorically nor is it almost beaten to death. But yet in the midst, Israel still heartlessly killed more civilian density than Hamas did. This is where your counterexamples fails. Ah, so now you're arguing something else. Instead of arguing "Since Israel killed more people, it must be more immoral than Hamas", you're arguing "Since Israel killed a greater ratio of civilians than Hamas did (I assume that's what you mean by "civilian density"), it's more immoral? Which is still completely ridiculous. According to that definition, if A kills 1000 civilians and 1 soldier, and B kills 1 civilian, B must be more immoral. Which is obviously not true (in many circumstances). I'm not giving analogies to the current Israel-Gaza conflict. I'm giving situations where, according to your definition of morality, the more moral one is really acting less morally. So this definition of morality is also wrong. Try again?
the really, really,really crazy part is that your numbers aren't that far off. Isn't it like 3 Israeli civilians vs 1400 or so Palestinians so far?
|
So now we found out that not only do Isreali police do not think the murder of the 3 isreali children was a hamas action, we also find out that the so called captured soldier wasn't even captured: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/02/israel-rejects-talks-gaza-attacks-end
So many have died. And for what? WhyOn August 03 2014 19:33 Noam wrote:
What is the virtue of a proportional response - why is it good?
Disgusting. Because palestinian lives are people too? Or do you think they are not worth as people? Not killing 1600 people for no reason, about which many are children, is generally held to be a good idea. Israel appears to be systematically killing and destroying the infrastructure of the gaza strip on top of their long control over it. Hospitals, docks, schools, universities, electrical generators, the list goes on. What is the reason for any of what is Israel doing? There doesn't seem to be any justification, let alone a "proportional responce." What exactly is Israel supposed to be responding to anyways? Before of after they randomly killed and detained hundred in the west bank? How was Hamas responsible for anything? How are the civilians of the Gaza strip deserve any of this?
|
Norway28712 Posts
On August 03 2014 18:45 Bulugulu wrote:
Regarding Israels policy with un-proportional retaliation which it has used in the past as well:
The concept in israeli society and especially within military ranks and the political right is that disproportionate retaliation creates greater deterrence for your enemies. Imagine a poker player getting allined every time he raises, he'll be less likely to raise as a result.
While this approach may have been adequate for the earlier wars where Israel was in fact in existential jeopardy whenever a war was declared (being far outnumbered both in soldiers and attacking countries), this situation is completely different.
However the military ranks and the right still employ the same thinking as regards to this notion as well as some others.
One of the main criticism in the Israeli media nowadays is that this war failed to create deterrence.
It's not just not deterring at this point, it's counter-deterring because it's stirring up so much hatred. Combine hatred with no real life prospect and you have someone willing to sacrifice his life to kill you. Do this with 1.8 million people who are situated right next to you and yeah.. This isn't looking pretty.
|
On August 03 2014 22:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2014 14:29 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 14:23 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2014 14:16 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 14:11 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2014 14:02 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 13:55 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2014 13:46 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 13:38 hypercube wrote:On August 03 2014 13:33 soon.Cloak wrote:
[quote]
Er...well, in general, I feel I'm more the responsive type, not the start an argument type. We can...wish each other well? I thought wishing well was implied Anyway, I don't think the discussion can be saved at this point, so I happy with just ending it here. Mhm, i meant it more as a "nice talking to you, bye", than I "I never was wishing you well". But if you have an argument, and you think I was just misunderstanding you, feel free to try it out again, if you're so inclined. But ya, we can end it here if you'd like. On August 03 2014 13:37 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2014 13:10 soon.Cloak wrote:
[quote]
...
I suggest taking logic 101, and learning about concepts like converse and inverse, before you start shoving words in my mouth.
Also, the word you're looking for is "immoral", not "unmoral". Listen, its okay to admit defeat instead trying to weasel your way out by bringing out off-topic concepts in a unwinnable situation. " mor·al ˈmôrəl,ˈmär-/ adjective 2. holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct. "he prides himself on being a highly moral and ethical person" " Source: https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=moral&safe=offYou clearly lost this one. If I can admit that I have misspelled that word, why can't you? Are you really that petty? How long have you exhibited such loser-esque behavior? You won't get anywhere in life with this attitude. Congratulations, you have utterly confused me. I was trying to weasel my way out of what again? Did we ever disagree about the dictionary definition of "moral"? What did I "clearly lose" again? What word am I supposed to admit I misspelled? When did I act petty? What loser-esque behavior are you referring to? I don't remember the last time a post confused me so much. You won't get anywhere in life with this attitude. Gee, thanks life coach Xiphos. Your concern is, as always, greatly appreciated. No you were saying that it is illogical by your "I suggest taking logic 101 [...]" quote that that the army that does more civilian damage to the other side have more moral than an army that does less to its opposition where it is the completely and utterly logical in which you were unable to respond. That is the second time you have accused me of saying something I didn't see. Feel free to read Yoav's post above mine. You cannot simply say that the army that does more or less civilian damage is more or less moral. That is a gross oversimplification, as there are many other factors. If I must, behold logic 101: 1) (Your statement) If an army does less civilian damage, it is more moral. Or, P -> Q 2) (My statement) That is not true. Or, ~(P->Q) 3) (Which is the same as) P and ~Q 4) (Which is not at all the same as) ~P -> Q Which is what you said I said. Follow?
From there, it showcased your lack of understanding to the word "moral". And as aforementioned the quote "[...] and learning about concepts like converse and inverse." is your mechanism of evading the problem at hand by bringing extraneous topics.
This is the poster boy of pettiness.
So it seems that, instead of understanding my response, you assumed I was evading the question. Well done. No I completely understood it. Right there on the 2), that's your mistake. You are assuming in your wildest imagination that it is not true but in reality, it is. This is simple as it is. The one who murdered more people is of course the bigger devil than another that murdered less. The fact that you are arguing against it displayed how separated you are from the reality. Way to avoid it. And we're back where we started. You claim "The one who murdered more people is of course the bigger devil", as an absolute statement. Want some counterexamples? 1) A woman getting raped kills her rapist in self-defense. She is more moral, but according to your definition, she's not.2) A man almost beaten to death shoots the person beating him. The killer is more moral, but according to your definition, he's not. 3) Yoav's example above. Seriously, that is the most simplistic definition of "moral" you can possibly have come up with. Okay I'll let you have that one. But the situation here. On one side, you have Israel, a country with the world's most advanced army vs a third world country that in Gaza. Israel is not in the process of getting raped metaphorically nor is it almost beaten to death. But yet in the midst, Israel still heartlessly killed more civilian density than Hamas did. This is where your counterexamples fails. Ah, so now you're arguing something else. Instead of arguing "Since Israel killed more people, it must be more immoral than Hamas", you're arguing "Since Israel killed a greater ratio of civilians than Hamas did (I assume that's what you mean by "civilian density"), it's more immoral? Which is still completely ridiculous. According to that definition, if A kills 1000 civilians and 1 soldier, and B kills 1 civilian, B must be more immoral. Which is obviously not true (in many circumstances). I'm not giving analogies to the current Israel-Gaza conflict. I'm giving situations where, according to your definition of morality, the more moral one is really acting less morally. So this definition of morality is also wrong. Try again? the really, really,really crazy part is that your numbers aren't that far off. Isn't it like 3 Israeli civilians vs 1400 or so Palestinians so far?
No, it's way off, because the 1400 Palestinians are not 99.9% civilian, like in that example.
What's your issue with this? Hamas comes out of a tunnel, breaking the cease fire, and kills two soldiers. One soldier is missing. Of course the initial reports are that he's captured. Then, after a day or two of investigation, they think that he got killed in the fighting.
That's perfectly reasonable, and the fact that he was "killed" and not "captured" does not at all absolve Hamas's breaking of the ceasefire.
|
Norway28712 Posts
On August 03 2014 19:33 Noam wrote:
What is the virtue of a proportional response - why is it good?
Ok, let's just ignore the morality aspect of the whole thing. Considering how obviously Israel prefers to look at this purely in terms of 'realpolitik', and the fact that you even asked this question showcases that you yourself don't actually care about the lives of civilians (because part of the virtue of a proportional response is that you don't kill 1400+ innocent people- you even having to ask means you do not care about these.)
I think Israels actions here are endangering Israel's long term safety.
Hostility towards Israel is at an all time high. The unique thing is - even Americans are starting to be fed up now. Compare this thread with previous threads we've had on this issue - you will see far more posters with United States voicing their disdain with Israeli actions. American officials are caught criticizing Israel when they don't know people are listening. And Israel depends on American support for her continued survival.
International boycotts, Israel becoming a pariah state like South Africa was, is closer and closer to becoming a reality. This is not because we hate the jews, this is not the default world order. This is a response caused by the west being utterly outraged that a democratic, western-ish, west-supported country can behave in this manner. Seriously, we're talking civilian casualties on like, a 500:1 scale now, it's not just 'not proportional', it's looking like a fucking massacre.
And frankly, here's the thing.. Israelis claim that they care about civilian casualties. My impression is that yes, they do. Both ways. They don't want to kill tens of thousand of civilians. But they also don't just want to kill tens, the 1400+ they're at right now seems like just about the amount they want to be at, not so many that the US drops their support for them, not so much that the internet squad of loyal supporters stops fighting the propaganda war, but so many that the Palestinians are sure to remember. It's to some degree working too - Palestinian support for the Hamas seems to be waning, at least in Gaza.
Basically, here's the virtue of a proportional response. People wouldn't fucking start hating you over that. There's no global conflict through my lifetime which has outraged me like this conflict continues to do. I don't hate though, because I realize the folly of it, I realize that Israeli fear is fueled by hatred and I realize that Israeli fear is a catalyst for their continued insistence on disproportionate response, and I'm exceptionally calm mannered by nature. But I see it all around me, on my facebook feed. Many of my most reasonable friends, the ones I like the most, the most peace-loving people I know.. They're hating you. Hell, uttering support for Israel is likely to get you ostracized now. And I understand it - if a Norwegian who has been following Norwegian media draws the conclusion that Israel is in the right here, I would immediately lose respect for that person. At this point, it is literally impossible for me to reconcile being a good person with supporting Israel. And when you, as a country, find yourself having this status in the international community, and when you are not actually big enough- like russia china and USA, to ignore this lacking support, or even outright hatred, you should realize that it is time to change your policy. And the continued insistence on 'disproportionate response' is the sole reason why hatred of Israel is on an all-time high. I can assure you that if Palestinian civilian death counts was a single digit number- like Israel's civilian death count, then you would be looking like saints.
I mean the occupation and overall treatment of them as third rate citizens is another issue, but that's constantly there. Hatred for Israel however is something that fluctuates based on how many civilians Israel has been killing recently.
|
Norway28712 Posts
No, it's way off, because the 1400 Palestinians are not 99.9% civilian, like in that example.
No, it's only like 75-80% civilian, so like 1100-1200. But the 1400 number was from 2 days ago anyway, wouldn't be surprised if it has risen to 1600+ so the civilian counts are probably approaching that anyway. Meanwhile Israeli casualties are something like what, 6% of total Israeli death counts?
|
@Liquid'Drone
We can argue about what's considered "close" or not, but in any event, the point of that example was to show that just because Hamas has a lower ratio of civilians to military killed, does not mean that they are the more moral army.
Edit:Did you just edit a post without having the little edit thing appear...?
|
Another UN shelter has been bombed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
