|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
Northern Ireland24404 Posts
Media culture will differ by locale of course, I think broadly ours does give Palestinian deaths a reasonably prominent focus, but in the way they’d cover a natural disaster or tragedy of that nature.
Perhaps somewhat (largely) neglecting the whole human agency element as to why that is occurring. That would be my critique of the general tenor of coverage.
|
On March 29 2024 22:36 WombaT wrote:
Media culture will differ by locale of course, I think broadly ours does give Palestinian deaths a reasonably prominent focus, but in the way they’d cover a natural disaster or tragedy of that nature.
Perhaps somewhat (largely) neglecting the whole human agency element as to why that is occurring. That would be my critique of the general tenor of coverage.
In more local coverage, the most glaring thing I've seen in a french newspaper was an article about the deplorable conditions for Palestinians in a refugee camp in Egypt, with way less neutral language. As soon as it's no longer Israel that is responsible for the conditions, Palestinians get their humanity back and we are allowed to empathize with them.
|
|
|
In terms of the french coverage? No I can't, I would have to go to the archives and that's not worth doing.
|
Northern Ireland24404 Posts
On March 29 2024 23:33 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2024 22:36 WombaT wrote:
Media culture will differ by locale of course, I think broadly ours does give Palestinian deaths a reasonably prominent focus, but in the way they’d cover a natural disaster or tragedy of that nature.
Perhaps somewhat (largely) neglecting the whole human agency element as to why that is occurring. That would be my critique of the general tenor of coverage. In more local coverage, the most glaring thing I've seen in a french newspaper was an article about the deplorable conditions for Palestinians in a refugee camp in Egypt, with way less neutral language. As soon as it's no longer Israel that is responsible for the conditions, Palestinians get their humanity back and we are allowed to empathize with them.
It’s exceptionally difficult to actually qualify/quantify such a phenomenon in any objective manner, but intuitively that does rather track with how it’s covered over here, or at least what I’ve been exposed to.
|
|
|
On March 28 2024 11:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Well that Israeli threat did not last long.
May have had something to do with Biden sending them more weapons for their ethnic cleansing campaign
The Biden administration in recent days quietly authorized the transfer of billions of dollars in bombs and fighter jets to Israel despite Washington’s concerns about an anticipated military offensive in southern Gaza that could threaten the lives of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian civilians.
The new arms packages include more than 1,800 MK84 2,000-pound bombs and 500 MK82 500-pound bombs, according to Pentagon and State Department officials familiar with the matter. The 2,000-pound bombs have been linked to previous mass-casualty events throughout Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. These officials, like some others, spoke to The Washington Post on the condition of anonymity because recent authorizations have not been disclosed publicly
...
The 2,000-pound bombs, capable of leveling city blocks and leaving craters in the earth 40 feet across and larger, are almost never used anymore by Western militaries in densely populated locations due to the risk of civilian casualties.
Israel has used them extensively in Gaza, according to several reports, most notably in the bombing of Gaza’s Jabalya refugee camp Oct. 31. U.N. officials decried the strike, which killed more than 100 people, as a “disproportionate attack that could amount to war crimes.” Israel defended the bombing, saying it resulted in the death of a Hamas leader.
...
AIPAC, alongside congressional Republicans and several Democrats, oppose any conditions on U.S. military assistance to Israel. “The U.S. can protect civilians, on both sides of the conflict, by continuing to ensure Israel receives as much U.S. assistance as is needed, as expeditiously as possible, to keep its stockpiles full of lifesaving munitions,” Reps. August Pfluger (R-Tex.) and Don Davis (D-N.C.), and Michael Makovsky, president of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, wrote in a recent column. “Doing so is also morally right and in the U.S. interest.”
www.washingtonpost.com
|
On March 29 2024 18:37 Liquid`Drone wrote:
You're basically equating collapsed buildings from engineering failures with collapsed buildings from bombing raids that may or may not have had some degree if intelligence signifying that there was a bad man inside the building, here. That is a much bigger stretch than asking that calculated collateral damage should be considered not that different from deliberate murder.
I actually listed 3 tragic death scenarios I've seen in the news recently that have nothing to do with this conflict. I did that to pull us out of that lense for a minute and see that Elroi's point about media naturally covering different types of events differently (even when no bias is involved), is obviously true.
Nowhere in that post did I say what you are claiming I said. Nor really on that topic.
Edit: that is, I was discussing media bias, not ranking the morality of murder, manslaughter, killing with negligence, execution, etc. (Or determining which category various acts fit into.)
|
On March 29 2024 21:48 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2024 14:10 Cerebrate1 wrote:On March 27 2024 22:05 Nebuchad wrote:On March 27 2024 20:11 Elroi wrote:On March 27 2024 18:19 Nebuchad wrote:On March 27 2024 17:40 Elroi wrote:On March 27 2024 16:40 Nebuchad wrote:On March 27 2024 12:59 JimmiC wrote:On March 27 2024 10:03 Nebuchad wrote:On March 27 2024 04:58 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
And for those who keep poo pooing me pointing out how far left and far right are becoming twins we know have the "it's Main Stream Media's" fault.
Are you not a journalist? Do you not see value in the rules that MSM needs to follow compared to all the rest of the garbage out there?
edit: also explains all the presumptions as fact with no sourcing. Source is either social media, to embarrassing for those not down the rabbit hole or simply made up, I mean "presumed". "Have more Palestinians or Israelis died in war? Half of Americans don’t know, poll says" Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article286996080.html#storylink=cpy That’s a shit post. Explain what you mean so I don’t connect the dots incorrectly then you accuse me of whatever. Again are you not some sort of journalist can you not just say what you mean? I’m going to assume that you are trying to show that “main stream media” is doing a bad job of educating them. How many Americans get their news from main stream media? How many even read the news at all? What percentage even know there is a war? If I happened to guess what you were trying to get at try again. Edit: if your really are serious that you think the “msm” is not accurately reporting the casualties I can you show you tons from all over, cnn updates it daily even breaks it down by week. The accurate info is out there, it’s the opinion part that is being sold as fact on social media that is the problem. It is an observable fact about reality that the MSM does a shit job of reporting Gaza. In this quantitative study by the Intercept, "Major U.S. newspapers disproportionately emphasized Israeli deaths in the conflict; used emotive language to describe the killings of Israelis, but not Palestinians Neb, don't you think the difference in language and reporting between the Israeli and the Palestinian deaths has anything to do with the nature of these deaths? There are many Palestinians who have died which all of us think is a tragedy; there is a discussion to be had about how much their deaths were caused by disproportionate use of force from the IDF and how much it is because Hamas is actively hiding among civilians (hospitals, schools etc.). But on the other side you have the purposeful killing of as many civilians as possible in the most gruesome way possible. The difference in reporting is not because of some bias against the Palestinians; for example, if something like this happened in Tel Aviv (dead civilians paraded through the streets of Gaza cheered on by crowds of people), don't you think it would be all over the news all the time for years to come: https://nypost.com/2023/10/07/horrifying-videos-show-hamas-terrorist-invasion-of-israel/ I would contend that what you're doing here is agreeing with the bias, describing why the bias makes sense to you, as opposed to arguing against the bias' existence. If Hamas had access to the IDF artillery and was using it to bomb military targets in Tel-Aviv, I am absolutely certain that neither the mainstream media nor you would shy away from calling it horrific, or a slaughter. Nor should they, by the way, it is fucking horrific. And then there's a chicken and egg question that arises from it, was it always your view that this difference in coverage makes sense, or did the way the media reports them shape your perception of this difference? It's difficult to answer. Another factor that is definitely worth mentioning in the creation of this bias is that a lot of people have trouble empathizing with others, and it's much easier for Europeans to see themselves as victims of terrorism than it is to see themselves as victims of a colonizing force. This may or may not apply to you, I wouldn't know. I am not sure what your argument is other than doubling down on the claim that the media are biased against Palestinians and the usual postcolonial hermeneutics of suspicion. My claim was that if the media are reporting on the Israeli deaths on Oct 7 differently than the Palestinian deaths it's not necessarily because of media bias. If civilians die in a strike against Hamas fighters it's qualitatively different from if they are targeted on purpose. If Israeli soldiers behaved like the Hamas soldiers (ie, targeting civilians on purpose) the reporting would also be completely different. And I asked you a counterfactual question: if Israeli soldiers raped and killed young Palestinian women, on orders by their commanders, took the bodies and paraded them through the streets where the civilian population cheered them on - do you think the media would treat that differently from the Oct 7 attack? I don't think so. The problem with this is that what you describe is a biased coverage, and you're expressing your approval of it. You're not saying that the media treats Israelis and Palestinians the same, you're saying that because of the difference in nature between Hamas and the IDF, it makes sense to you that the media doesn't treat Israelis and Palestinians the same. Civilians are obviously targeted on purpose by the IDF, the IDF aren't idiots, if they bomb a refugee camp because there's a Hamas member in it they're obviously aware that the refugees are also going to die, it's not an accidental death. This article is also worth reading in this context, as what is defined as "power targets" very clearly includes the targeting of civilian infrastructure. But this isn't likely to change your mind, and this obviously is not how journalists decided how they would cover this conflict. They didn't sit in a room and go, okay, clearly terrorism is horrific but dropping bombs on children is not, here are the few lines that the IDF can or cannot cross in order to receive a coverage that is different from that of Hamas. These types of words are emotional rather than descriptive, they show and demand empathy. There has never been a conversation where someone went "My family was slaughtered during [x]" and someone answered "Technically [x] didn't meet the characteristics of a slaughter so you can't say that". For your hypothetical, the media would condemn that specific event, but that wouldn't change how they cover the entirety of the conflict. Events that are similar in nature have happened, for example when Israelis gathered on hill tops to watch the bombs go off in Gaza and cheer, and they were roundly talked about and condemned when they happened, but then the standard coverage resumed. Elroi is saying that the media covers different types of events differently. Like if there was a school shooting, a domestic homicide, and a building collapse because of a negligent architect, those are all tragic and have someone responsible for the deaths. Nevertheless, the media obviously covers each of those events very differently, even if they have no political bias at all. You are merely adding that in practice, one group of people has a lot of school shootings while the other has a lot of collapsing buildings. That those regularly get different types of coverage is not a proof of media bias. Meanwhile, I'm not sure why you seem to think the media is entirely anti-Palestine. There are plenty of Pro-Palestine media outlets just like there are Pro-Israel ones, as well as some who even manage to be somewhat balanced on this topic. Heck, one of the most common outlets quoted by certain people on this thread is Al Jazeera... I do agree with JimmiC in that some anonymous dude on YouTube is not exactly a step up in terms of reliability either. In my understanding, this is influenced by the natural desire that all journalists have to not have to rewrite anything...
That's a good point, and probably true in a lot of cases. It helps explain why a lot of foreign reports of the various goings on feel kind of samey.
In your understanding, journalists from mainstream media in the US perceive that when Palestinians kill an Israeli, a different event is happening than when Israelis kill a Palestinian. ...
Firstly, I can agree with your point above and also agree with this other point, as they are not contradictory.
Secondly, I'm not going to get into the weeds with you about the moral difference between trying to kill a bad guy and a civilian dying as collateral damage vs going out of your way to specifically just kill a civilian. I feel like that discussion has already been hashed out on this thread earlier.
Thirdly, yes. A bomb being dropped out of a plane onto a building is a very different event for media than a guy walking up to someone and stabbing them in the chest. Even if they are morally equivalent, the optics of those events are just different. Like, if you just took a camera and filmed each of those things happen with no commentary whatsoever, you would have two very different types of footage that people would naturally react to differently. In a fictionalized movie, one would get the "graphic violence" warning and the other wouldn't. It's an interesting view into human psychology why that is the case, but the media certainly accepts that distinction across the board regardless of bias.
What you're saying is making them [the media] look worse than what I'm saying. ...
Listen, I have no horse in the game of making the media look like they are angels or something. IMO, they are mostly just interested in maximizing views and money. If the logical conclusion is that the mainstream media are not saints, I'm happy to accept that logic.
That said, I actually prefer that my news just tell the news as it is, rather than try to add a ton of narrative to fit within their personal understanding of morality.
|
On March 24 2024 22:51 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2024 18:51 RvB wrote:On March 09 2024 05:15 Nebuchad wrote:On March 09 2024 00:02 RvB wrote:On March 08 2024 03:43 Nebuchad wrote:On March 08 2024 03:12 RvB wrote:On March 08 2024 02:10 Nebuchad wrote:On March 08 2024 02:08 RvB wrote:On March 07 2024 21:50 Magic Powers wrote:
"They do this by hiding behind civilians and civilian infrastructure making them a valid military target."
The IDF has attacked various refugee camps. That's more than "Israel also playing a role". It's a war crime. Refugee camps in name only. They were refugee camps decades ago and developed into cities. Either way even civilian objects with special protections under IHL can become a valid target. Rules are stricter but it's possible nonetheless. If we think about it that makes a lot of sense because otherwise it'd be very easy for organizations like Hamas to abuse IHL in their favor. Whether these attacks are a war crime or not is heavily context dependent. We almost always do not have that context. Hi RvB, can I quickly get your opinion on this military strategy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine What do you want me to say? It's based on two quotes from a military conflict almost two decades ago and a UN report where one of the main authors makes the same observation I do: that the conclusions depend on information from Israel. Okay so the first thing I would want you to say is whether you would agree that, if it is true that they're doing this, it amounts to a war crime. Cause maybe you don't, I wouldn't know. Second, I would ask what you think is more likely based on the results that we see on the ground, that they're applying this strategy that they said they would be applying, or that they've verified that Hamas is hiding in every single building which makes them all valid military targets because they really care about military laws. Disproportionate force is a warcrime as far as I understand yes. The links to his quotes in the wikipedia article are dead or in Hebrew so there's very little to comment on. I don't share your conclusion that the IDF/IAF said they'd be applying that strategy. Assuming the wikipedia article is correct that's still only two quotes from Eisenkott of which only one talks about disproportionate force. Considering the way Hamas operates and that they've prepared for this conflict since they took over Gaza I believe that they've operated from most targeted buildings yes. I guess the underlying question is why I believe the Israeli army mostly complies with International Humanitarian Law. Israel's army has the MAG corps and other systems to ensure compliance. They also advise on targeting decisions. Their decisions are subject to judicial review and the (independent) judiciary has more than once ruled on military matters even during conflicts. The current chief of the IDF, Herzi Halevi, also has a reputation for upholding ethical and legal standards. That does not mean that Israel never breaches IHL but it does mean that they have the institutions to correct course and broadly operate in line with IHL. On March 08 2024 07:55 Magic Powers wrote:On March 08 2024 03:12 RvB wrote:On March 08 2024 02:10 Nebuchad wrote:On March 08 2024 02:08 RvB wrote:On March 07 2024 21:50 Magic Powers wrote:
"They do this by hiding behind civilians and civilian infrastructure making them a valid military target."
The IDF has attacked various refugee camps. That's more than "Israel also playing a role". It's a war crime. Refugee camps in name only. They were refugee camps decades ago and developed into cities. Either way even civilian objects with special protections under IHL can become a valid target. Rules are stricter but it's possible nonetheless. If we think about it that makes a lot of sense because otherwise it'd be very easy for organizations like Hamas to abuse IHL in their favor. Whether these attacks are a war crime or not is heavily context dependent. We almost always do not have that context. Hi RvB, can I quickly get your opinion on this military strategy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine What do you want me to say? It's based on two quotes from a military conflict almost two decades ago and a UN report where one of the main authors makes the same observation I do: that the conclusions depend on information from Israel. On March 08 2024 02:26 Magic Powers wrote:On March 08 2024 02:08 RvB wrote:On March 07 2024 21:50 Magic Powers wrote:
"They do this by hiding behind civilians and civilian infrastructure making them a valid military target."
The IDF has attacked various refugee camps. That's more than "Israel also playing a role". It's a war crime. Refugee camps in name only. They were refugee camps decades ago and developed into cities. Either way even civilian objects with special protections under IHL can become a valid target. Rules are stricter but it's possible nonetheless. If we think about it that makes a lot of sense because otherwise it'd be very easy for organizations like Hamas to abuse IHL in their favor. Whether these attacks are a war crime or not is heavily context dependent. We almost always do not have that context. I'm sure the "context" of bullets and shrapnels ripping through men, women and children who were told to move South to flee from a war zone is very relevant to them now that they've met their maker. You're shifting the goal posts. Your claim is that it is a war crime. Obviously nobody cares whether something is legally a war crime or not when you're in an active war zone fearing for your life. Nobody disputes that. I'm not shifting the goalpost at all. It is a warcrime. And you're also excusing the war crime. Can you stop replying to me if your post consists only of a personal attack. Thanks. Thanks for the feedback. Why is it a war crime to use disproportionate force in your understanding? What's the mecanism? Sorry I forgot to respond. A strike is disproportionate when the expected collateral damage is excessive compared to the expected military advantage gained. So you cannot blow up an apartment building full of civilians when there's one random Hamas terrorist inside the building. On the other hand if that Hamas terrorist is Sinwar then it might be proportionate. The word expected is important. If I have every reason to suspect someone is an enemy combatant and shoot him but afterward it turns out it's an innocent civilian it's still not a war crime. Also one more thought on the Dahiya doctrine. Assuming this is the doctrine Israel uses then that also means the worst accusations of war crimes and crimes against humanity are not true. The quote calls for disproportionate attacks on Hezbollah targets so it is not indiscriminate. It also calls for the evacuation of civilians for its protection. That means there's no ethnic cleansing because the intent of the evacuation is not to make the area ethnically homogeneous and there's no genocide because there's no deliberate killing with the intent of destroying the nation or group. I see why you answered that way, but this is more like "when" something is a war crime, rather than "why". Like, what is the mechanism that makes it a war crime (and a bad thing) when someone uses disproportionate force. It was a bit disingenuous on my part, it's mostly an attempt to have some specifics on the bad things that could be happening because it's not very easy to think of a specific bad thing that the IDF hasn't done to Palestinians. Full disclosure since it's been a while and we don't need to stretch this conversation a lot further, I'm not entirely sure that it's possible to do any war without committing war crimes. We did some in WW2 vs the nazis, no question. So I'm not really approaching this conversation in the same way as you do, I am of course disgusted with the nonsense about the IDF being the "most moral army in the world" or whatever, especially given that their main animus right now is for sure anti-Arab hatred, but mainly I think when you're trying to demonstrate that no war crimes are happening you're trying to demonstrate something impossible. I would have expected the "grisly realism" defense, something like "Oh yeah it's a war of course war crimes are happening, what do you expect", which is fair enough, and then the conversation can loop back to the legitimacy of the expansion goals of zionism, but if instead you're going "actually I'm not sure there are any war crimes", then we can stay there but I have to win this one easily don't I.
No, we're approaching it in the same way. I agree that almost every war will inevitably contain war crimes just like any society will have crime. That's why I said Israel mostly complies with IHL and based my arguments on Israels' institutional setup. The issue with many of the accusers of war crimes against Israel is that they look at outcomes and/or consider the current war in Gaza immoral and based on that conclude that Israel commits war crimes but that's not how IHL works. They're using IHL for partisan aims.
The Dahiya doctrine doesn't call for "disproportionate attacks on Hezbollah targets" because that doesn't mean anything. You can't "disproportionately attack" an Hezbollah target, the Hezbollah target is fully destroyed and that's it. Nobody is going to go "Hey, you were only meant to destroy 50% of that Hezbollah target, you went too far". The disproportionality comes from, in the Beirut example, destroying the whole quarter of Dahieh because there's a Hezbollah base in it. It is the notion that you'll voluntarily destroy the whole quarter as well as the target, and one of the reasons mentioned specifically in the quotes is so that Lebanese people stop supporting Hezbollah because Hezbollah's actions have caused their villages to be destroyed ("Before Nasrallah gives the order to fire at Israel, he will need to think 30 times if he wants to destroy his support base in the villages.") It is two things, one it's extremely stupid, because obviously it's Israel that's destroying the villages so that's who the villagers will be mad at, not at Nasrallah, and two, it's very explicitly terrorism, this is in no sane definition anything else than state terrorism.
You're just restating the definition of disproportionate force. You can think it's stupid but I don't think I defended the use of disproportionate force. I disagree with the conclusion that force does not work though. The surrounding countries only stopped invading after they were beaten militarily. The PLO only recognized Israel and started negotiating after they were kicked out of Lebanon. Hezbollah would never have attacked if it were not for Hamas starting the war. Deterrence is a thing and it works.
Currently Israel hasn't done much ethnic cleansing in Lebanon as far as I know (maybe stilt can correct me if I'm wrong), but this strategy also pairs quite nicely with the ulterior goal of ethnic cleansing, because you're causing disproportionate destruction. That will naturally cause some people to experience despair, and they'll then be more likely to leave the place, and some other people will also be dead, which means that they don't occupy the land you want anymore. Both of those outcomes make it more likely that you'll be able to settle the land.
Destroying buildings and then leaving does not make for an effective ethnic cleansing campaign. Ethnic cleansing is almost always done by targeting civilians directly through forced deportation, killing, rape, etc. The war in Lebanon and the doctrine look nothing like ethnic cleansing.
|
On March 31 2024 17:42 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2024 22:51 Nebuchad wrote:On March 24 2024 18:51 RvB wrote:On March 09 2024 05:15 Nebuchad wrote:On March 09 2024 00:02 RvB wrote:On March 08 2024 03:43 Nebuchad wrote:On March 08 2024 03:12 RvB wrote:On March 08 2024 02:10 Nebuchad wrote:On March 08 2024 02:08 RvB wrote:On March 07 2024 21:50 Magic Powers wrote:
"They do this by hiding behind civilians and civilian infrastructure making them a valid military target."
The IDF has attacked various refugee camps. That's more than "Israel also playing a role". It's a war crime. Refugee camps in name only. They were refugee camps decades ago and developed into cities. Either way even civilian objects with special protections under IHL can become a valid target. Rules are stricter but it's possible nonetheless. If we think about it that makes a lot of sense because otherwise it'd be very easy for organizations like Hamas to abuse IHL in their favor. Whether these attacks are a war crime or not is heavily context dependent. We almost always do not have that context. Hi RvB, can I quickly get your opinion on this military strategy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine What do you want me to say? It's based on two quotes from a military conflict almost two decades ago and a UN report where one of the main authors makes the same observation I do: that the conclusions depend on information from Israel. Okay so the first thing I would want you to say is whether you would agree that, if it is true that they're doing this, it amounts to a war crime. Cause maybe you don't, I wouldn't know. Second, I would ask what you think is more likely based on the results that we see on the ground, that they're applying this strategy that they said they would be applying, or that they've verified that Hamas is hiding in every single building which makes them all valid military targets because they really care about military laws. Disproportionate force is a warcrime as far as I understand yes. The links to his quotes in the wikipedia article are dead or in Hebrew so there's very little to comment on. I don't share your conclusion that the IDF/IAF said they'd be applying that strategy. Assuming the wikipedia article is correct that's still only two quotes from Eisenkott of which only one talks about disproportionate force. Considering the way Hamas operates and that they've prepared for this conflict since they took over Gaza I believe that they've operated from most targeted buildings yes. I guess the underlying question is why I believe the Israeli army mostly complies with International Humanitarian Law. Israel's army has the MAG corps and other systems to ensure compliance. They also advise on targeting decisions. Their decisions are subject to judicial review and the (independent) judiciary has more than once ruled on military matters even during conflicts. The current chief of the IDF, Herzi Halevi, also has a reputation for upholding ethical and legal standards. That does not mean that Israel never breaches IHL but it does mean that they have the institutions to correct course and broadly operate in line with IHL. On March 08 2024 07:55 Magic Powers wrote:On March 08 2024 03:12 RvB wrote:On March 08 2024 02:10 Nebuchad wrote:On March 08 2024 02:08 RvB wrote:On March 07 2024 21:50 Magic Powers wrote:
"They do this by hiding behind civilians and civilian infrastructure making them a valid military target."
The IDF has attacked various refugee camps. That's more than "Israel also playing a role". It's a war crime. Refugee camps in name only. They were refugee camps decades ago and developed into cities. Either way even civilian objects with special protections under IHL can become a valid target. Rules are stricter but it's possible nonetheless. If we think about it that makes a lot of sense because otherwise it'd be very easy for organizations like Hamas to abuse IHL in their favor. Whether these attacks are a war crime or not is heavily context dependent. We almost always do not have that context. Hi RvB, can I quickly get your opinion on this military strategy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine What do you want me to say? It's based on two quotes from a military conflict almost two decades ago and a UN report where one of the main authors makes the same observation I do: that the conclusions depend on information from Israel. On March 08 2024 02:26 Magic Powers wrote:On March 08 2024 02:08 RvB wrote:On March 07 2024 21:50 Magic Powers wrote:
"They do this by hiding behind civilians and civilian infrastructure making them a valid military target."
The IDF has attacked various refugee camps. That's more than "Israel also playing a role". It's a war crime. Refugee camps in name only. They were refugee camps decades ago and developed into cities. Either way even civilian objects with special protections under IHL can become a valid target. Rules are stricter but it's possible nonetheless. If we think about it that makes a lot of sense because otherwise it'd be very easy for organizations like Hamas to abuse IHL in their favor. Whether these attacks are a war crime or not is heavily context dependent. We almost always do not have that context. I'm sure the "context" of bullets and shrapnels ripping through men, women and children who were told to move South to flee from a war zone is very relevant to them now that they've met their maker. You're shifting the goal posts. Your claim is that it is a war crime. Obviously nobody cares whether something is legally a war crime or not when you're in an active war zone fearing for your life. Nobody disputes that. I'm not shifting the goalpost at all. It is a warcrime. And you're also excusing the war crime. Can you stop replying to me if your post consists only of a personal attack. Thanks. Thanks for the feedback. Why is it a war crime to use disproportionate force in your understanding? What's the mecanism? Sorry I forgot to respond. A strike is disproportionate when the expected collateral damage is excessive compared to the expected military advantage gained. So you cannot blow up an apartment building full of civilians when there's one random Hamas terrorist inside the building. On the other hand if that Hamas terrorist is Sinwar then it might be proportionate. The word expected is important. If I have every reason to suspect someone is an enemy combatant and shoot him but afterward it turns out it's an innocent civilian it's still not a war crime. Also one more thought on the Dahiya doctrine. Assuming this is the doctrine Israel uses then that also means the worst accusations of war crimes and crimes against humanity are not true. The quote calls for disproportionate attacks on Hezbollah targets so it is not indiscriminate. It also calls for the evacuation of civilians for its protection. That means there's no ethnic cleansing because the intent of the evacuation is not to make the area ethnically homogeneous and there's no genocide because there's no deliberate killing with the intent of destroying the nation or group. I see why you answered that way, but this is more like "when" something is a war crime, rather than "why". Like, what is the mechanism that makes it a war crime (and a bad thing) when someone uses disproportionate force. It was a bit disingenuous on my part, it's mostly an attempt to have some specifics on the bad things that could be happening because it's not very easy to think of a specific bad thing that the IDF hasn't done to Palestinians. Full disclosure since it's been a while and we don't need to stretch this conversation a lot further, I'm not entirely sure that it's possible to do any war without committing war crimes. We did some in WW2 vs the nazis, no question. So I'm not really approaching this conversation in the same way as you do, I am of course disgusted with the nonsense about the IDF being the "most moral army in the world" or whatever, especially given that their main animus right now is for sure anti-Arab hatred, but mainly I think when you're trying to demonstrate that no war crimes are happening you're trying to demonstrate something impossible. I would have expected the "grisly realism" defense, something like "Oh yeah it's a war of course war crimes are happening, what do you expect", which is fair enough, and then the conversation can loop back to the legitimacy of the expansion goals of zionism, but if instead you're going "actually I'm not sure there are any war crimes", then we can stay there but I have to win this one easily don't I. No, we're approaching it in the same way. I agree that almost every war will inevitably contain war crimes just like any society will have crime. That's why I said Israel mostly complies with IHL and based my arguments on Israels' institutional setup. The issue with many of the accusers of war crimes against Israel is that they look at outcomes and/or consider the current war in Gaza immoral and based on that conclude that Israel commits war crimes but that's not how IHL works. They're using IHL for partisan aims. Show nested quote +The Dahiya doctrine doesn't call for "disproportionate attacks on Hezbollah targets" because that doesn't mean anything. You can't "disproportionately attack" an Hezbollah target, the Hezbollah target is fully destroyed and that's it. Nobody is going to go "Hey, you were only meant to destroy 50% of that Hezbollah target, you went too far". The disproportionality comes from, in the Beirut example, destroying the whole quarter of Dahieh because there's a Hezbollah base in it. It is the notion that you'll voluntarily destroy the whole quarter as well as the target, and one of the reasons mentioned specifically in the quotes is so that Lebanese people stop supporting Hezbollah because Hezbollah's actions have caused their villages to be destroyed ("Before Nasrallah gives the order to fire at Israel, he will need to think 30 times if he wants to destroy his support base in the villages.") It is two things, one it's extremely stupid, because obviously it's Israel that's destroying the villages so that's who the villagers will be mad at, not at Nasrallah, and two, it's very explicitly terrorism, this is in no sane definition anything else than state terrorism. You're just restating the definition of disproportionate force. You can think it's stupid but I don't think I defended the use of disproportionate force. I disagree with the conclusion that force does not work though. The surrounding countries only stopped invading after they were beaten militarily. The PLO only recognized Israel and started negotiating after they were kicked out of Lebanon. Hezbollah would never have attacked if it were not for Hamas starting the war. Deterrence is a thing and it works. Show nested quote +Currently Israel hasn't done much ethnic cleansing in Lebanon as far as I know (maybe stilt can correct me if I'm wrong), but this strategy also pairs quite nicely with the ulterior goal of ethnic cleansing, because you're causing disproportionate destruction. That will naturally cause some people to experience despair, and they'll then be more likely to leave the place, and some other people will also be dead, which means that they don't occupy the land you want anymore. Both of those outcomes make it more likely that you'll be able to settle the land. Destroying buildings and then leaving does not make for an effective ethnic cleansing campaign. Ethnic cleansing is almost always done by targeting civilians directly through forced deportation, killing, rape, etc. The war in Lebanon and the doctrine look nothing like ethnic cleansing.
I have one question and one objection.
Could you name a few of the accusers that best represent the "many accusers", and examples of how they accuse Israel of war crimes? I want to get a better idea of who and what you're thinking of.
Regarding your claim about Hezbollah, that's an unsubstantiated claim. If Israel had fought Hamas up to Israel's borders and not transgressed into Gazan territory, we don't know if Hezbollah would've showed increased aggression towards Israel. It can instead also be argued that Hezbollah's aggression was triggered by Israel's counter-attack that followed Hamas' October 7 invasion.
|
On March 31 2024 16:10 Cerebrate1 wrote:
Thirdly, yes. A bomb being dropped out of a plane onto a building is a very different event for media than a guy walking up to someone and stabbing them in the chest. Even if they are morally equivalent, the optics of those events are just different. Like, if you just took a camera and filmed each of those things happen with no commentary whatsoever, you would have two very different types of footage that people would naturally react to differently. In a fictionalized movie, one would get the "graphic violence" warning and the other wouldn't. It's an interesting view into human psychology why that is the case, but the media certainly accepts that distinction across the board regardless of bias.
So this is nonsense obviously, you can find a ton of graphic violence in relation to bombs being dropped on Palestinians, that's not difficult at all. I'm not entirely sure why you chose to shift from Palestinians being killed to buildings being bombed within your rhetorical framework, it seems intentional but it doesn't really help your point in any way. Maybe you thought I wouldn't notice and would just continue to talk about Palestinian deaths, and then you could counter with the notion that I was characterizing your position unfairly because you were talking about buildings? I don't know.
Since I'm also a human and what you describe didn't happen in my case, I'm ready to let you know that this distance that you have with regard to Palestinian deaths is a you thing, not a human psychology thing, and certainly not a thing that is accepted by all media regardless of bias.
That said, I actually prefer that my news just tell the news as it is, rather than try to add a ton of narrative to fit within their personal understanding of morality.
While that is a fun position to adopt at the end of a post that was mainly defending the use of 'horrific' in relation to some deaths and not others, the main thing I want to say about that is that you probably should reconsider. Telling the news as it is is usually not very good for the rightwing, and especially not for the far right. We've seen the news being honest about Trump and it wasn't looking good, and Netanyahu is to the right of Trump. It's probably going to be an hindrance to Israel's goals if you just report the facts as they are. Fortunately the government of Israel has more awareness of this than you do, and that's likely why they decided it was a good idea to put the military censor in place.
|
On March 31 2024 17:42 RvB wrote:
You're just restating the definition of disproportionate force. You can think it's stupid but I don't think I defended the use of disproportionate force. I disagree with the conclusion that force does not work though. The surrounding countries only stopped invading after they were beaten militarily. The PLO only recognized Israel and started negotiating after they were kicked out of Lebanon. Hezbollah would never have attacked if it were not for Hamas starting the war. Deterrence is a thing and it works.
Yeah it was necessary for me to restate the definition of disproportionate force because you were using the term incorrectly to shield the strategy from what it was actually doing.
Force works in a very narrow context, if you eliminate every enemy that you have then force can be said to have worked. Force worked on Native Americans, for example. The issue with that is that the kind of government and society that you need to develop in order to eliminate all of your enemies is a fascist adjacent one, and when a fascist adjacent society eliminates all its enemies it creates new enemies, it doesn't just go back to normal. If Netanyahu ever achieves his ethnic cleansing of Palestine, he's going to start targeting the Israeli Arabs harder. Or maybe he's going to attack Lebanon, or another neighboring country. There will always be a new thing to be fascist again because fascism necessitates a hierarchy of identity, it requires a bottom identity class. And all the while you can use a narrow definition of 'working' and say that it does.
Destroying buildings and then leaving does not make for an effective ethnic cleansing campaign. Ethnic cleansing is almost always done by targeting civilians directly through forced deportation, killing, rape, etc. The war in Lebanon and the doctrine look nothing like ethnic cleansing.
Yes, that is why I answered that it pairs nicely with the ulterior goal of ethnic cleansing, instead of saying that it looks similar. For contrast, we can look at things that do look exactly like ethnic cleansing, for example what they're currently doing in the West Bank, or when they're having talks with Egypt to ask them if they could relocate the Gazans in Egypt while a bunch of ministers attend an event about resettling Gaza.
|
On March 31 2024 23:10 Magic Powers wrote:
Regarding your claim about Hezbollah, that's an unsubstantiated claim. If Israel had fought Hamas up to Israel's borders and not transgressed into Gazan territory, we don't know if Hezbollah would've showed increased aggression towards Israel. It can instead also be argued that Hezbollah's aggression was triggered by Israel's counter-attack that followed Hamas' October 7 invasion.
I'm not getting into the wider debate here, but I want to point out that Hezbollah started firing rockets and anti-tank missiles at Israel on Oct 8. Before Israel had secured their own border or started any operations in Gaza.
|
On March 31 2024 23:54 Cerebrate1 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2024 23:10 Magic Powers wrote:
Regarding your claim about Hezbollah, that's an unsubstantiated claim. If Israel had fought Hamas up to Israel's borders and not transgressed into Gazan territory, we don't know if Hezbollah would've showed increased aggression towards Israel. It can instead also be argued that Hezbollah's aggression was triggered by Israel's counter-attack that followed Hamas' October 7 invasion. I'm not getting into the wider debate here, but I want to point out that Hezbollah started firing rockets and anti-tank missiles at Israel on Oct 8. Before Israel had secured their own border or started any operations in Gaza.
Hezbollah hasn't stopped attacking Israel. If aggression against Israel is what generally causes them to join in, then why have they continued and are still continuing even though the war has been taking place entirely in Gaza since mid October? They're certainly aware that they can't do any serious harm to the State of Israel, they can't stop Israel from attacking Gaza, so their aggression is more indicative of a symbolic allegiance to Hamas and Palestinians at large than a display of power.
|
On March 31 2024 23:10 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2024 16:10 Cerebrate1 wrote:
Thirdly, yes. A bomb being dropped out of a plane onto a building is a very different event for media than a guy walking up to someone and stabbing them in the chest. Even if they are morally equivalent, the optics of those events are just different. Like, if you just took a camera and filmed each of those things happen with no commentary whatsoever, you would have two very different types of footage that people would naturally react to differently. In a fictionalized movie, one would get the "graphic violence" warning and the other wouldn't. It's an interesting view into human psychology why that is the case, but the media certainly accepts that distinction across the board regardless of bias. I'm not entirely sure why you chose to shift from Palestinians being killed to buildings being bombed within your rhetorical framework...
I'm sorry if that's how you understood it. In that point, I clarify that I'm entertaining your stance that the two types of killing are morally equivalent. That presupposes that killing is going on. I.e. it is an occupied building.
Show nested quote +That said, I actually prefer that my news just tell the news as it is, rather than try to add a ton of narrative to fit within their personal understanding of morality. ... post that was mainly defending the use of 'horrific' in relation to some deaths and not others...
If you tell me that this was your original thesis with Elroi several pages back, I'll believe you. I was just defending one of his points (one that should really not be as controversial as you are making it).
...The main thing I want to say about that is that you probably should reconsider [preferring objective plain information news sources]... I realize you are mostly saying this as a segue to stand on your soap box about other things, but I'll keep my preference for pure informational news, thanks.
|
On April 01 2024 01:02 Cerebrate1 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2024 23:10 Nebuchad wrote:On March 31 2024 16:10 Cerebrate1 wrote:
Thirdly, yes. A bomb being dropped out of a plane onto a building is a very different event for media than a guy walking up to someone and stabbing them in the chest. Even if they are morally equivalent, the optics of those events are just different. Like, if you just took a camera and filmed each of those things happen with no commentary whatsoever, you would have two very different types of footage that people would naturally react to differently. In a fictionalized movie, one would get the "graphic violence" warning and the other wouldn't. It's an interesting view into human psychology why that is the case, but the media certainly accepts that distinction across the board regardless of bias. I'm not entirely sure why you chose to shift from Palestinians being killed to buildings being bombed within your rhetorical framework... I'm sorry if that's how you understood it. In that point, I clarify that I'm entertaining your stance that the two types of killing are morally equivalent. That presupposes that killing is going on. I.e. it is an occupied building.
But then you would be saying that there's no graphic violence connected to bombs being dropped on Palestinians, and that would make you sound incredibly uninformed. Incredibly in the strictest sense, I mean that I don't believe it.
|
On April 01 2024 01:07 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2024 01:02 Cerebrate1 wrote:On March 31 2024 23:10 Nebuchad wrote:On March 31 2024 16:10 Cerebrate1 wrote:
Thirdly, yes. A bomb being dropped out of a plane onto a building is a very different event for media than a guy walking up to someone and stabbing them in the chest. Even if they are morally equivalent, the optics of those events are just different. Like, if you just took a camera and filmed each of those things happen with no commentary whatsoever, you would have two very different types of footage that people would naturally react to differently. In a fictionalized movie, one would get the "graphic violence" warning and the other wouldn't. It's an interesting view into human psychology why that is the case, but the media certainly accepts that distinction across the board regardless of bias. I'm not entirely sure why you chose to shift from Palestinians being killed to buildings being bombed within your rhetorical framework... I'm sorry if that's how you understood it. In that point, I clarify that I'm entertaining your stance that the two types of killing are morally equivalent. That presupposes that killing is going on. I.e. it is an occupied building. But then you would be saying that there's no graphic violence connected to bombs being dropped on Palestinians, and that would make you sound incredibly uninformed. Incredibly in the strictest sense, I mean that I don't believe it.
Not at all. Merely that you don't usually see it in the clips the media usually shows. They usually show explosions from a distance like here.
I'm sure there are more graphic clips, but the media can easily find and post the birds eye view stuff for bombings.
|
On April 01 2024 01:37 Cerebrate1 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2024 01:07 Nebuchad wrote:On April 01 2024 01:02 Cerebrate1 wrote:On March 31 2024 23:10 Nebuchad wrote:On March 31 2024 16:10 Cerebrate1 wrote:
Thirdly, yes. A bomb being dropped out of a plane onto a building is a very different event for media than a guy walking up to someone and stabbing them in the chest. Even if they are morally equivalent, the optics of those events are just different. Like, if you just took a camera and filmed each of those things happen with no commentary whatsoever, you would have two very different types of footage that people would naturally react to differently. In a fictionalized movie, one would get the "graphic violence" warning and the other wouldn't. It's an interesting view into human psychology why that is the case, but the media certainly accepts that distinction across the board regardless of bias. I'm not entirely sure why you chose to shift from Palestinians being killed to buildings being bombed within your rhetorical framework... I'm sorry if that's how you understood it. In that point, I clarify that I'm entertaining your stance that the two types of killing are morally equivalent. That presupposes that killing is going on. I.e. it is an occupied building. But then you would be saying that there's no graphic violence connected to bombs being dropped on Palestinians, and that would make you sound incredibly uninformed. Incredibly in the strictest sense, I mean that I don't believe it. Not at all. Merely that you don't usually see it in the clips the media usually shows. They usually show explosions from a distance like here. I'm sure there are more graphic clips, but the media can easily find and post the birds eye view stuff for bombings.
So since the graphic clips exist and the media are aware of them, that's probably not what's responsible for the difference in coverage.
I'm also questioning whether the mainstream media will show a lot of graphic violence in general but I'd have to look into that.
|
On April 01 2024 01:43 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2024 01:37 Cerebrate1 wrote:On April 01 2024 01:07 Nebuchad wrote:On April 01 2024 01:02 Cerebrate1 wrote:On March 31 2024 23:10 Nebuchad wrote:On March 31 2024 16:10 Cerebrate1 wrote:
Thirdly, yes. A bomb being dropped out of a plane onto a building is a very different event for media than a guy walking up to someone and stabbing them in the chest. Even if they are morally equivalent, the optics of those events are just different. Like, if you just took a camera and filmed each of those things happen with no commentary whatsoever, you would have two very different types of footage that people would naturally react to differently. In a fictionalized movie, one would get the "graphic violence" warning and the other wouldn't. It's an interesting view into human psychology why that is the case, but the media certainly accepts that distinction across the board regardless of bias. I'm not entirely sure why you chose to shift from Palestinians being killed to buildings being bombed within your rhetorical framework... I'm sorry if that's how you understood it. In that point, I clarify that I'm entertaining your stance that the two types of killing are morally equivalent. That presupposes that killing is going on. I.e. it is an occupied building. But then you would be saying that there's no graphic violence connected to bombs being dropped on Palestinians, and that would make you sound incredibly uninformed. Incredibly in the strictest sense, I mean that I don't believe it. Not at all. Merely that you don't usually see it in the clips the media usually shows. They usually show explosions from a distance like here. I'm sure there are more graphic clips, but the media can easily find and post the birds eye view stuff for bombings. So since the graphic clips exist and the media are aware of them, that's probably not what's responsible for the difference in coverage. I'm also questioning whether the mainstream media will show a lot of graphic violence in general but I'd have to look into that.
Mainstream media tends to shy away from showing graphic violence directly. They'd risk losing viewers who just turn on the evening news when their kids are home (or are generally squeamish). They do like talking about tragedies though because it gets people to pay attention. It's a weird line they walk. Birds eye view clips of exploding building lands perfectly on that line though, so they love to feature that kind of thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
