|
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. |
Hamas is more than just a group of fighters, they're an idea. You can't destroy an idea. They want Israel destroyed out of vengeance, spite or a sense of righteousness, yes. But - and this is very important - also because the literal interpretation of their religion commands it. Muhammad ordered the death of Jews and infidels, and he's the last and most important of the prophets.
Imagine if Christians went back to the extremist interpretation of the Bible. God himself commands total death and destruction of entire groups of people. Are you surprised? Why do Christians pretend that this is not the case? Well, they're uneducated. They never read the Bible.
Modern Christianity is, fortunately for those groups, on a relatively tight leash in most countries (and in the remaining countries Christians are a small minority). In the West the leash consists of secularism, human rights, democracy, etc. Without those things the extremist Christian factions could be causing genocides just because the Old Testament commands it - and all Christians are supposed to follow the OT.
We've seen what harm Christianity can do even as late during the 2020s with the overturning of Roe v Wade. Do you think they'd stop there if secularism was abolished? It can get many times worse.
Arab nations don't have the same barriers in place, which is why they can openly call for the death of Jews and infidels without repercussions. For them it's not because of free speech, but because they're free to practice their religion unrestricted. They can act on their threats and murder people in cold blood.
For this reason it's not as simple as just to say that Hamas must be destroyed. Go ahead, destroy them. And then watch them grow back to their current power again. If it's not Hamas, it'll be another extremist group. In the worst case for them they'll just rebrand themselves or pop up elsewhere.
This is why Israel can't just easily go down that route and "declare victory". What victory? Where does it end?
|
United States43898 Posts
Even without Hamas the problem of the refugees of Gaza still exists. Gaza is not a viable state. I keep harping on this point but it’s mostly children who were themselves raised by children and who are having children. It’s a catastrophe that gets worse every single year.
Decades ago when the population was a fraction of the size perhaps they could have been settled on land within Palestine. Now there’s too many to make a viable state on the land available to them and even if there was more land it couldn’t possibly be self sustaining.
So if the problem is too many living people then what can actually be done to fix that. The only real solution is death. Death solves the problem of too many living people. Everyone in the region has reached this conclusion at some point.
We’re not willing to gas all the children which is a good thing but they keep having more children year after year.
We’re also not willing to sterilize them all which is also a good thing but again, they keep having more.
We’re not willing to relocate them and even if we were the scale of the problem keeps getting bigger, we’d need to relocate them at a rate faster than their population growth. And they’d need to be re-educated at the same time because they’re children of children of children who have only known the dystopian life in the camp of Gaza for generations, integration would be a huge issue.
We’re not willing to starve them, though Israel does have its finger on that lever. Because they’re a wholly dependent captive population with consumption demands that grow exponentially there will be a point where Israel says “why are we feeding these people who hate us”. And eventually, if nothing else happens first, the demographics of Gaza will reach a balancing point where the disease and pollution match the birth rate. Thought that’d be a breeding ground for a pandemic that would escape Gaza so not ideal.
Too many people, and you’re not allowed to kill them or sterilize them, and every year you don’t they make new people. There’s no solution. There never was.
|
Norway28785 Posts
We do know what solves the problem of population growth - it's prosperity. Basically every poor, underdeveloped nation ever has had birth rates above 2, and how much higher tends to correlate fairly strongly with how poor and underdeveloped the nation has been.
And basically every nation to ever escape poverty and develop itself has seen a corresponding drop in birth rates. Some variation exists depending on political choices and to what degree society fascilitates raising children, but the overarching rule is consistent.
So I am leaning more towards an 'allow the population some opportunity for progress' type of long term solution to the issue. It is true that historically, genocide has a fairly good track record of ending a conflict, but firstly, that's obviously inhumane, secondly, I'd assume the jews would generally agree with that, and thirdly, there are hundreds of millions of Arabs and more than a billion Muslims in the world, who feel some degree of shared identity and commonality with the population in Gaza, and I'm guessing it actually would not be the final solution that some of the insane advocates imagine it to be.
Now granted the question of how do we increase the prosperity of the Gaza strip while maintaining Israeli safety is a tough one, but it sure as hell is not through blocking food water and electricity while bombing the place. Again - obviously not supporting massacring civilians either way, but Israel is doing a bang-up job at quickly eroding the moral high ground Hamas gave them.
|
United States43898 Posts
It’s got the population density of Singapore. You can’t turn Gaza into a functional sustainable state.
|
Norway28785 Posts
Where's Lee Kuan Jew when we need him? 
|
United States43898 Posts
On October 13 2023 01:26 Liquid`Drone wrote:Where's Lee Kuan Jew when we need him?
A western technocrat making an authoritarian police state in the name of guiding the population for their own good is not considered an appealing option for Gaza. They consider it from time to time but it’s not popular.
|
On October 13 2023 00:01 KwarK wrote:
Israel taking one for the team is just rational. It’s not ideal and they should try to minimize losses with border security etc. but what else is there. It’s not fair to the Israelis to ask them to tolerate a failed state next door but there’s a failed state next door either way and no better options. It is what it is.
I don't think "it is what it is" is a sufficient reason to ask Israel not to prevent their citizens from dying.
I'd say you could fairly easily argue the leadership of a nation has a moral imperative to protect the lives of their nation's citizens. In most wars, the goal is very clearly stated as "kill the enemy so that they don't kill us", and we have accepted this as a core philosophy in many situations.
The entire idea of "we ought to protect our own lives, even if it means other people die" is very well accepted in essentially all military conflict. This is a unique situation because the only way for Israel to defend themselves is to kill an amazing amount of people. So even though we all agree military conflict already assumes the idea that killing your enemy is acceptable, people understandably start to get uncomfortable when the numbers get really big and one of the sides of the conflict is way stronger than the other. This is totally valid and understandable. But it really does beg the question: Where is the line?
I don't want to drag this topic into other military conflicts in the world, but i will just say there are many military conflicts we can point to where a nation decides to kill people and we don't think they are doing it in an unethical way because we are viewing it as a form of self defense. Is it only acceptable when it is a 1:1 ratio of "enemy lives taken" and "ally lives saved"? 5:1? 10:1? Where is the cutoff?
Many military conflicts would have had way less total death if 1 faction decided to just roll over and say "ok no worries, no point in folks dying, you win. Take the land and whatnot". But we basically accept the idea that some death is ok for the right reason.
Here is the situation in my eyes: 1300 Israelis died. Hamas says they intend to do that again. The question society is struggling with right now is "how many Palestinians is Israel ethically permitted to kill in pursuit of preventing Israeli deaths?"
|
Norway28785 Posts
Since 2008, that number is 20:1. Personally I'll be positively surprised if the number of dead Palestinians is fewer than 26000 when this is over.
|
On October 13 2023 01:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Since 2008, that number is 20:1. Personally I'll be positively surprised if the number of dead Palestinians is fewer than 26000 when this is over.
With 10,000+ of them being civilians (and that's with the help of simply not counting males age ~16-65 as civilians). This is probably on the low end of estimates if they do end up going in on the ground.
|
The framing of "we have to let Israel defend itself" contains the idea that Palestinians aren't people.
|
United States43898 Posts
On October 13 2023 01:37 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2023 00:01 KwarK wrote:
Israel taking one for the team is just rational. It’s not ideal and they should try to minimize losses with border security etc. but what else is there. It’s not fair to the Israelis to ask them to tolerate a failed state next door but there’s a failed state next door either way and no better options. It is what it is. I don't think "it is what it is" is a sufficient reason to ask Israel not to prevent their citizens from dying. I'd say you could fairly easily argue the leadership of a nation has a moral imperative to protect the lives of their nation's citizens. In most wars, the goal is very clearly stated as "kill the enemy so that they don't kill us", and we have accepted this as a core philosophy in many situations. The entire idea of "we ought to protect our own lives, even if it means other people die" is very well accepted in essentially all military conflict. This is a unique situation because the only way for Israel to defend themselves is to kill an amazing amount of people. So even though we all agree military conflict already assumes the idea that killing your enemy is acceptable, people understandably start to get uncomfortable when the numbers get really big and one of the sides of the conflict is way stronger than the other. This is totally valid and understandable. But it really does beg the question: Where is the line? I don't want to drag this topic into other military conflicts in the world, but i will just say there are many military conflicts we can point to where a nation decides to kill people and we don't think they are doing it in an unethical way because we are viewing it as a form of self defense. Is it only acceptable when it is a 1:1 ratio of "enemy lives taken" and "ally lives saved"? 5:1? 10:1? Where is the cutoff? Many military conflicts would have had way less total death if 1 faction decided to just roll over and say "ok no worries, no point in folks dying, you win. Take the land and whatnot". But we basically accept the idea that some death is ok for the right reason. Here is the situation in my eyes: 1300 Israelis died. Hamas says they intend to do that again. The question society is struggling with right now is "how many Palestinians is Israel ethically permitted to kill in pursuit of preventing Israeli deaths?"
More Israelis will die trying to run Gaza than trying not to.
|
On October 13 2023 01:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2023 01:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Since 2008, that number is 20:1. Personally I'll be positively surprised if the number of dead Palestinians is fewer than 26000 when this is over. With 10,000+ of them being civilians (and that's with the help of simply not counting males age ~16-65 as civilians). This is probably on the low end of estimates if they do end up going in on the ground.
So then what is the ratio? Where is the line? I am legitimately not seeing what the moral framework here is. I don't see why it is reasonable to ask Israel not to prevent Israeli deaths when the people making the request do not have any alternative. It is truly just saying "no, stop, you can instead, since it'll be less of you".
Even if we assume it is ethical to make this request, it is not reasonable to assume they will listen to it. No nation would. No one would actually ever decide to do what you are describing. Every nation would always choose to have more enemies die for the sake of saving fewer allies. It is an inherent desire within humanity and even if approached from a planning perspective, assuming Israel will deviate from human nature is not reasonable. In the absence of another solution, that's just how it goes I guess. They're gonna slaughter a ton of people because no one has any better ideas.
|
On October 13 2023 01:58 Nebuchad wrote:
The framing of "we have to let Israel defend itself" contains the idea that Palestinians aren't people.
Meaning any time the number of enemies killed exceeds the number of allies saved, the choice is unethical? You're saying it is fundamentally dehumanizing for anyone to decide to kill more for the sake of saving less? 10 terrorists holding someone hostage, killing those 10 terrorists to save the hostage is unethical? The correct decision is to let the hostage die to save the lives of the terrorists?
|
Btw how many brown people were killed after 9/11?
I'd guess it was more than 20:1, especially if you count not only strictly KIA but other related ones.
Killing many more than you lost as a retaliation act is a norm, not exception.
|
On October 13 2023 02:07 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2023 01:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 13 2023 01:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Since 2008, that number is 20:1. Personally I'll be positively surprised if the number of dead Palestinians is fewer than 26000 when this is over. With 10,000+ of them being civilians (and that's with the help of simply not counting males age ~16-65 as civilians). This is probably on the low end of estimates if they do end up going in on the ground. So then what is the ratio? Where is the line? I am legitimately not seeing what the moral framework here is. I don't see why it is reasonable to ask Israel not to prevent Israeli deaths when the people making the request do not have any alternative. It is truly just saying "no, stop, you can instead, since it'll be less of you". Even if we assume it is ethical to make this request, it is not reasonable to assume they will listen to it. No nation would. No one would actually ever decide to do what you are describing. Every nation would always choose to have more enemies die for the sake of saving fewer allies. It is an inherent desire within humanity and even if approached from a planning perspective, assuming Israel will deviate from human nature is not reasonable. In the absence of another solution, that's just how it goes I guess. They're gonna slaughter a ton of people because no one has any better ideas. The world isn't so neat and orderly, or black and white, that you can just say "your allowed to kill this ratio of people in retaliation and everyone should be ok with that.
|
Norway28785 Posts
On October 13 2023 02:24 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2023 01:58 Nebuchad wrote:
The framing of "we have to let Israel defend itself" contains the idea that Palestinians aren't people. Meaning any time the number of enemies killed exceeds the number of allies saved, the choice is unethical? You're saying it is fundamentally dehumanizing for anyone to decide to kill more for the sake of saving less? 10 terrorists holding someone hostage, killing those 10 terrorists to save the hostage is unethical? The correct decision is to let the hostage die to save the lives of the terrorists?
I mean, I think your question is a fair one to ask. I'm suspecting we all have our undefined limits, where our answer is more 'well, that was too many' rather than something we've defined in advance. I also don't necessarily want to define it in advance, because then, I'll be okaying any number below that, and I think it's obvious that we should (but countries execute this to varying degrees) strive to make the number as small as possible.
That said, what's your number? Obviously killing 1 million civilians in a different country to save one countryman is not okay, so you also have a limit somewhere. But is it okay to kill 200 to save 10?
Myself, I think Israel, while obviously not killing as many people as possible, also have generally had a policy of not killing as few people as possible, both because they want to act out a vengeful desire, and because they might think a collective punishment will work as a future deterrence. I also think that right now, this policy seems ramped up a bit, and that this collective punishment will be harsher than ever before.
And while Israel itself might be untouchable, I do see this add to an already alarming degree of hatred of Jews seen among Muslims, to the point where I'd probably try to hide it if I lived in a bigger European city in the forseeable future.
|
On October 13 2023 02:31 ZeroByte13 wrote:
Btw how many brown people were killed after 9/11?
I'd guess it was more than 20:1, especially if you count not only strictly KIA but other related ones.
Killing many more than you lost as a retaliation act is a norm, not exception.
Small but important difference: It is not simply retaliation, they are giving Hamas an ultimatum: until you set the hostages free we turn of power, water and electricity. Your choice.
|
On October 13 2023 02:43 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2023 02:31 ZeroByte13 wrote:
Btw how many brown people were killed after 9/11?
I'd guess it was more than 20:1, especially if you count not only strictly KIA but other related ones.
Killing many more than you lost as a retaliation act is a norm, not exception. Small but important difference: It is not simply retaliation, they are giving Hamas an ultimatum: until you set the hostages free we turn of power, water and electricity. Your choice. "do X or we will kill a few hundred thousand innocent people through starvation" should not be an ultimatum made by any country in the world, and should never be considered acceptable. No matter who makes it or in retaliation to any attack.
|
On October 13 2023 02:48 Gorsameth wrote:
"or we will kill a few hundred thousand innocent people through starvation" Btw who was providing food before recent events? I don't think Gazans produced a lot of it themselves?
If it was Israel - why would they continue providing food in this situtation, knowing they're feeding - among others - the murderers and rapists of 1200+ their citizens, and those who cover them?
Or do they block other countries, who are ready to provide food to Gaza?
|
On October 13 2023 02:48 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2023 02:43 Elroi wrote:On October 13 2023 02:31 ZeroByte13 wrote:
Btw how many brown people were killed after 9/11?
I'd guess it was more than 20:1, especially if you count not only strictly KIA but other related ones.
Killing many more than you lost as a retaliation act is a norm, not exception. Small but important difference: It is not simply retaliation, they are giving Hamas an ultimatum: until you set the hostages free we turn of power, water and electricity. Your choice. "do X or we will kill a few hundred thousand innocent people through starvation" should not be an ultimatum made by any country in the world, and should never be considered acceptable. No matter who makes it or in retaliation to any attack.
Imagine living your whole life with someone's finger on that button.
Its horrifying that any population in a situation where doing this is possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
