EPTOn October 14 2023 07:03 Magic Powers wrote:
This plan sounds very unrealistic and very bad.
As I already posted above - I didn't say it's a good plan.This plan sounds very unrealistic and very bad.
But it's a plan IDF seems to have.
Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine - Page 42
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
ZeroByte13
772 Posts
But it's a plan IDF seems to have. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
On October 14 2023 08:02 ZeroByte13 wrote: As I already posted above - I didn't say it's a good plan. But it's a plan IDF seems to have. Yeah. I think their tune is going to change. The pushback is increasing very rapidly. Israel can't afford to ignore this. | ||
|
Amui
Canada10567 Posts
On October 14 2023 09:12 Magic Powers wrote: Yeah. I think their tune is going to change. The pushback is increasing very rapidly. Israel can't afford to ignore this. I mean there's a sliding scale of responses, and I don't think there's a single point on the scale that would be agreeable to everyone even within Israel, never mind worldwide. Do nothing <-----------> Imprison or kill every single Palestinian, thereby eliminating Palestinians becoming Hamas as a problem. They're definitely much closer to the right side of that sliding scale than I feel comfortable with. (Death by JDAM, bullet, starvation, dehydration, disease or other related cause doesn't really matter). | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
I'm also not entirely convinced that an Israeli offensive will just strengthen Hamas because it will help them recruit more members. Perhaps if Israel doesn't invade you offer them an even better recruiting pitch: Kill the enemy without fear of retaliation. All the glory of jihad without the risk of getting bombed. As someone that doesn't want to die I'd find that pitch more persuasive. It's not as simple as "Can we kill all Hamas?" or "Can we commit genocide?" and if not then it's not worth it. The people in this thread foolish enough to try to answer the question of "how should Israel respond" are easily criticized by people wise enough to dodge the question themselves. No matter what you propose it's going to be bad because there are no good answers to the problem in the first place. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15723 Posts
On October 14 2023 07:03 Magic Powers wrote: I think this is one of the best arguments I've read regarding this conflict. This won't work, it's impossible to kill all members of Hamas. Do you remember how long it took to kill Bin Laden? Furthermore, Hamas are not a rock formation that can be pulverized, they're an idea. Ideas can't be destroyed. Hamas grows through recruitment from a very young age, and just a few hundred members are enough to rebuild them from scratch. Also, if somehow Israel were to kill all current members of Hamas - as impossible as that sounds - that'd require such an extreme level of death and destruction that it'd inspire growing hatred in their enemies. But also the US would harshly condemn Israel's actions or even cut all support. Israel can't afford to lose that support, they're geographically isolated. Countries like Egypt might also once again turn hostile against Israel. This plan sounds very unrealistic and very bad. You don’t need to kill all of them to destroy their system of power and influence. It is absolutely entirely possible to destroy and kill to the extent that there is simply not enough Hamas and/or infrastructure/buildings to conduct any form of society. I think we all agree if Israel decides to half ass this whole thing, it will accomplish nothing long term. It really does not seem like they have any intention of half assing it The entire reason the whole “just inspiring more fighters!!!111!!” shpeal became a thing is that at one point became untenable for an actual war to be conducted because we became a better civilization and we are more moral as a whole. But we still have plenty of evil left in us. Decisive victory in Afghanistan, Vietnam, and many others were entirely within reach. But we held on to our humanity and decided not to flip that switch. Until someone gives Israel another way to prevent Hamas from being an issue, I won’t be surprised if they flip that switch. | ||
|
BlueStar
Bulgaria1168 Posts
On October 14 2023 13:09 Mohdoo wrote: You don’t need to kill all of them to destroy their system of power and influence. It is absolutely entirely possible to destroy and kill to the extent that there is simply not enough Hamas and/or infrastructure/buildings to conduct any form of society. I think we all agree if Israel decides to half ass this whole thing, it will accomplish nothing long term. It really does not seem like they have any intention of half assing it The entire reason the whole “just inspiring more fighters!!!111!!” shpeal became a thing is that at one point became untenable for an actual war to be conducted because we became a better civilization and we are more moral as a whole. But we still have plenty of evil left in us. Decisive victory in Afghanistan, Vietnam, and many others were entirely within reach. But we held on to our humanity and decided not to flip that switch. Until someone gives Israel another way to prevent Hamas from being an issue, I won’t be surprised if they flip that switch. What is your definition of "half assing?" Like not killing everyone, but leaving some crippled or what? Its insane how freely ppl talk about vanishing millions of other ppl lives. So terrible. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28701 Posts
| ||
|
Mikau
Netherlands1446 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25875 Posts
On October 14 2023 16:11 Mikau wrote: I think Mohdoo is more arguing the reasons, from the Israeli perspective, why they will approach things this way, not that they should approach them this way. Yeah I’d just naturally assumed this was pretty obvious given his general posting and leanings. It’s a solution, a terrible, horrific solution but it is one nonetheless. I imagine there are elements in Israel who are itching to do just this, but even these recent atrocities I can’t imagine being sufficient to tip the scales and actually have them enact them. Be it internally or externally I just can’t see those who oppose this giving way and enabling it to happen. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12298 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15723 Posts
On October 14 2023 16:11 Mikau wrote: I think Mohdoo is more arguing the reasons, from the Israeli perspective, why they will approach things this way, not that they should approach them this way. Yeah, it’s more so that it’s the conclusion I expect they would come to. The thought experiment I have done with myself to explore this topic is: if I knew with great confidence that other families in my neighborhood would turn into werewolves and kill my family in 1 week, would I kill them ahead of time? If 1 family was going to turn into werewolves and kill my family, and we assume all life is equal, killing their family rather than them killing mine is ethical? I guess? I add the layer of werewolf transformation to try to emulate the fact that many people of Gaza are innocent while also being a component of a dangerous and violent collective (Hamas). The family I would be killing would be innocent because they would not be consciously killing my family. They turn into werewolves, have no control over their actions, but at the end of the day, I am 100% sure they’ll kill my family. So it still becomes a plain and simple decision which family lives and which dies. My conclusion is that it’s entirely ethical to kill that 1 family since I am saving my own by doing so. The situation gets much more messy when we assume more than 1:1 killing:protecting ratio, but I am pretty confident I’d still do the same thing if it was 2:1. I couldn’t quite decide how high I would go, but for sure more than 2:1. As a parent, I believe it is my moral imperative to protect my family to the extent that it is my responsibility to burden myself with debilitating guilt, self-loathing, and anything else associated with killing families to protect my own. Since the guilt, shame, and all other effects of being unethical would entirely fall on me rather than my children, I would gladly essentially toss myself in a pit of misery if it was necessary to protect them. And I’d go so far as to say it is a requirement of being a good parent to make sacrifices for the sake of your children when necessary. When you are the leader of a nation, I believe you could argue the core purpose of establishing a collective/government/nation is to prevent harm to the group and to reduce their suffering as much as possible. You are morally bound as a leader to prioritize their well-being over that of others. That’s what it means to be the leader and advocate for your nation’s people. And a leader must prioritize all people the same way they would prioritize their own family, otherwise they would be morally failing as a leader of all members of the nation. Similar to my werewolf analogy, the leaders of Israel know that in the absence of killing innocent people from another nation, innocent people of their own nation will die instead. I think it is their duty to kill those people so long as we assume not killing those people will lead to the death of their own nation’s innocent people if they do not. Since Hamas has declared intention to eliminate all Israelis and do things of this nature before, and they’ve already shown they are capable, it is reasonable to assume that without doing everything in their power to wipe out Hamas, even including killing innocents, they are guaranteed to be allowing innocent people to die. As I described with the parent comparison and moral imperatives of a leader, they must reduce suffering and provide protection for their nation’s people. The only part I couldn’t reach a conclusion on was the acceptable ratio of killing. Since I can’t define if, since it’s something I have a really hard time grasping, I essentially don’t feel right telling Israel I know better. I’m not able to say with confidence I would choose to let my family die for the sake of letting other people live. I truly can’t say I’m able to make that choice. Because I’m not able to guarantee that, I am not comfortable telling Israel to make that choice. I am not supporting killing a bunch of people, but I am saying it is not ethical or appropriate for me to tell them not to. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3222 Posts
Aside from literally dehumanizing Palestinians to justify killing them, and invoking the “That’s my kid, I gotta protect my kid” argument to justify overvaluing the lives of people that are not, in fact, your kid, I think fundamentally misunderstanding how wars of occupation work is your biggest problem. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15723 Posts
On October 15 2023 00:07 ChristianS wrote: I mentioned the “war of occupation” framing a few pages back, but the fundamental dynamic of “The crueler you are, the more violent insurgents you create” has been true in most (all?) wars of occupation historically. The people making suicidal assaults on your outposts in a few years will have whatever atrocity you commit today in their heads when they do it. Aside from literally dehumanizing Palestinians to justify killing them, and invoking the “That’s my kid, I gotta protect my kid” argument to justify overvaluing the lives of people that are not, in fact, your kid, I think fundamentally misunderstanding how wars of occupation work is your biggest problem. I think the ethics of occupation and whatnot are less of a real consideration than you are indicating. You would not choose to let your own family die just because you are aware that the US is fundamentally built on committing genocide against native Americans. You still think your family deserves to live, which is reasonable of course. The history of the land your family lives on does not influence whether you would prioritize them in life or death situations. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3222 Posts
On October 15 2023 00:15 Mohdoo wrote: I think the ethics of occupation and whatnot are less of a real consideration than you are indicating. You would not choose to let your own family die just because you are aware that the US is fundamentally built on committing genocide against native Americans. You still think your family deserves to live, which is reasonable of course. The history of the land your family lives on does not influence whether you would prioritize them in life or death situations. I’m not even talking about the “ethics,” I’m just talking about the fundamental dynamics. If you want to use your werewolf analogy, let’s add the fact that the only reason people *become* werewolves is an unintended consequence of your killing of innocents. When you murder some accountant or flight attendant it releases a pathogen into the air that stochastically infects their neighbors, friends, family, anybody who sees it or hears about it. You’re the only reason there are werewolves in the first place, and you going out and murdering people because you think there’s a chance they’ll be turned into a werewolf is guaranteeing there will be orders of magnitude more werewolves in the foreseeable future. If you could just quit murdering people for a few years maybe we could get a handle on this thing, but by this point if you go without spilling innocent blood for a few months you start getting itchy. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28701 Posts
As a dad, I would kill another family in a heartbeat if I knew they'd kill mine a week from now if I didn't. Tbh id prolly kill plenty families if I know for sure that that is what I have to do to save my own. But Israelis aren't actually all that likely to die from terrorism. Even after this attack, I'm guessing like 4x the number of Israelis have been killed in traffic the past 15 years. (And traffic deaths are actually highly preventable if that is prioritized). So I mean, I get your analogy, but the question would be more like how many families are you willing to kill to reduce the chance of being killed from 1/100000 to 1/1000000. Admittingly, I do believe part of why the Israeli death counts are so low is what i consider inhumane apartheid policies. You can definitely argue that Hamas' terrorist attack strengthened the arguments in favor of those. But I don't think the retalation against Gaza will do much to move that particular needle, and I honestly think vengeance is a bigger motivator than any rational assessment of how to reduce future Israeli lives lost to terror is. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3222 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15723 Posts
On October 15 2023 00:27 Liquid`Drone wrote: Prior to this attack, 78 civilian Israelis had been killed in Israel in the past 15 years. This attack seems like a monumental intelligence failure and frankly, one that probably could have been avoided or at least ended up being much, much less 'successful'. As a dad, I would kill another family in a heartbeat if I knew they'd kill mine a week from now if I didn't. Tbh id prolly kill plenty families if I know for sure that that is what I have to do to save my own. But Israelis aren't actually all that likely to die from terrorism. Even after this attack, I'm guessing like 4x the number of Israelis have been killed in traffic the past 15 years. (And traffic deaths are actually highly preventable if that is prioritized). So I mean, I get your analogy, but the question would be more like how many families are you willing to kill to reduce the chance of being killed from 1/100000 to 1/1000000. Admittingly, I do believe part of why the Israeli death counts are so low is what i consider inhumane apartheid policies. You can definitely argue that Hamas' terrorist attack strengthened the arguments in favor of those. But I don't think the retalation against Gaza will do much to move that particular needle, and I honestly think vengeance is a bigger motivator than any rational assessment of how to reduce future Israeli lives lost to terror is. I think I agree with basically everything you’re saying. If we use the same assumptions, we reach the same conclusions. But you are saying my assumptions aren’t quite right and so you’re saying your conclusion is different as a result of that difference in assumptions. That is totally fair and I won’t pretend I have absolute confidence in my assumptions or the validity of my metaphor. But it’s the closest I can get to what I feel is accurate. Here is the one place where we disagree: you mention probability and you relate that perceived probability to what the reasonable course of action is. You’re saying because very few Israelis have died in the last 10 years, the werewolf analogy doesn’t is critically deficient in its ability to describe the situation. I think it’s a valid thought. Similar to not being able to define how many families I’d kill if I knew they’d try to kill mine, I am not sure what probability is sufficiently low for me to decide it’s not ethical to kill the werewolves. I am not sure how those probabilities work out and I’m not sure what % chance would be low enough for me to decide it’s not worth killing over. So similar to the ratio question, I take an agnostic view of the decision making. I’m essentially unwilling to judge whether right or wrong as it pertains to weighing those probabilities within the context of family protection. So it’s essentially the same conclusion for me because I have a hard time having confidence in any kinda probability being attached to this dilemma. I am not comfortable defining my % cutoff, so I am not comfortable defining someone else’s % cutoff. And I know it probably sounds a little cowardly or squirmy for me to essentially say “no comment”, but I really am struggling to decide which button I would press here. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15723 Posts
On October 15 2023 00:33 ChristianS wrote: The fact that lots of parents would detonate a nuke in New York City to save their kid’s life is not an indication that we need to emulate parents’ moral reasoning about people who are not our kids. It’s an indication that we need to avoid putting choices like that in front of parents. It’s understandable that a parent would get pretty irrational if they thought their kid might die, but it’s not an irrationality to aspire to. A friend of mine said I am proof parents shouldn’t be trusted with any level of broad impact decision making. They might be right lol | ||
|
ZeroByte13
772 Posts
On October 15 2023 00:27 Liquid`Drone wrote: If true, this numbers probably shows great progress in that matter. Only 5 per 1 year on average.Prior to this attack, 78 civilian Israelis had been killed in Israel in the past 15 years. Someone mentioned a case from 2011 when 1 captured IDF soldier was exchanged for ~1000 Palestinian prisoners, and those ~1000 prisoners alone were responsible - according to Hamas military leader - for 569 killed Israelis. But maybe many/most of those 569 were not civilians? | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3222 Posts
| ||
| ||
