|
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. |
On October 14 2023 23:52 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Aside from the causality problem that Christian and Drone already brought up, your metaphor is also neatly chosen to dehumanise the other families. Werewolves are slavoring beasts from mythology who murder for bloodlust and are entirely irrational during their killing spree. There is also no cure, so the only solution is to kill the monster before it kills you.
So before even getting into the potential of killing innocents to stop your imagined werewolfademic, let's go back a step. Are members of Hamas all irredeemable monsters and the only possible solution is summary execution if you encounter one? I personally think not.
|
Atleast according the Israeli Chanel 12 the ground attack will start tonight, war affairs cabinet is also convened atm
|
And the Werewolf example misses two critical components i would say.
1) It lacks an alternative. It presents killing the other side already as the right choice to handle the situation and just asks when morality allows for that correct choice. If only presented with your descipotion of the problem, my first reaction to solve this would be to take my family and move out of the area of the future werewolves. Now of course you created the scenario with hurdles for such things in mind, like, you are stuck in a room with people that will turn and there is no escape or whatever. But to me the real world seems to be in the same boat, Israel has the right to defend itself, so it will defend itself.
2) In the real world, you are not the dead of a family, you are an elected official who has motivation to use the option that will give him the biggest chance to keep that position, not the one that is actually best for your family. If the dad was actually trying to do his best to keep his family safe from werewolves, he would work for years on solving the problem of people turning into werewolves.
Look at the West bank. I would go so far to say, that the situation of people in the West Bank is better then that of the denizens of Gaza. Yet, for some reason, they are less militant and fanatical. In my naive and humble opinion, making the life of the people in the Gaza strip better is in the interest of all of Israel. Bombing them is in the interest of the far right government and the settlers.
|
On October 15 2023 01:38 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2023 23:52 Mohdoo wrote: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. Aside from the causality problem that Christian and Drone already brought up, your metaphor is also neatly chosen to dehumanise the other families. Werewolves are slavoring beasts from mythology who murder for bloodlust and are entirely irrational during their killing spree. There is also no cure, so the only solution is to kill the monster before it kills you. So before even getting into the potential of killing innocents to stop your imagined werewolfademic, let's go back a step. Are members of Hamas all irredeemable monsters and the only possible solution is summary execution if you encounter one? I personally think not.
Hamas? Yes. They all need to simply be executed and I see no valid alternative. They plainly state eliminating all Jews is their core goal. Full stop, they all need to get tossed in a trash can. But my snap logs uses Hamas to be the wolf form and the innocent civilians to be pre transformation, where they have no awareness anything bad will happen and they aren’t aware of it when it does happen. It’s my silly way of decoupling the two distinct groups. Not perfect, but best I can muster. But yes, I am assuming Hamas is entirely beyond redemption and I’m in full support of every single one of them dying.
|
On October 15 2023 01:48 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2023 01:38 Acrofales wrote:On October 14 2023 23:52 Mohdoo wrote: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. Aside from the causality problem that Christian and Drone already brought up, your metaphor is also neatly chosen to dehumanise the other families. Werewolves are slavoring beasts from mythology who murder for bloodlust and are entirely irrational during their killing spree. There is also no cure, so the only solution is to kill the monster before it kills you. So before even getting into the potential of killing innocents to stop your imagined werewolfademic, let's go back a step. Are members of Hamas all irredeemable monsters and the only possible solution is summary execution if you encounter one? I personally think not. Hamas? Yes. They all need to simply be executed and I see no valid alternative. They plainly state eliminating all Jews is their core goal. Full stop, they all need to get tossed in a trash can. But my snap logs uses Hamas to be the wolf form and the innocent civilians to be pre transformation, where they have no awareness anything bad will happen and they aren’t aware of it when it does happen. It’s my silly way of decoupling the two distinct groups. Not perfect, but best I can muster. But yes, I am assuming Hamas is entirely beyond redemption and I’m in full support of every single one of them dying.
Ok, next question. What is Hamas? Is a 17-year-old Palestinian kid who was given an AK-47 and told to shoot any Israeli on sight, but who dropped the weapon before firing and got on his knees calling out that he surrenders Hamas?
|
It’s worth noting this argument is a justification for killing civilians who *aren’t currently associated with Hamas* – just because they might radicalize at some point in the future. It’s assumed that anybody actually associated with the enemy will just be summarily executed.
Normally people aren’t so war-crime-thirsty as Mohdoo, and we would talk about things like “killing enemy combatants trying to surrender” with concern and regret. Civilians are assumed to not be *targets* – the only hard conversations are about how much accidental/unintended death is acceptable to cause to noncombatants while targeting actual enemies.
Hey, if we’re killing civilians just in case they radicalize in the future, are we trying to distinguish the higher-risk civilians? Or are we just considering the entire population of 2 million people possibly infected with the werewolf bug and necessary to be executed? After the Mohdoo Island discussion a couple years ago, I should probably not assume opposition to the “round them all up and put them in camps” option.
|
On October 15 2023 02:45 ChristianS wrote:
It’s worth noting this argument is a justification for killing civilians who *aren’t currently associated with Hamas* – just because they might radicalize at some point in the future. It’s assumed that anybody actually associated with the enemy will just be summarily executed.
Normally people aren’t so war-crime-thirsty as Mohdoo, and we would talk about things like “killing enemy combatants trying to surrender” with concern and regret. Civilians are assumed to not be *targets* – the only hard conversations are about how much accidental/unintended death is acceptable to cause to noncombatants while targeting actual enemies.
Hey, if we’re killing civilians just in case they radicalize in the future, are we trying to distinguish the higher-risk civilians? Or are we just considering the entire population of 2 million people possibly infected with the werewolf bug and necessary to be executed? After the Mohdoo Island discussion a couple years ago, I should probably not assume opposition to the “round them all up and put them in camps” option.
I agree and am not particularly hopeful about the chances of a nuanced discussion. However, my starting point was mostly that werewolves are slavering monstrosities for which the only solution is execution. I don't believe that applies to any human, not even the worst of Hamas (or Anders Breivik, Ted Bundy, Slobodan Milosevic or Vladimir Putin). However Mohdoo insisted that the equivocation between Hamas and slavering monstrosities was appropriate and the only solution was therefore summary execution for any member of Hamas with no shades of grey anywhere in sight. So my follow-up was a softball for him to back down from "we should at the very least murder everybody remotely affiliated with Hamas" as the starting point and bare minimum he thinks is necessary, without even getting to the bit where we also accept execution of everyone who might in the future become affiliated with Hamas.
|
On October 15 2023 02:01 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2023 01:48 Mohdoo wrote:On October 15 2023 01:38 Acrofales wrote:On October 14 2023 23:52 Mohdoo wrote: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. Aside from the causality problem that Christian and Drone already brought up, your metaphor is also neatly chosen to dehumanise the other families. Werewolves are slavoring beasts from mythology who murder for bloodlust and are entirely irrational during their killing spree. There is also no cure, so the only solution is to kill the monster before it kills you. So before even getting into the potential of killing innocents to stop your imagined werewolfademic, let's go back a step. Are members of Hamas all irredeemable monsters and the only possible solution is summary execution if you encounter one? I personally think not. Hamas? Yes. They all need to simply be executed and I see no valid alternative. They plainly state eliminating all Jews is their core goal. Full stop, they all need to get tossed in a trash can. But my snap logs uses Hamas to be the wolf form and the innocent civilians to be pre transformation, where they have no awareness anything bad will happen and they aren’t aware of it when it does happen. It’s my silly way of decoupling the two distinct groups. Not perfect, but best I can muster. But yes, I am assuming Hamas is entirely beyond redemption and I’m in full support of every single one of them dying. Ok, next question. What is Hamas? Is a 17-year-old Palestinian kid who was given an AK-47 and told to shoot any Israeli on sight, but who dropped the weapon before firing and got on his knees calling out that he surrenders Hamas?
I understand what you’re saying and I agree the situation is tragic. If some 17 year old with an AK was actively motivated to kill me, and he only wanted to kill me because of his tragic, twisted childhood, it’s still a choice between me and him and I would never consider choosing him. What you are describing is very different from what I described and of course your situation is different. I would never sign off on killing someone who decided to stop participating in violence. The entire justification for killing Hamas is that Hamas actively plans to continue doing the kinda stuff that led to this whole discussion. When you remove the threatening component of the situation, of course the situation is fundamentally different.
Situation 1: person is going to try to kill you
Situation 2: person is not going to try to kill you
My perspective is that these 2 situations are distinct and that they should be handled differently.
|
On October 15 2023 03:44 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2023 02:45 ChristianS wrote:
It’s worth noting this argument is a justification for killing civilians who *aren’t currently associated with Hamas* – just because they might radicalize at some point in the future. It’s assumed that anybody actually associated with the enemy will just be summarily executed.
Normally people aren’t so war-crime-thirsty as Mohdoo, and we would talk about things like “killing enemy combatants trying to surrender” with concern and regret. Civilians are assumed to not be *targets* – the only hard conversations are about how much accidental/unintended death is acceptable to cause to noncombatants while targeting actual enemies.
Hey, if we’re killing civilians just in case they radicalize in the future, are we trying to distinguish the higher-risk civilians? Or are we just considering the entire population of 2 million people possibly infected with the werewolf bug and necessary to be executed? After the Mohdoo Island discussion a couple years ago, I should probably not assume opposition to the “round them all up and put them in camps” option. I agree and am not particularly hopeful about the chances of a nuanced discussion. However, my starting point was mostly that werewolves are slavering monstrosities for which the only solution is execution. I don't believe that applies to any human, not even the worst of Hamas (or Anders Breivik, Ted Bundy, Slobodan Milosevic or Vladimir Putin). However Mohdoo insisted that the equivocation between Hamas and slavering monstrosities was appropriate and the only solution was therefore summary execution for any member of Hamas with no shades of grey anywhere in sight. So my follow-up was a softball for him to back down from "we should at the very least murder everybody remotely affiliated with Hamas" as the starting point and bare minimum he thinks is necessary, without even getting to the bit where we also accept execution of everyone who might in the future become affiliated with Hamas.
Since I’ve been the one answering questions rather than asking them, let me first make sure I understand your perspective: are you saying there is a zero violence solution right now? Is there a way for Israel to have confidence Hamas will not try to kill Israelis?
So far, I have only seen people suggest things that they agree are deeply unlikely if not impossible as a solution. Is there a solution that you think is likely to occur which does not involve violence on either side? I want to make sure I am understanding your perspective before I respond because I don’t want to respond to the wrong ideas.
|
On October 15 2023 03:59 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2023 03:44 Acrofales wrote:On October 15 2023 02:45 ChristianS wrote:
It’s worth noting this argument is a justification for killing civilians who *aren’t currently associated with Hamas* – just because they might radicalize at some point in the future. It’s assumed that anybody actually associated with the enemy will just be summarily executed.
Normally people aren’t so war-crime-thirsty as Mohdoo, and we would talk about things like “killing enemy combatants trying to surrender” with concern and regret. Civilians are assumed to not be *targets* – the only hard conversations are about how much accidental/unintended death is acceptable to cause to noncombatants while targeting actual enemies.
Hey, if we’re killing civilians just in case they radicalize in the future, are we trying to distinguish the higher-risk civilians? Or are we just considering the entire population of 2 million people possibly infected with the werewolf bug and necessary to be executed? After the Mohdoo Island discussion a couple years ago, I should probably not assume opposition to the “round them all up and put them in camps” option. I agree and am not particularly hopeful about the chances of a nuanced discussion. However, my starting point was mostly that werewolves are slavering monstrosities for which the only solution is execution. I don't believe that applies to any human, not even the worst of Hamas (or Anders Breivik, Ted Bundy, Slobodan Milosevic or Vladimir Putin). However Mohdoo insisted that the equivocation between Hamas and slavering monstrosities was appropriate and the only solution was therefore summary execution for any member of Hamas with no shades of grey anywhere in sight. So my follow-up was a softball for him to back down from "we should at the very least murder everybody remotely affiliated with Hamas" as the starting point and bare minimum he thinks is necessary, without even getting to the bit where we also accept execution of everyone who might in the future become affiliated with Hamas. Since I’ve been the one answering questions rather than asking them, let me first make sure I understand your perspective: are you saying there is a zero violence solution right now? Is there a way for Israel to have confidence Hamas will not try to kill Israelis? So far, I have only seen people suggest things that they agree are deeply unlikely if not impossible as a solution. Is there a solution that you think is likely to occur which does not involve violence on either side? I want to make sure I am understanding your perspective before I respond because I don’t want to respond to the wrong ideas.
Just so I understand, if Israel did genocide/ethnic cleanse the Palestinians as it appears they are trying, are you saying the world shouldn't make them a pariah either before to try to prevent it or after to demonstrate it wasn't acceptable?
Or just that the West wont because the genocide/ethnic cleansing of Palestinians is acceptable to them
|
On October 15 2023 03:59 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2023 03:44 Acrofales wrote:On October 15 2023 02:45 ChristianS wrote:
It’s worth noting this argument is a justification for killing civilians who *aren’t currently associated with Hamas* – just because they might radicalize at some point in the future. It’s assumed that anybody actually associated with the enemy will just be summarily executed.
Normally people aren’t so war-crime-thirsty as Mohdoo, and we would talk about things like “killing enemy combatants trying to surrender” with concern and regret. Civilians are assumed to not be *targets* – the only hard conversations are about how much accidental/unintended death is acceptable to cause to noncombatants while targeting actual enemies.
Hey, if we’re killing civilians just in case they radicalize in the future, are we trying to distinguish the higher-risk civilians? Or are we just considering the entire population of 2 million people possibly infected with the werewolf bug and necessary to be executed? After the Mohdoo Island discussion a couple years ago, I should probably not assume opposition to the “round them all up and put them in camps” option. I agree and am not particularly hopeful about the chances of a nuanced discussion. However, my starting point was mostly that werewolves are slavering monstrosities for which the only solution is execution. I don't believe that applies to any human, not even the worst of Hamas (or Anders Breivik, Ted Bundy, Slobodan Milosevic or Vladimir Putin). However Mohdoo insisted that the equivocation between Hamas and slavering monstrosities was appropriate and the only solution was therefore summary execution for any member of Hamas with no shades of grey anywhere in sight. So my follow-up was a softball for him to back down from "we should at the very least murder everybody remotely affiliated with Hamas" as the starting point and bare minimum he thinks is necessary, without even getting to the bit where we also accept execution of everyone who might in the future become affiliated with Hamas. Since I’ve been the one answering questions rather than asking them, let me first make sure I understand your perspective: are you saying there is a zero violence solution right now? Is there a way for Israel to have confidence Hamas will not try to kill Israelis? So far, I have only seen people suggest things that they agree are deeply unlikely if not impossible as a solution. Is there a solution that you think is likely to occur which does not involve violence on either side? I want to make sure I am understanding your perspective before I respond because I don’t want to respond to the wrong ideas.
Mm, not quite yet. Near as I can tell the only way what you’re proposing is a “solution” is if it’s a “Final Solution,” i.e. systematically killing every Palestinian so they don’t have a chance to radicalize. Don’t beat around the bush. Is that what you’re advocating (or at least saying you “couldn’t ethically criticize if Israel did it)?
|
On October 15 2023 02:45 ChristianS wrote:
It’s worth noting this argument is a justification for killing civilians who *aren’t currently associated with Hamas* – just because they might radicalize at some point in the future. It’s assumed that anybody actually associated with the enemy will just be summarily executed.
In pursuit of the nuance that is clearly desired, I will give my take on the situation that currently appears to be nuanced:
Israel has decide the war needs to be concluded with or without Hamas agreeing to end the war. Israel has determined that pushing the issue out is not productive and that if people are just going to die anyway, the whole idea of "delay, wait things out, try to find another solution" is not working out because it is not succeeding in preventing what it was intended to prevent. They looked at the situation and decided the only way to significantly reduce the risk of repeated attacks is to completely eliminate Hamas as a governing institution. If Hamas did not control any land or have dominion over any civilians, they would not be able to do what they recently did. I think all of us agree with Israel up to this point.
The question then becomes: How do you do that? If Hamas is so deeply ingrained in civilian hospitals and whatnot, that means the only way to achieve the goal is to bomb those places and thoroughly investigate them to make sure no further threat exists. Once the entire zone is entirely cleared out of Hamas and they have zero power in that land, the plan appears to be to install some kinda puppet government to rule over the Palestinians. So from what I understand, Israel basically told people to clear the area because its about to get bombed. They give people the choice to stay or go. This is imperfect, and tragic, and will still cause a lot of innocent people to die, and it is a moral concession Israel agrees to. Since some people can't leave for medical reasons, or maybe a baby is in the ICU and stuff like that. There is a wealth of cold, hard, destructive tragedy at play here. And my impression is that Israel is still giving it the stamp of approval. They decided that they would rather the other faction's children die rather than their own. Its a huge oof and I basically can't participate in that decision making because I don't think I'm capable of it.
The only perspective I can provide is the extremely long list of moral concessions I would make if I had decided I was confident it was necessary to protect my family. Its my shitty version of trying to empathize with Israel. Similarly, if people within Hamas/Palestine/Gaza or which ever component of the Venn diagram you want to focus on, decided it was necessary to attack Israel for the same reason, I apparently also understand why they would do that. So just to be clear, I am not saying these people are any worse than me, so long as we assume they are making this decision because they have decided/determined it is "either we die or they die".
So just as a quick check in: "Either we die, or they die" is a firm, solid assumption within my perspective. If there is something that you think invalidates this assumption, meaning there is a *probable and likely* scenario where violence is preventable, everything I am saying is no longer valid and I no longer believe it. But I am contextualizing this entire scenario within the framework of 2 factions at war with each other. Focusing on stuff like "so how did we get here though" is irrelevant because the current situation involves a huge number of innocent civilians within both factions, relocating each group would be enormously difficult, and its not really worthwhile to focus on the history because the reality is that either faction defeating the other will lead to extreme tragedy. Hamas intends to kill all Jews. Israel intends to kill all of Hamas.
I honestly think a lot of discussions around this topic are essentially just watching history youtube videos and its all stuff we all already know and it doesn't really impact anything other than creating blame game musical chairs. It doesn't prevent victimization, so its all whatever.
So, back to my understanding: Israel decides to swallow the shame and guilt of killing innocent people for the sake of protecting their own. So they tell people "hey, if you are able to just go as far south as you can, we will not harm you, because you won't be in the area we are harming". The people who can't leave, and end up bombed, like people in hospital beds etc, are just a giant tragedy and I hate the idea of them being harmed. The people who "stay and fight" are the ones who I don't have sympathy for, because they are choosing to participate in the war and defend the people who just killed 1300 people. So I consider them willing participants if they consciously choose to stay and fight. I essentially allow for the morality of war to mean 1 side gets killed when both sides agree to try to kill each other. They are willing participants and they are actively trying to kill someone else, so if they end up dying along the way, I view it as tragic, but not something I can reasonably fight against.
If someone was high on drugs, lost their mind, totally not thinking, and about to kill me, I would feel right in killing them instead. So from that baseline assumption, it becomes similarly ethical to kill a 17 year old who is entirely broken as a person due to a life of tragedy and brainwashing and whatnot. It is tragic but it doesn't mean I'd die instead.
So then from there, if we assume the ethics of 2 factions dueling includes 1 side dying, all of the willing participants of that conflict are surrendering their right to safety. But again, all those people who are bed-bound in a hospital are deeply tragic losses and I hate humanity for being so flawed to harm these people.
Just to reiterate the assumptions here:
1) A bunch of innocent people on 1 faction's side die regardless of which decision is made
[1a] This is shown by 1300 Israelis recently dying
[1b] This is shown by even more Palestinians dying over the last however many years
2) This conflict does not have a non-military end
[2a] The last 2000 years of history
[2b] "yeah but it was peaceful at this one time" ... yeah, while the other side built up their strength again until they were able to fight back again. They literally just take breaks and pick back up later. The international community and various other factors prevent the war from ever being conclusively ended, so all that is really happening is delaying until they feel up for another round. So long as the core, fundamental, religious reason for the conflict exists, it is literally impossible for it to ever be resolved outside of complete and total victory where the entire border is only occupied by 1 faction. They only take breaks because they lose the ability to fight. None of these supposed peace situations were real.
3) Hamas is not willing to surrender. If Hamas surrendered, left the entire region, and Iran agreed to give them all amnesty and let them live their lives in Iran, none of the conflict is justified. This conflict is only continuing because the side that lost is unwilling to GG out. So just to be entirely clear, the war is still going, but it can end if one side decides to let it end.
4) Wars only end in 3 distinct scenarios:
- One side is eliminated
- One side surrenders entirely
- A greater military power forces peace through military threats
5) The ethics of conflict do not relate to who wins the conflict
[5a] The US built its borders by committing wide-scale genocide and killing natives to the point of nearly being entirely wiped out. The US is entirely built on extremely unethical behavior. And yet the US won. The only reason any more than 0 native americans currently exist is that at one point they decided defeat, subjugation, shame, misery, torture, starvation, and many other awful things were better than being wiped out.
Put it all together and...
-->>>>>>>>> My point is that the ugly evils of war are unavoidable until the war has reached a conclusion. This tragic situation will only continue to be tragic until the war ends. Many people would have assumed pushing things out in the 70s were a good idea. Look at what has happened since then. People are not being reasonable by pretending there is some magical rainbow scenario just around the corner.
|
On October 15 2023 04:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2023 03:59 Mohdoo wrote:On October 15 2023 03:44 Acrofales wrote:On October 15 2023 02:45 ChristianS wrote:
It’s worth noting this argument is a justification for killing civilians who *aren’t currently associated with Hamas* – just because they might radicalize at some point in the future. It’s assumed that anybody actually associated with the enemy will just be summarily executed.
Normally people aren’t so war-crime-thirsty as Mohdoo, and we would talk about things like “killing enemy combatants trying to surrender” with concern and regret. Civilians are assumed to not be *targets* – the only hard conversations are about how much accidental/unintended death is acceptable to cause to noncombatants while targeting actual enemies.
Hey, if we’re killing civilians just in case they radicalize in the future, are we trying to distinguish the higher-risk civilians? Or are we just considering the entire population of 2 million people possibly infected with the werewolf bug and necessary to be executed? After the Mohdoo Island discussion a couple years ago, I should probably not assume opposition to the “round them all up and put them in camps” option. I agree and am not particularly hopeful about the chances of a nuanced discussion. However, my starting point was mostly that werewolves are slavering monstrosities for which the only solution is execution. I don't believe that applies to any human, not even the worst of Hamas (or Anders Breivik, Ted Bundy, Slobodan Milosevic or Vladimir Putin). However Mohdoo insisted that the equivocation between Hamas and slavering monstrosities was appropriate and the only solution was therefore summary execution for any member of Hamas with no shades of grey anywhere in sight. So my follow-up was a softball for him to back down from "we should at the very least murder everybody remotely affiliated with Hamas" as the starting point and bare minimum he thinks is necessary, without even getting to the bit where we also accept execution of everyone who might in the future become affiliated with Hamas. Since I’ve been the one answering questions rather than asking them, let me first make sure I understand your perspective: are you saying there is a zero violence solution right now? Is there a way for Israel to have confidence Hamas will not try to kill Israelis? So far, I have only seen people suggest things that they agree are deeply unlikely if not impossible as a solution. Is there a solution that you think is likely to occur which does not involve violence on either side? I want to make sure I am understanding your perspective before I respond because I don’t want to respond to the wrong ideas. Just so I understand, if Israel did genocide/ethnic cleanse the Palestinians as it appears they are trying, are you saying the world shouldn't make them a pariah either before to try to prevent it or after to demonstrate it wasn't acceptable? Or just that the West wont because the genocide/ethnic cleansing of Palestinians is acceptable to them
If both parties involved agree to try to kill each other, the evil, tragic nature of war means it won't end without military pressure ending it. Whether external or internal through one side being wiped out or surrendering.
When I tried to read through the history of this conflict, I concluded it is misguided to contextualize it only within the last 100 years and that even though this and that faction changed their name here and there, there is a thread through history that actually frames this as a single, persistent war, that is motivated by conflicting religious ideologies. I am contextualizing this conflict within it being 2 willing participants who have almost won and almost lost many times throughout history. But its never been conclusively ended because the side that was almost wiped out never decided to stop fighting. It will only end when 1 side decides to stop fighting rather than wait to be strong again to try to win again later.
I think people are being dishonest when they frame the war as something that has a diplomatic solution. The only solution is 1 side dying or 1 side surrendering. I think it is essentially muddying the water when people insist there are peaceful solutions because we have numerous examples of both factions being deeply unethical when they have the advantage.
I think the world is behaving unethically by not imposing military restrictions on the conflict. I think the world has failed both Israeli and Palestinian civilians by not executing political and military parties within each faction advocating for violence. I think the proper, actual solution to this conflict is for both factions to be entirely neutered from their military grudge match. I view it as depraved indifference. The world just kinda lets all this happen. Both sides of the conflict have a vile, deeply unethical conquest-driven agenda, and that agenda is not being stomped out. It needs to be in order to avoid violence.
And since I am dismissing the possibility that the world, including the US, will behave ethically by demilitarizing both parties, I am saying the only 2 options left are surrender and extermination. Hamas won't surrender. Israel won't surrender. So that leaves 1 option. Its not ethical, but it feels like anything else can't be effectively argued as reasonable or likely.
What is the list of things that would need to change for the US to behave ethically by demilitarizing both factions? Look down that list, scratch your chin a bit, and tell me what your ballpark estimate of when that will happen is. What is the likelihood? There's no disagreement between you and I on the ethics of how the US treats the conflict. Its just that rather than try to imagine ways I could eat the sun, I am choosing to focus on pizza instead. Not saying its right or ethical. Saying its obvious.
|
This is how small wars become big ones. One has to wonder if a way out is for Iran to pull Hamas back.
|
I hope the werewolf discourse has shed some light on the notion that the "defending yourself" narrative includes the dehumanization of Palestinians.
Another thing that seems to be happening here is that we're putting ourselves in the place of Israel and imagining what we would do in their situation, which an unfortunate number of people think is what empathy means. Being overall decent people with socially liberal leanings, we would require an extreme set of beliefs to behave in the way Israel does, and then we bring those beliefs into the discussion. A more empathetic approach would recognize that Israel isn't currently run by people with similar leanings or decency, and as such they might have different feelings and emotions dictating their actions. Once you try and understand Israel's government with a fascist's mindset as opposed to your own, you run into a lot fewer contradictions.
|
On October 15 2023 05:00 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2023 04:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2023 03:59 Mohdoo wrote:On October 15 2023 03:44 Acrofales wrote:On October 15 2023 02:45 ChristianS wrote:
It’s worth noting this argument is a justification for killing civilians who *aren’t currently associated with Hamas* – just because they might radicalize at some point in the future. It’s assumed that anybody actually associated with the enemy will just be summarily executed.
Normally people aren’t so war-crime-thirsty as Mohdoo, and we would talk about things like “killing enemy combatants trying to surrender” with concern and regret. Civilians are assumed to not be *targets* – the only hard conversations are about how much accidental/unintended death is acceptable to cause to noncombatants while targeting actual enemies.
Hey, if we’re killing civilians just in case they radicalize in the future, are we trying to distinguish the higher-risk civilians? Or are we just considering the entire population of 2 million people possibly infected with the werewolf bug and necessary to be executed? After the Mohdoo Island discussion a couple years ago, I should probably not assume opposition to the “round them all up and put them in camps” option. I agree and am not particularly hopeful about the chances of a nuanced discussion. However, my starting point was mostly that werewolves are slavering monstrosities for which the only solution is execution. I don't believe that applies to any human, not even the worst of Hamas (or Anders Breivik, Ted Bundy, Slobodan Milosevic or Vladimir Putin). However Mohdoo insisted that the equivocation between Hamas and slavering monstrosities was appropriate and the only solution was therefore summary execution for any member of Hamas with no shades of grey anywhere in sight. So my follow-up was a softball for him to back down from "we should at the very least murder everybody remotely affiliated with Hamas" as the starting point and bare minimum he thinks is necessary, without even getting to the bit where we also accept execution of everyone who might in the future become affiliated with Hamas. Since I’ve been the one answering questions rather than asking them, let me first make sure I understand your perspective: are you saying there is a zero violence solution right now? Is there a way for Israel to have confidence Hamas will not try to kill Israelis? So far, I have only seen people suggest things that they agree are deeply unlikely if not impossible as a solution. Is there a solution that you think is likely to occur which does not involve violence on either side? I want to make sure I am understanding your perspective before I respond because I don’t want to respond to the wrong ideas. Just so I understand, if Israel did genocide/ethnic cleanse the Palestinians as it appears they are trying, are you saying the world shouldn't make them a pariah either before to try to prevent it or after to demonstrate it wasn't acceptable? Or just that the West wont because the genocide/ethnic cleansing of Palestinians is acceptable to them If both parties involved agree to try to kill each other, the evil, tragic nature of war means it won't end without military pressure ending it. Whether external or internal through one side being wiped out or surrendering. When I tried to read through the history of this conflict, I concluded it is misguided to contextualize it only within the last 100 years and that even though this and that faction changed their name here and there, there is a thread through history that actually frames this as a single, persistent war, that is motivated by conflicting religious ideologies. I am contextualizing this conflict within it being 2 willing participants who have almost won and almost lost many times throughout history. But its never been conclusively ended because the side that was almost wiped out never decided to stop fighting. It will only end when 1 side decides to stop fighting rather than wait to be strong again to try to win again later. I think people are being dishonest when they frame the war as something that has a diplomatic solution. The only solution is 1 side dying or 1 side surrendering. I think it is essentially muddying the water when people insist there are peaceful solutions because we have numerous examples of both factions being deeply unethical when they have the advantage. I think the world is behaving unethically by not imposing military restrictions on the conflict. I think the world has failed both Israeli and Palestinian civilians by not executing political and military parties within each faction advocating for violence. I think the proper, actual solution to this conflict is for both factions to be entirely neutered from their military grudge match. I view it as depraved indifference. The world just kinda lets all this happen. Both sides of the conflict have a vile, deeply unethical conquest-driven agenda, and that agenda is not being stomped out. It needs to be in order to avoid violence. And since I am dismissing the possibility that the world, including the US, will behave ethically by demilitarizing both parties, I am saying the only 2 options left are surrender and extermination. Hamas won't surrender. Israel won't surrender. So that leaves 1 option. Its not ethical, but it feels like anything else can't be effectively argued as reasonable or likely. What is the list of things that would need to change for the US to behave ethically by demilitarizing both factions? Look down that list, scratch your chin a bit, and tell me what your ballpark estimate of when that will happen is. What is the likelihood? There's no disagreement between you and I on the ethics of how the US treats the conflict. Its just that rather than try to imagine ways I could eat the sun, I am choosing to focus on pizza instead. Not saying its right or ethical. Saying its obvious.
No! This is not a 2000 year war! This is a nationalistic war. Nationalism formed in the 19th century. Before that, the jewish population of Europe and Africa was not able to dream of a place in now Israel, because people lived simple lifes at the place of their birth, wherever that was. Between 700 and 1850, there was zero struggle about who should live in Palestina between jewish and muslim people. The conflict is complicated without being labelled as a 2 millenia conflict.
Also, you keep doubling down on your claim that only genocide can solve this and is necessary because 1300 people died. The more you talk about it, the less i believe you how much you suffer from how bad the solution is. It sounds honestly sociopathic. Morality is irrelevant, you have created a scenario where you cannot act humanely and so now people haveto die.
|
On October 15 2023 06:18 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2023 05:00 Mohdoo wrote:On October 15 2023 04:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2023 03:59 Mohdoo wrote:On October 15 2023 03:44 Acrofales wrote:On October 15 2023 02:45 ChristianS wrote:
It’s worth noting this argument is a justification for killing civilians who *aren’t currently associated with Hamas* – just because they might radicalize at some point in the future. It’s assumed that anybody actually associated with the enemy will just be summarily executed.
Normally people aren’t so war-crime-thirsty as Mohdoo, and we would talk about things like “killing enemy combatants trying to surrender” with concern and regret. Civilians are assumed to not be *targets* – the only hard conversations are about how much accidental/unintended death is acceptable to cause to noncombatants while targeting actual enemies.
Hey, if we’re killing civilians just in case they radicalize in the future, are we trying to distinguish the higher-risk civilians? Or are we just considering the entire population of 2 million people possibly infected with the werewolf bug and necessary to be executed? After the Mohdoo Island discussion a couple years ago, I should probably not assume opposition to the “round them all up and put them in camps” option. I agree and am not particularly hopeful about the chances of a nuanced discussion. However, my starting point was mostly that werewolves are slavering monstrosities for which the only solution is execution. I don't believe that applies to any human, not even the worst of Hamas (or Anders Breivik, Ted Bundy, Slobodan Milosevic or Vladimir Putin). However Mohdoo insisted that the equivocation between Hamas and slavering monstrosities was appropriate and the only solution was therefore summary execution for any member of Hamas with no shades of grey anywhere in sight. So my follow-up was a softball for him to back down from "we should at the very least murder everybody remotely affiliated with Hamas" as the starting point and bare minimum he thinks is necessary, without even getting to the bit where we also accept execution of everyone who might in the future become affiliated with Hamas. Since I’ve been the one answering questions rather than asking them, let me first make sure I understand your perspective: are you saying there is a zero violence solution right now? Is there a way for Israel to have confidence Hamas will not try to kill Israelis? So far, I have only seen people suggest things that they agree are deeply unlikely if not impossible as a solution. Is there a solution that you think is likely to occur which does not involve violence on either side? I want to make sure I am understanding your perspective before I respond because I don’t want to respond to the wrong ideas. Just so I understand, if Israel did genocide/ethnic cleanse the Palestinians as it appears they are trying, are you saying the world shouldn't make them a pariah either before to try to prevent it or after to demonstrate it wasn't acceptable? Or just that the West wont because the genocide/ethnic cleansing of Palestinians is acceptable to them If both parties involved agree to try to kill each other, the evil, tragic nature of war means it won't end without military pressure ending it. Whether external or internal through one side being wiped out or surrendering. When I tried to read through the history of this conflict, I concluded it is misguided to contextualize it only within the last 100 years and that even though this and that faction changed their name here and there, there is a thread through history that actually frames this as a single, persistent war, that is motivated by conflicting religious ideologies. I am contextualizing this conflict within it being 2 willing participants who have almost won and almost lost many times throughout history. But its never been conclusively ended because the side that was almost wiped out never decided to stop fighting. It will only end when 1 side decides to stop fighting rather than wait to be strong again to try to win again later. I think people are being dishonest when they frame the war as something that has a diplomatic solution. The only solution is 1 side dying or 1 side surrendering. I think it is essentially muddying the water when people insist there are peaceful solutions because we have numerous examples of both factions being deeply unethical when they have the advantage. I think the world is behaving unethically by not imposing military restrictions on the conflict. I think the world has failed both Israeli and Palestinian civilians by not executing political and military parties within each faction advocating for violence. I think the proper, actual solution to this conflict is for both factions to be entirely neutered from their military grudge match. I view it as depraved indifference. The world just kinda lets all this happen. Both sides of the conflict have a vile, deeply unethical conquest-driven agenda, and that agenda is not being stomped out. It needs to be in order to avoid violence. And since I am dismissing the possibility that the world, including the US, will behave ethically by demilitarizing both parties, I am saying the only 2 options left are surrender and extermination. Hamas won't surrender. Israel won't surrender. So that leaves 1 option. Its not ethical, but it feels like anything else can't be effectively argued as reasonable or likely. What is the list of things that would need to change for the US to behave ethically by demilitarizing both factions? Look down that list, scratch your chin a bit, and tell me what your ballpark estimate of when that will happen is. What is the likelihood? There's no disagreement between you and I on the ethics of how the US treats the conflict. Its just that rather than try to imagine ways I could eat the sun, I am choosing to focus on pizza instead. Not saying its right or ethical. Saying its obvious. No! This is not a 2000 year war! This is a nationalistic war. Nationalism formed in the 19th century. Before that, the jewish population of Europe and Africa was not able to dream of a place in now Israel, because people lived simple lifes at the place of their birth, wherever that was. Between 700 and 1850, there was zero struggle about who should live in Palestina between jewish and muslim people. The conflict is complicated without being labelled as a 2 millenia conflict. Also, you keep doubling down on your claim that only genocide can solve this and is necessary because 1300 people died. The more you talk about it, the less i believe you how much you suffer from how bad the solution is. It sounds honestly sociopathic. Morality is irrelevant, you have created a scenario where you cannot act humanely and so now people haveto die.
I think it’s a little dishonest to frame it as a nationalism thing. Nationalism is just the mask it wears at the moment. My connection to the situation is as a human and the shame I feel as a human for this conflict to be allowed to continue. I view this war as a blemish on human dignity.
And like I said, the shame lands most on the countries that are choosing not to use the options available to them to prevent the conflict entirely. Israel and Palestine shouldn’t be permitted to pretend the conflict is reasonable or within the allowable behavior in our current age. The folks who have the power to neuter the conflict entirely are failing in their duty to do so. But since apparently the powers that be would rather enable the conflict for their own selfish gains, here we are. But like I said to GH, the moral failings within the powers that be are so extensive and deep that we can’t reasonably assume they’ll ever improv. We are living through example number 99999 of humanity’s moral weakness and tendency to make the wrong choice. Not going to pretend I see a Disney princess ending to the situation. The situation is only what it is today because of a long series of decisions to allow it to continue.
If my views still bother you, take comfort in knowing in just some idiot typing on the internet. No nation is consulting with me or asking for my opinion. I’m not impacting the situation at all. I’m just sharing my thoughts with you all. But I am not a political leader, military consultant, so rest assured that my troubling perspectives won’t have a wider impact.
|
On October 15 2023 05:00 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2023 04:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2023 03:59 Mohdoo wrote:On October 15 2023 03:44 Acrofales wrote:On October 15 2023 02:45 ChristianS wrote:
It’s worth noting this argument is a justification for killing civilians who *aren’t currently associated with Hamas* – just because they might radicalize at some point in the future. It’s assumed that anybody actually associated with the enemy will just be summarily executed.
Normally people aren’t so war-crime-thirsty as Mohdoo, and we would talk about things like “killing enemy combatants trying to surrender” with concern and regret. Civilians are assumed to not be *targets* – the only hard conversations are about how much accidental/unintended death is acceptable to cause to noncombatants while targeting actual enemies.
Hey, if we’re killing civilians just in case they radicalize in the future, are we trying to distinguish the higher-risk civilians? Or are we just considering the entire population of 2 million people possibly infected with the werewolf bug and necessary to be executed? After the Mohdoo Island discussion a couple years ago, I should probably not assume opposition to the “round them all up and put them in camps” option. I agree and am not particularly hopeful about the chances of a nuanced discussion. However, my starting point was mostly that werewolves are slavering monstrosities for which the only solution is execution. I don't believe that applies to any human, not even the worst of Hamas (or Anders Breivik, Ted Bundy, Slobodan Milosevic or Vladimir Putin). However Mohdoo insisted that the equivocation between Hamas and slavering monstrosities was appropriate and the only solution was therefore summary execution for any member of Hamas with no shades of grey anywhere in sight. So my follow-up was a softball for him to back down from "we should at the very least murder everybody remotely affiliated with Hamas" as the starting point and bare minimum he thinks is necessary, without even getting to the bit where we also accept execution of everyone who might in the future become affiliated with Hamas. Since I’ve been the one answering questions rather than asking them, let me first make sure I understand your perspective: are you saying there is a zero violence solution right now? Is there a way for Israel to have confidence Hamas will not try to kill Israelis? So far, I have only seen people suggest things that they agree are deeply unlikely if not impossible as a solution. Is there a solution that you think is likely to occur which does not involve violence on either side? I want to make sure I am understanding your perspective before I respond because I don’t want to respond to the wrong ideas. Just so I understand, if Israel did genocide/ethnic cleanse the Palestinians as it appears they are trying, are you saying the world shouldn't make them a pariah either before to try to prevent it or after to demonstrate it wasn't acceptable? Or just that the West wont because the genocide/ethnic cleansing of Palestinians is acceptable to them If both parties involved agree to try to kill each other, the evil, tragic nature of war means it won't end without military pressure ending it. Whether external or internal through one side being wiped out or surrendering. When I tried to read through the history of this conflict, I concluded it is misguided to contextualize it only within the last 100 years and that even though this and that faction changed their name here and there, there is a thread through history that actually frames this as a single, persistent war, that is motivated by conflicting religious ideologies. I am contextualizing this conflict within it being 2 willing participants who have almost won and almost lost many times throughout history. But its never been conclusively ended because the side that was almost wiped out never decided to stop fighting. It will only end when 1 side decides to stop fighting rather than wait to be strong again to try to win again later. I think people are being dishonest when they frame the war as something that has a diplomatic solution. The only solution is 1 side dying or 1 side surrendering. I think it is essentially muddying the water when people insist there are peaceful solutions because we have numerous examples of both factions being deeply unethical when they have the advantage. I think the world is behaving unethically by not imposing military restrictions on the conflict. I think the world has failed both Israeli and Palestinian civilians by not executing political and military parties within each faction advocating for violence. I think the proper, actual solution to this conflict is for both factions to be entirely neutered from their military grudge match. I view it as depraved indifference. The world just kinda lets all this happen. Both sides of the conflict have a vile, deeply unethical conquest-driven agenda, and that agenda is not being stomped out. It needs to be in order to avoid violence. And since I am dismissing the possibility that the world, including the US, will behave ethically by demilitarizing both parties, I am saying the only 2 options left are surrender and extermination. Hamas won't surrender. Israel won't surrender. So that leaves 1 option. Its not ethical, but it feels like anything else can't be effectively argued as reasonable or likely. What is the list of things that would need to change for the US to behave ethically by demilitarizing both factions? Look down that list, scratch your chin a bit, and tell me what your ballpark estimate of when that will happen is. What is the likelihood? There's no disagreement between you and I on the ethics of how the US treats the conflict. Its just that rather than try to imagine ways I could eat the sun, I am choosing to focus on pizza instead. Not saying its right or ethical. Saying its obvious.
According to this Palestine source (https://english.wafa.ps/Pages/Details/129983) there are ~14m Palestinians, of which 5.3m in Historical Palestine (current-day Israel and Palestine). So what you're saying is that the lesser evil is killing at least 5.3m people and probably (a lot) more?
How is that the less evil than accepting the previous status quo, even if that inludes an awful attack like the one Israel is currently still reeling from? And that is assuming there is absolutely no possible way of actually improving the situation at all ever, which you have apparently given up on entirely?
On October 15 2023 03:59 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2023 03:44 Acrofales wrote:On October 15 2023 02:45 ChristianS wrote:
It’s worth noting this argument is a justification for killing civilians who *aren’t currently associated with Hamas* – just because they might radicalize at some point in the future. It’s assumed that anybody actually associated with the enemy will just be summarily executed.
Normally people aren’t so war-crime-thirsty as Mohdoo, and we would talk about things like “killing enemy combatants trying to surrender” with concern and regret. Civilians are assumed to not be *targets* – the only hard conversations are about how much accidental/unintended death is acceptable to cause to noncombatants while targeting actual enemies.
Hey, if we’re killing civilians just in case they radicalize in the future, are we trying to distinguish the higher-risk civilians? Or are we just considering the entire population of 2 million people possibly infected with the werewolf bug and necessary to be executed? After the Mohdoo Island discussion a couple years ago, I should probably not assume opposition to the “round them all up and put them in camps” option. I agree and am not particularly hopeful about the chances of a nuanced discussion. However, my starting point was mostly that werewolves are slavering monstrosities for which the only solution is execution. I don't believe that applies to any human, not even the worst of Hamas (or Anders Breivik, Ted Bundy, Slobodan Milosevic or Vladimir Putin). However Mohdoo insisted that the equivocation between Hamas and slavering monstrosities was appropriate and the only solution was therefore summary execution for any member of Hamas with no shades of grey anywhere in sight. So my follow-up was a softball for him to back down from "we should at the very least murder everybody remotely affiliated with Hamas" as the starting point and bare minimum he thinks is necessary, without even getting to the bit where we also accept execution of everyone who might in the future become affiliated with Hamas. Since I’ve been the one answering questions rather than asking them, let me first make sure I understand your perspective: are you saying there is a zero violence solution right now? Is there a way for Israel to have confidence Hamas will not try to kill Israelis? So far, I have only seen people suggest things that they agree are deeply unlikely if not impossible as a solution. Is there a solution that you think is likely to occur which does not involve violence on either side? I want to make sure I am understanding your perspective before I respond because I don’t want to respond to the wrong ideas.
I don't think there is a zero-violence solution. I think that the current path Israel is on is (1) not going to achieve its goal of whiping out anti-Israeli radicalism among Palestineans, even if it achieves the stated goal of wiping out Hamas, and even that is doubtful. And (2) is going to lead to many many many more innocent deaths.
That is, unless they go full scorched earth genocide and kill about the same number of innocent Arabs as the Nazis killed jews in the holocaust. And it's still doubtful their goal would be achieved, because while Palestinians aren't super popular, if they start to get rounded up and sent to gas chambers, Israel's neighbours (and Iran) will definitely not stand idly by.
So, zero-violence is a pipe dream, and genocide is not a solution, so what actually could be done? Well, it isn't going to be easy, and it isn't going to be fast. And it will require commitment to achieving a stable solution from a majority as well as state actors. No doubt, both sides will have to deal with attacks and aggression for most of the process, and there will be a part of both sides calling loudly about how this is a sell-out. But essentially, Israel will need to rethink their entire approach to dealing with Palestina, and the world will need to rethink their investment in the region in order to achieve stability (peace is probably a generation or two away even if you achieve some stability). I already wrote what I think such stability might look like, and agree with you that it involves demilitarizing Israel (and preventing Palestina from militarizing). It also involves figuring out an equitable division of land. Here is a pretty decent map that highlights the problem from a geographical point of view:
![[image loading]](https://fanack.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/state-borders_israel_state_400px_02_2398b22cbf.jpg)
I think it's fair to say that Galilee is firmly and irrevocably Israel, but Gaza cannot be left as it is, as it is an unlivable stretch of desert with far too many people on it. A larger stretch of the Negev desert will need to be restored to Palestine than the 1967 borders, considering the vast population growth: the Palestinian population (not only Gaza) has grown from slightly over a million in 1967 to over 5m today. Israel has grown similarly (at only a slightly slower rate), meaning overall the problem now includes severe overpopulation of what is, essentially, inhospitable desert land.
So how do we get from where we are to where people are able and willing to sit down and actually try to achieve a solution? Well, obviously not by flattening Gaza, and equally obviously not by repeatedly massacring kibutzes. So as long as both sides still seem committed to doing that, I say the best solution is to condemn both sides escalating violence, and hope that when it does eventually die down, whoever step up to lead Israel and Palestina, are serious about giving peace a try.
|
Russian Federation40186 Posts
Hypothetical demilitarisation of Israel has one minor (/s) issue: what are you going to do about it's neighbours? As we learn from history, the only thing stopping them is the fact that Israel is militarised enough. As such, it is yet another option straight from land of pink unicorns unless you go ahead and demilitarise entirety of MENA in process. In which case you are now proposing what is essentially an occupation of Afghanistan but 100 times larger. I think the two attempts at that failing is enough of a hint, isn't it?
Talking about Arab neighbours, the fact that they don't share the blame for state of Palestine every time the topic is brought up, is something i find deeply hilarious.
|
On October 15 2023 08:08 lolfail9001 wrote:
Hypothetical demilitarisation of Israel has one minor (/s) issue: what are you going to do about it's neighbours? As we learn from history, the only thing stopping them is the fact that Israel is militarised enough. As such, it is yet another option straight from land of pink unicorns unless you go ahead and demilitarise entirety of MENA in process. In which case you are now proposing what is essentially an occupation of Afghanistan but 100 times larger. I think the two attempts at that failing is enough of a hint, isn't it?
Talking about Arab neighbours, the fact that they don't share the blame for state of Palestine every time the topic is brought up, is something i find deeply hilarious.
If you scroll back a few pages you'll find I mentioned that they (1) guarantee Israel's borders and (2) a large UN peacekeeping force is permanently stationed there tasked with protecting the borders (as well as dealing with internal strife). I agree that any remotely peaceful solution will require the cooperation of Israel's neighbours. Luckily a lot has changed since the Yom Kippur war, and I'd say peace would be fairly easily accomplished with Egypt and Jordan. If Hezbollah is defanged then Lebanon is easy too, which leaves Syria. Maybe they can be strongarmed into trying if Golan Heights are returned?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
