This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
It's the constant prevarications that make it so hard for me to take these complaints seriously.
Oh, OK, that sounds really, really bad.
Wait, what? If they're firing indiscriminately on civilians seeking aid, how is this number not zero? Is the claim that Palestinians are charging these aid stations under fire, climbing through concertina wire, and some few manage to escape with food? ... Or are they not actually firing indiscriminately on civilians seeking aid? I don't doubt civilians have been shot in these places -- It wouldn't even be hard convince me this is a deliberate strategy to deter Palestinians from accepting food aid! -- but that's not what the word 'indiscriminate' means.
How is it, exactly, that Aguilar can confidently make statements of fact about others' intentions? Did they tell him that? If they did, I'm pretty sure he'd have said. Is he a mind reader? Actually, I rather doubt he's met whoever decided on the placement of the distribution locations; he can read minds at a distance, I suppose. Again, I'm not even saying that's not the intention! I don't know! But he doesn't either, and presenting this as though it's certain is dishonest.
What nonsense is this? Are the distribution locations in active combat zones or not? Anyway, armor-piercing rounds are, obviously, intended for piercing armor. Against unarmored targets, they're less lethal than hollow points. Unarmed civilians, notably, are unlikely to have armor. As for the capacity to penetrate cover: I thought these locations were designed to be death traps? Why would they leave convenient cover in the killing field? Anyway, I don't see the logic in permitting the individuals guarding the site to have weapons, but only so long as they'll be ineffective against a prepared adversary. (Especially after admitting there are prepared adversaries in the area.) I have to say, it seems very weird to me this would be a war crime. Let me do some reading...
Oh, it's not a war crime.
The M855 green tip (the American version of the SS109) is the standard issue round for all of NATO! It's actually not some super special armor-piercing variant, it's what they give every last grunt. Safe to say, issuing this round is not illegal.
It sure is designed to kill, that's true -- is this former green beret confused about the purpose of firearms and their ammunition? Or is he just so contemptuous of his audience that he believes they are? As I noted, they're less deadly against unarmored civilians than hollow points, but here's something I didn't know until I looked into it: using those is (arguably) a war crime! I'm deeply curious what round Aguilar believes would be appropriate; unfortunately, he doesn't say. Rubber bullets? Taking rubber bullets into a situation where you might well get shot at with real bullets is incredibly dumb, but that's not the real problem with the idea: no one even makes rubber bullets in 5.56. They don't exist. Blanks, perhaps?
Aguilar makes some other points that are harder to contest -- for all I know, they are using concertina wire inappropriately -- but I see very little reason to take anything he says seriously given the obvious errors -- I struggle not to say 'lie,' but unlike him, I'm willing to extend the charity to allow he might just be incorrect -- I found briefly skimming the article.
Would that be the thread with several x-ray images of full power rifle rounds, with no deformation whatsoever, in the middle of children's heads? I'm genuinely asking; it might be something else. But that's the one I remember, because it was a transparent hoax.
Once again, I'm perfectly willing to believe the IDF is misbehaving in Gaza -- actually, I'd go so far as to say I do believe it, at least to some extent -- but if there's such overwhelming evidence for it, why do their opponents insist on mixing in obvious falsehoods? Just tactically, I'm certain it does far more damage to their position than just sticking to points that aren't trivially refuted.
Indiscriminate means “not marked by careful distinction : deficient in discrimination and discernment”. What definition were you looking at? It does not mean that they fire on everyone they see.
M855 ammo passes through soft tissue more readily, meaning in a large crowd there will be more casualties per shot; his point is that this is a terrible choice for crowd control. Police doing crowd control use rubber bullets etc. In fact the IDF specifically uses .22 LR in Ruger 10/22 rifles for riots in the West Bank. You weren’t aware of this? NATO is not supplying these munitions so I don’t know why you’ve mentioned NATO.
It’s an unarmed civilian population receiving food. Rubber bullets are a smart way to do crowd control.
It was the one confirmed by numerous third party experts who dealt with gunshot wounds. I’m not sure how Israeli pundits responded to it but they may have called them forgeries.
Hm, I don’t see a single error in his testimony. Which error did you have in mind?
Hmm, OK. I read 'indiscriminately opening fire' as 'making no distinction between combatants and civilians,' and since they surely do fire on enemy combatants, they must also fire on civilians at similar rates. Which is obviously untrue, or no aid would be distributed. Is it your position that they don't discriminate on that basis at all (that is, they're just as likely to return fire at enemy combatants as to fire at random civilians), or that they do, but without sufficient care? (Which would be an opinion, not a fact, but whatever.)
Maybe that's my misread.
He explicitly says the rifles are OK. .22 LR is a different caliber which those rifles can't shoot. So far as I know, there is no widely used 5.56 munition that's less deadly than M855. (Well, there's less reliable/accurate ammo; this makes civilian casualties more likely, not less.) There are rounds which have less penetration, sure: hollow points, the use of which would actually be a war crime. If he wanted to argue 5.56 rifles were inappropriate, he could have done so. Instead he fixated on the bog-standard ammo, emphasizing its spectacular lethality, and, bizarrely, claiming its issue (not even its use!) is a war crime.
I mention NATO because as a rule it can be assumed that using the standard-issue munition of the world's premier military alliance -- the whole thing, not just America, who hasn't signed on to every treaty -- is not a war crime. It's additionally abundant and, due to economies of scale, pretty cheap for its quality. I'm only harping on this because he chose to harp on it.
Who said the rifles are intended exclusively for crowd control? He says repeatedly there's active fighting in these areas -- there's active fighting in all of Gaza, as he acknowledges elsewhere, but he claims these areas are especially bad. If there's serious risk of these sites coming under fire from enemy combatants, these rifles are suitable for engaging them. If there's not, then it sounds like it's actually not an active combat zone.
Well, the one I'm talking about was physically impossible. I recall there were a number of 'experts' who swore by it, thereby proving that either they're not experts or they're willing to flagrantly lie to propagandize against Israel. It's perfectly possible some members of the IDF have shot children for sport -- I certainly can't prove otherwise, and there might well be other, real proof -- but they weren't the ones in those pictures.
I note you didn't address the claim that issuing M855 is a war crime. Here's what he said:
Can you please point me towards the treaty, the case law, anything at all, that makes carrying M855 a war crime in and of itself?
You’re interpreting his statements somewhat uncharitably. Remember that he’s explaining these things in a long video, verbally and narratively, so the words have to be understood in the context.
Elsewhere he specifies in what sense he means indiscriminate killing:
We can surmise that this is what he means by war crimes, that using a rifle with live bullets to deal with civilian crowd control is a war crime. This is a war crime under The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Article 8 (Article 8(2)(b)(i) and 8(2)(e)(i)). In the DemocracyNow video he previously said that razor wire is a war crime —
———
He says that the “fully automatic weapons” were not in itself a war crime. Probably because it can be used with some less-than-lethal munition. Then, when he mentions the ammunition which “in and of itself” is a war crime, he clarifies —
It’s reasonable to assume that the “action” he’s talking about is starving children getting a little too close or not disseminating as quickly as the group wants, and then being shot with live ammo.
Hmm, alright, I can extend some tolerance towards sloppiness in extemporaneous verbal remarks. I still think most of the ammo paragraph is highly misleading nonsense, but I'm willing to file it under verbal diarrhea and take your interpretation at face value. And, sure, the razor wire might be a war crime; like I said, I didn't look into it.
As to the meat of the matter: The Rome Statute you're citing is this one?
(If I've somehow gotten the wrong one: Sorry, and don't bother reading the rest of the comment.)
(Both 8(2)(b)(i) and 8(2)(e)(i) have the same text; one is a list of 'other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law' and the other 'Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character, within the established framework of international law.' Not wholly clear which applies myself, but the rule is the same.)
(Israel hasn't signed this statute, but I'll concede the point if the behavior is a war crime by any international standard with substantial support.)
This is... not a very strict clause. I, perhaps naively, thought the standard was much higher. Especially since this is the infamous ICC which the US and Israel refuse to subject themselves to.
As best as I can tell, this statute doesn't distinguish between lethal and nonlethal weapons at all. (Not just this clause; I searched the whole thing for 'lethal' and various non-lethal technologies, and read all of 8(2)(b).) It's just as much a war crime to 'direct attacks' with a baton (or .22 LR rubber bullets) against civilians in general or 'against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities' as with a machine gun. Conversely, if the individual civilian is taking direct part in hostilities, it doesn't seem that they're entitled to any protection under this clause (other clauses and statutes certainly limit what might be done with them even then, but normal infantry rifles with normal ammunition certainly isn't forbidden by 8(2)(b)(xx)). It also does not distinguish between armed and unarmed civilians who are taking a direct part in hostilities.*
So when he says
That's not supported by the statute. They might not need those rifles to defend their lives against an unarmed population, but they're not forbidden from doing so. If they're 'defending their lives,' the individuals threatening them are certainly taking a direct part in hostilities -- have blown way past that standard -- and so may be shot. Even if they accidentally hit other civilians in the process of shooting them; that's not 'intentionally directing attacks' at them. That could run afoul of 8(2)(b)(iv):
But I think it would not in general. The attack must be launched knowing it will cause incidental loss of life or injury, which applies to a missile strike but generally wouldn't to aiming at a particular person and missing. Maybe it'd apply to over penetration? Even then I'm not sure you know it'll happen and that the collateral damage will be clearly excessive.
Concerningly, I'm not even seeing any protections against negligence (except in the narrow sense of 8(2)(b)(iv)) or even deliberately structuring the sites so as to maximize the probability that incidental loss of life that is not clearly excessive will occur. (I suppose this arguably could include issuing standard rifles to soldiers with crowd control responsibilities, provided you could somehow prove that was the intention. Not easy at all, especially if there's any meaningful chance they'll encounter armed, organized opposition.) Perhaps the court would be willing to fill in the gaps there, but it's not in the statute.
If they deliberately shoot civilians who aren't fighting, yeah, that's a war crime. And he's alleging that has happened, fair. But the nature of the rifles is orthogonal to its status as a war crime.
('Not a war crime' is not the same thing as 'morally correct,' or 'tactically wise.' I address only the first, as that's the question at hand.)
* I'm pretty sure? There is 8(2)(b)(vi) that forbids:
My read is that someone who is attacking without weapons has not surrendered in any sense, even if laying down one's arms is a sign of surrender in general.
This, as with any law, will be pursued with litigation and deliberation to work out details. The entire application of law is not based on a single sentence with no rational determination applying to it. The above, along with Additional Protocol I, Article 54, “ Protection of objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population”, which states “Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited”, leads one to think that Israel is committing war crimes. In addition,
is a crime, and regarding said relief, if
I mean, it won't be. Israel hasn't signed on to this statute. Apologies if I'm misunderstanding something, but right now it seems to me that:
OK? But that's not what we're talking about. I could have provided a lengthy list of Hamas' war crimes per the statute, but I didn't because that wasn't relevant. The starvation charge has nothing to do with the carrying-lethal-weapons charge. It is actually important to get the details right in these matters, isn't it? War crimes aren't fungible, you can't just substitute another one when it turns out your initial accusation (which was at best sanewashing Aguilar's incoherent nonsense) was untrue. It's serious business and allegations, if they are to be taken seriously, ought to made with care and precision.
I feel comfortable saying neither you nor Aguilar meet this minimum standard.
I get you think Israel is really, really bad. And sure, maybe it is. But this defense is not only not convincing, it's providing ammunition to Zionists who say their opponents have no regard for the truth and will say anything at all to make them look bad because they just despise Jews that much. It's exactly the behavior I complained about in my first post: if you have rock-solid complaints, focus on those and don't make up other grievances to drive the point home. (Or defend Aguilar when he does that.) Cause right now I'm thinking you actually don't.
It does not matter that Israel has not signed on to the first Additional Protocol, because it’s now customary international law, making it binding to Israel (and to everyone). This was even reiterated in 2020 by Israel:
Now, again, it doesn’t matter that Israel isn’t a signatory whatsoever, and even their opinion on what constitutes international custom isn’t determinative of anything, but it’s telling that they do not even specify article 54 as a reason for their not being signatory. (That’s, of course, the purpose of the lawyerly language that follows; but lawyerly language will not save malefactors from either God or international courts of law). This is probably because, as of few months ago, any reasonable nation would have considered “you’re not allowed to purposefully starve civilians” part of the custom of international law.
It is only by your own reading that he compares M855 to another lethal ammo type, rather than the various sub-lethal ammo types. I don’t consider this any point against him, and I think it is unreasonable to read his sentence as indicating such. He was a commander of special operations who previously fought ISIS, and previously commanded the entirety of the West Asian special operations (I’m pretty sure; from something I found online). He knows his munitions.
I think he’s shocked that he was equipped like this, with lethal rounds, when tasked with giving aid to starving unarmed people. Maybe he doesn’t assume people would assume the ammo type is so lethal. He’s talking to normal people, not military guys. As I sourced to you in his video, his group was using the lethal ammunition to disperse the crowd. This all seems quite reasonable to me.
If they’re shooting civilians, who are not endangering their lives, then it constitutes directing attacks against the civilian population. There are ample sources of Israel doing this, not just from Aguilar. So I provided you another video where he explains that this is what’s happening.
It was not in self-defense, it was in crowd dispersal.
It’s very obviously against the statute to kill civilians, who are not endangering their lives, as evidenced in what I sent you, no matter what the excuse is. This is according to Aguilar’s testimony. I don’t know how many more times I can reword this to someone who is intent on finding every plausible way to misinterpret it. Remember, it’s a long video of him talking, not writing a high school thesis; the meaning of what he says is clear when you listen to the audio or even just read what he says with an holistic understanding (not just focusing on the verbiage of an isolated sentence).
Huh? It’s another example. All of this is talked about in the OP. So I’m providing you another example, if you’re for some reason intent on disagreeing with Aguilar because he didn’t talk about munitions neurotically enough or something, or if you think he meant the starving children were threatening his life.
I feel comfortable agreeing with you that you feel comfortable saying a lot of things. In this, we can find some common ground. I guess because we’re rehashing:
You weren’t familiar, at all, with what is normatively used in crowd control scenarios in Israel, even for lethal ammo. I corrected you.
You read his statement as implying that a lesser-lethal ammo can go in his specific gun, rather than sub-lethal ammo, which is just a misreading.
You read his statement as indicating that the crowd was trying to assault them, which is just wrong, so I provided another source clarifying that the civilians never posed a risk.
You had no idea about the concept of customary international law, or that the first protocol is binding to Israel insofar as it is customary
Yeah, sure, in the story he tells the crowd wasn't trying to assault him. Did I ever once claim that wasn't a war crime? I'm pretty sure I agreed it was.
But this is the quote we're talking about:
You quoted that yourself. You didn't bold it -- you bolded 'against an unarmed population,' which isn't relevant to the statute. (Being unarmed is not sufficient to claim protection under 8(2)(b)(i), as I explained. Maybe you disagree, but you haven't said so yet.) Was I to assume that meant you disagreed? Presumably not, given you also said, 'Hm, I don’t see a single error in his testimony.' But no, it's not an error, it's just that, taken holistically, his words mean something other than what he said. Fine. The tone of my last message would have been very different if you'd just pointed that out instead of saying:
With no effort to clarify that I'd completely misinterpreted what you were calling a crime. I misread things sometimes, I won't lie. But it really doesn't feel like I'm the one who isn't trying to achieve mutual understanding.
But forget what he said. Here's what you said -- not off-the-cuff, not in a video:
The statute does not say that. It forbids directing any attack whatsoever 'against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities.' The fact that attack is performed with a rifle with live bullets is entirely irrelevant. I'm not ignoring your point that the IDF uses rubber bullets in the West Bank, it just has nothing to do with the statute as best as I can tell. And what does 'deal[ing] with civilian crowd control' actually mean? Cause if you don't actually shoot any civilians who aren't taking a direct part in hostilities (or act in one of the other manners I described in my previous comment), it's simply not a war crime. Are you under the impression that civilian crowd control is impossible without attacking civilians who take no hostile action? If so, you believe that civilian crowd control is a war crime per se, since, again, the weapon used in the attack makes no difference. If not, then it's entirely possible to deal with civilian crowd control while armed with a rifle with live bullets and not commit a war crime.
Or am I taking you out of context too? I mean, it's a complete thought. In text. Is the fact you described an example of something else entirely ('starving children getting a little too close or not disseminating as quickly as the group wants, and then being shot with live ammo') afterward meant to clarify that you didn't mean what you said?
It's not like it's not important. Whether Israel is in fact having its forces 'us[e] a rifle with live bullets to deal with civilian crowd control' is trivial to establish; the details of any particular incident are much, much harder. And there's number of violations, and the fact that it is (allegedly) policy; policy in violation of international law is much more damning than bad behavior from individual soldiers.
If I didn't bother to check the cite and replied, 'Oh, wow, and Aguilar says every contractor is using a rifle with live bullets to deal with civilian crowd control! That must be hundreds or maybe thousands of violations of international law right there!' would you have corrected me and clarified the war crime is actually just using those rifles to shoot non-violent civilians? Would you have said, 'Aguilar's remarks were off-the-cuff, you can't take his words at face value?' Or are you just retreating to the motte after I've challenged the bailey?
It's interesting that you accuse me of hostile misreading. Here are the three things I said on this subject:
and
and
And your response:
I'm pretty sure Israel's opinion on this question matters a great deal for whether the trial is ever going to happen. Or is there a date set for Netanyahu's ICC trial? It's gotta be pretty soon, they put out the warrant for his arrest ages ago. I never said that Israel wasn't subject to the ICC's jurisdiction -- a topic on which I have no strong opinion and am not particularly interested in arguing about, because it doesn't matter when I already said I'd concede if the behavior is a war crime by the Rome Statute regardless. I certainly didn't indicate I thought the ICC (and the ICJ, and the Red Cross, and whoever else) accepted Israel isn't subject to it. It's impossible not to hear them shouting that it is.
I said:
That Israel hasn't signed it (True)
That the US and Israel refuse to subject themselves to it (Only 98% True! Israel contests that some or all of the First and Second Additional Protocols do not reflect customary law (they name specific articles, but say explicitly the list is non-exhaustive), which does not conclusively rule out the possibility that they accept at least one provision somewhere in the document is customary! They've never surrendered any of their citizens for trial by the ICC, though, and there's no indication that's going to change. Mea culpa.)
the trial is never going to happen (True). Well, no, to be fair I said you know the trial will never happen. If you don't know that, I apologize.
I'm intent on saying true things on super important topics and not saying false things, even if those false things holistically contribute to a true impression. I'm not perfect on that score, I know... for which I've apologized and retracted my erroneous claims.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link