naraburns nihil supernum
7mo ago
(text post)
28926 thread views
Israel-Gaza Megathread #1
This is a megathread for any posts on the conflict between (so far, and so far as I know) Hamas and the Israeli government, as well as related geopolitics. Culture War thread rules apply.
How would Zionists behave if they were in the Palestinian position?
This is a key question for determining the moral severity of the terrorist attacks we saw this weekend. A common criticism of Hamas is that they engage in terrorism against civilians whereas their morally enlightened (ostensibly) Israeli cousins only attack military targets. But I think this ignores the fact that Israel has the luxury of successfully hitting military targets. Israel can kill just as many civilians as Hamas by targeting military sites, while also killing relevant military leaders and defending against unwanted criticism. Yet at the end of the day, the same if not more civilians are killed, and the same terror is instilled in the enemy’s civilian population. Regarding an Israeli missile attack in May which killed ten civilians, Amnesty writes:
They were launched into densely populated urban areas at 2am when families were sleeping at home, which suggests that those who planned and authorized the attacks anticipated – and likely disregarded – the disproportionate harm to civilians. Intentionally launching disproportionate attacks, a pattern Amnesty International has documented in previous Israeli operations, is a war crime.
The idea that it is morally acceptable to kill civilians when you also kill military targets at the same time is often brought up when American bombings in Japan during WWII are discussed. However, I’m not convinced that there is a clear moral difference between Hamas actions and, say, the firebombing of Tokyo, where as many as 100k were killed, the vast majority being civilians.
Back to the question at hand, we know that Zionists had no issue bombing embassies and killing non-combatants in order to colonize the land of what is now called Israel. In the 40s, they notably bombed a British embassy, and in the 50s the Israeli government pressured Britain and Italy not to investigate the bombing. Recently, an Israeli historian has claimed that Zionists were responsible for the bombings targeting the Jews of Baghdad in order to pressure Jews to migrate and settle Israel. So, back when Israel’s position was more similar to Palestine, they did in fact engage in terrorist activity. If Israeli militants would behave as Hamas militants were they in that position, then the immorality of Hamas conduct is greatly diminished in severity.
Is Joe more immoral than Fred if the action Joe takes is of the same quality Fred would take, were Fred in Joe’s position? The weight of moral philosophy says no. At worst they are equally immoral. But Joe can’t be worse than Fred, if Fred would do the same thing. Joe is only morally worse than Fred if he would behave worse than Fred.
Do you think that one group is more immoral than another simply because of chance? So if two people try to kill each other equally, the one whose gun didn’t jam is more immoral? If two people attempt adultery, the immoral one is the one who is more attractive? I don’t think I’m representing your view correctly here. In the case of Hamas vs Israel, I’m saying Hamas can’t be “more immoral than Israel” if Israel would do the same to them all things being equal. This doesn’t imply that international law is suddenly abolished or that the actions can’t be censured by some third party nation. I’m only making an assertion about morality relative to the two. So an application would be that neither Hamas nor Israel get to claim righteousness or moral high ground.
It’s unknowable but we can still consider things that are likely.
I am saying your imaginings about what Zionists would do if in the same situation as Hamas have no weight. You're taking it as a given that the two groups are morally equivalent, using that belief to assert that the Zionists would do the same in reversed circumstances, and then using that assertion to claim the two groups are morally equivalent. It's entirely circular. In reality, we've got no evidence that, in a reversed situation, that the Zionists would target civilians and rape and murder them and drag their bodies through the streets. Their big well-known terrorist action was the bombing of British administrative headquarters in the King David Hotel, which isn't similar.
Per Richard Catling regarding the Deir Yassin massacre in the 40s by Zionists, just weeks before the creation of Israel:
On 14th April at 10 a.m. I visited Silwan village accompanied by a doctor and a nurse from the Government Hospital in Jerusalem and a member of the Arab Women's Union […] I interviewed many of the women folk in order to glean some information on any atrocities committed in Deir Yassin but the majority of those women are very shy and reluctant to relate their experiences especially in matters concerning sexual assault and they need great coaxing before they will divulge any information. The recording of statements is hampered also by the hysterical state of the women who often break down many times whilst the statement is being recorded. There is, however, no doubt that many sexual atrocities were committed by the attacking Jews. Many young schoolgirls were raped and later slaughtered. Old women were also molested. One story is current concerning a case in which a young girl was literally torn in two. Many infants were also butchered and killed. I also saw one old woman who gave her age as one hundred and four who had been severely beaten about the head with rifle butts. Women had bracelets torn from their arms and rings from their fingers and parts of some of the women's ears were severed in order to remove earrings
The men were paraded in the streets of Jerusalem and spat on before being executed.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
How would Zionists behave if they were in the Palestinian position?
This is a key question for determining the moral severity of the terrorist attacks we saw this weekend. A common criticism of Hamas is that they engage in terrorism against civilians whereas their morally enlightened (ostensibly) Israeli cousins only attack military targets. But I think this ignores the fact that Israel has the luxury of successfully hitting military targets. Israel can kill just as many civilians as Hamas by targeting military sites, while also killing relevant military leaders and defending against unwanted criticism. Yet at the end of the day, the same if not more civilians are killed, and the same terror is instilled in the enemy’s civilian population. Regarding an Israeli missile attack in May which killed ten civilians, Amnesty writes:
The idea that it is morally acceptable to kill civilians when you also kill military targets at the same time is often brought up when American bombings in Japan during WWII are discussed. However, I’m not convinced that there is a clear moral difference between Hamas actions and, say, the firebombing of Tokyo, where as many as 100k were killed, the vast majority being civilians.
Back to the question at hand, we know that Zionists had no issue bombing embassies and killing non-combatants in order to colonize the land of what is now called Israel. In the 40s, they notably bombed a British embassy, and in the 50s the Israeli government pressured Britain and Italy not to investigate the bombing. Recently, an Israeli historian has claimed that Zionists were responsible for the bombings targeting the Jews of Baghdad in order to pressure Jews to migrate and settle Israel. So, back when Israel’s position was more similar to Palestine, they did in fact engage in terrorist activity. If Israeli militants would behave as Hamas militants were they in that position, then the immorality of Hamas conduct is greatly diminished in severity.
No, it really isn't. It's a way to excuse the attacks by inventing a straw Zionist who would have acted the same or even worse.
Is Joe more immoral than Fred if the action Joe takes is of the same quality Fred would take, were Fred in Joe’s position? The weight of moral philosophy says no. At worst they are equally immoral. But Joe can’t be worse than Fred, if Fred would do the same thing. Joe is only morally worse than Fred if he would behave worse than Fred.
Then the weight of moral philosophy is approximately the same as the weight of the angels dancing on pinheads.
"You would have done the same if you were in my position, therefore what I did is OK" is probably false and certainly unprovable in this case.
Do you think that one group is more immoral than another simply because of chance? So if two people try to kill each other equally, the one whose gun didn’t jam is more immoral? If two people attempt adultery, the immoral one is the one who is more attractive? I don’t think I’m representing your view correctly here. In the case of Hamas vs Israel, I’m saying Hamas can’t be “more immoral than Israel” if Israel would do the same to them all things being equal. This doesn’t imply that international law is suddenly abolished or that the actions can’t be censured by some third party nation. I’m only making an assertion about morality relative to the two. So an application would be that neither Hamas nor Israel get to claim righteousness or moral high ground.
It’s unknowable but we can still consider things that are likely.
I am saying your imaginings about what Zionists would do if in the same situation as Hamas have no weight. You're taking it as a given that the two groups are morally equivalent, using that belief to assert that the Zionists would do the same in reversed circumstances, and then using that assertion to claim the two groups are morally equivalent. It's entirely circular. In reality, we've got no evidence that, in a reversed situation, that the Zionists would target civilians and rape and murder them and drag their bodies through the streets. Their big well-known terrorist action was the bombing of British administrative headquarters in the King David Hotel, which isn't similar.
I am not taking it as a given.
Per Richard Catling regarding the Deir Yassin massacre in the 40s by Zionists, just weeks before the creation of Israel:
The men were paraded in the streets of Jerusalem and spat on before being executed.
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