site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  7mo ago (text post)   29943 thread views

Israel-Gaza Megathread #2

This is a refreshed 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.

6
Top Bottom New Old Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

My priors are completely opposite. Zionists have more influence over American news, business, and foreign policy than the Arab world.

I am sure they have more influence over US foreign policy (though Saudi-Arabia isn’t too bad at influencing the US either). Business for sure (though again … Oil is important).

But the media? If “500 killed in suspected Israel Hospital attack” * with an image of an unrelated collapsed building on the frontpage of the NYT is how Zionists control the media … these Zionist overlords are unusually inept. Especially since none of the things in this headline ended up being clearly true in the end.

I am not saying there aren’t many jewish people working in media (though you should see physics if you are looking for an area where I am almost surprised if a person of importance isn’t jewish). Just that the Zionists are clearly not in charge here.

*I don’t remember the exact headline, quoting from vague memory here.

Then why did the media uncritically parrot that 500+, and in some cases 800+, people die in the explosion?

Because that is dramatic. The best description of the issue is not that the media is dominated by Jewish interests, or dominated by Palestinian interests, but that there are multiple competing interest blocs of different strengths. Some are pro-Israeli, some are pro-Palestine, some are pro-getting clicks/views, some are pro truth and so on.

Depending on the intersection of these interests at different times (and depending on what competitors do) then you get different outcomes. If your competitors put out breathless articles about 800 dead in a hospital, then you either follow suit or you lose the race for eyeballs. To get an accurate headline you are going to have to wait some time. So your initial headline will be "Something bad happened but it is unclear exactly what or by exactly who or exactly how bad (and maybe it didn't happen at all)" Which compared to "Israelis MURDER 800 INNOCENT Muslims" is just boring.

Similar to how the beheaded babies story spread swiftly before it could be verified one way or the other.

Much as we get the politicians we deserve, we also get the media we deserve.

Because Israel was (and IMO still is) the most likely culprit given the blast size, the fact that they were bombing Gaza at the time, the fact that there have been tens of thousands of rockets fired and misfired by Hamas that never look like that blast size, and given Israel’s history of bombing health centers over the past 10 years. It’s actually amazing so far that they have managed to reverse the narrative entirely. But that’s why it’s important to see all the evidence of the event and consider it in full.

I honestly don’t understand this take. The original claim was that Israel bombed a hospital and killed at least five hundred.

It turns out that the hospital wasn’t hit but a parking lot next to the hospital. No where near the amount killed. So Hamas lied. Yet you still are believing their central claim.

But it’s worse. There was a 3P feed that certainly seems to support Israel’s story.

However, keep using pejorative Antisemitic claims like “the zionists control the media” to try to wiggle out of the evidence when of course there is plenty of evidence the “zionists” do not control the media.

You dont understand my take because you don’t know much about the attack. The courtyard of the hospital is part of the hospital, and this especially applies when the hospital is treated as a sanctuary where innocent people and bereaving families gather. The damage extended across the entire courtyard. Had the strike hit the actual hospital building, and the courtyard remained unscathed, the casualties would be less! Thousands were using the courtyard as a refuge, and to put that in perspective, at a different hospital (Shifa) there are 30,000 using it as a refuge. You can see the bodies of the dead children here.

Here’s a tweet from the day before the blast: https://twitter.com/fayez15479702/status/1714028862928039980

The Israeli army is demanding for the second time the evacuation of one of the largest hospitals in the Gaza Strip, as well as the evacuation of all citizens sleeping in the hospital courtyard who lost their homes to the bombs. the hospital teams categorically rejected it #Gaza

I’m sure we’ll have someone in the thread now to tell us, well, obviously this tweet is propaganda — because we all know that Hamas had actually planned this cleverly as an IRA-inspired car bomb attack! This is the settled narrative, everything else is antisemitic FUD, like Greta Thunberg’s octopus plushy.

[edit] Also, because this hasn’t been mentioned much, the same hospital was hit by Israel just three days before: https://twitter.com/JustinWelby/status/1713560288148996263

So you think there were thousands of people crowded into that parking lot and despite that the number of dead is likely under 100?

The Anglicans / Episcopalians who run the hospital, who are far and away the most unbiased party in this conflict, talk about hundreds of women and children dead: https://twitter.com/sgcjerusalem/status/1714333560679580130. Richard Sewell, who oversees the hospitals, tweeted before the blast that there were thousands seeking shelter in the hospital.

That guy is clearly simply repeating the casualty numbers from Hamas (he also claims a direct hit on the hospital which did not happen). Not his fault, he's presumably not in gaza himself.

It's impossible for there to have been thousands of people in that courtyard unless they were packed in standing room only like sardines, in which case how could only a few hundred have died? I can buy thousands at the hospital, but not in the courtyard.

Read the thread. It’s disingenuous to imply that hitting the center courtyard where patients and families and refugees gather is not hitting the hospital. And the Anglicans also testify that Israel had hit the hospital on the 14th, and had told them four times to evacuate. And no, he’s not repeating Hamas lines (lol), he is in communication with the hospital leadership.

More comments

None of what you provided is close to evidence of any of your claims.

Evidence? The equivalent, Hamas hitting an Israeli hospital, has already happened twice. Did you hear about the that?

I did, yes. I don’t recall there being casualties.

So you are fine with targeting hospitals provided you suck at war and manage (despite your intentions) to not kill anyone?

This is pretty much the doctrine I've been hearing about in the context of collateral damage to civilians in Gaza from Israeli bombs targeted at Hamas -- so long as you are doing your best to hit military targets, if you accidentally hit a hospital it's OK, right? Hamas' best happens to be indiscriminately spraying crappy rockets across the border.

(to be clear, I think this is bad!)

The point I was making is if you for example attempt to kill a civilian but fail because you suck it doesn’t absolve moral consideration.

If your contention is Hamas was trying to hit a military target, the. That of course is different. But given Hamas targeting civilians this month in deadly encounters I don’t give them the benefit of the doubt.

so long as you are doing your best to hit military targets, if you accidentally hit a hospital it's OK, right?

That is in fact consistent with the laws of war. (Regardless of whether you're referring to Hamas or Israel). For Hamas to have been lobbing rockets at Israel all these years has been acts of war, but not necessarily war crimes if they were trying to hit military installations but just sucked at it. (It seems unlikely that's what they were up to, and certainly their attack a few weeks ago included war crimes, but lobbing rockets at acceptable targets and missing is not a war crime)

The main problem with it is (as with all doctrines that hinge on knowing the intent of belligerent parties) it seems pretty vulnerable to abuse...

That's what it is, though. Likely for the reason that no reasonably honest nation would sign on to a rule of war that required they not kill civilians even by accident.

Oh sure -- but when it comes down to it the 'laws of war' are kind of bullshit that way, and mostly only get applied to the losers of wars. The squishyness is a feature (we have 'collateral damage', you do 'terror attacks') -- but it means there's not much point in thinking too hard about them during ongoing conflicts. You of all people are surely aware of this?

More comments

What is this place?

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.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats