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.
Max Blumenthal’s TheGrayZone has an interesting article compiling accounts of Israel shelling / shooting its own citizens during the October 7 attack. Lots of citations to mainstream newspapers; of course, that shouldn’t preclude being skeptical of his overall point. Some excerpts:
Tuval Escapa, a member of the security team for Kibbutz Be’eri, set up a hotline to coordinate between kibbutz residents and the Israeli army. He told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz that as desperation began to set in, “the commanders in the field made difficult decisions – including shelling houses on their occupants in order to eliminate the terrorists along with the hostages.”
An Israeli woman named Yasmin Porat confirmed in an interview with Israel Radio that the military “undoubtedly” killed numerous Israeli noncombatants during gun battles with Hamas militants on October 7. “They eliminated everyone, including the hostages,” she stated, referring to Israeli special forces.
According to Haaretz, the army was only able to restore control over Be’eri after admittedly “shelling” the homes of Israelis who had been taken captive. “The price was terrible: at least 112 Be’eri residents were killed,” the paper chronicled. “Others were kidnapped. Yesterday, 11 days after the massacre, the bodies of a mother and her son were discovered in one of the destroyed houses. It is believed that more bodies are still lying in the rubble.”
Hitting low-probability potential targets in order to prevent hostages leaving Israel — regardless of whether it kills the hostages — would be in line with Israel’s Hannibal Directive. Examples of this in the past include —
The Hannibal Directive was invoked in October 2000 after the Hezbollah capture of three Israeli soldiers in the Israeli-occupied Shebaa Farms area. An Israeli border patrol was attacked by a Hezbollah squad with rockets and automatic fire. St.-Sgt. Adi Avitan, St.-Sgt. Benyamin Avraham and St.-Sgt. Omar Sawaid were captured and brought over the ceasefire line into Lebanon by their captors. When the abduction was discovered, the Northern Command ordered a "Hannibal situation". Israeli attack helicopters fired at 26 moving vehicles in the area since they assumed that the abducted soldiers were transported in one of them.
During the 2014 Gaza War, the third major offensive launched by Israel in Gaza since 2008, IDF Givati Brigade Lieutenant Hadar Goldin was captured by Hamas soldiers after a brief skirmish on August 1, despite the announcement of a 72-hour ceasefire agreement earlier that day. Israel then reportedly initiated the Hannibal Directive, ultimately resulting in carnage dubbed "Black Friday. The IDF carried out air and ground attacks on residential areas of Rafah during the Hannibal Directive attempt to prevent capture of Lt. Goldin. A2015 joint report by Amnesty International and Forensic Architecture found that Israel's indiscriminate violence against all human life amounted to war crimes. […] The massive Israeli bombardment killed between 135 and 200 Palestinian civilians, including 75 children, in the three hours following the suspected capture of the one Israeli soldier.
I wonder how many of the civilians and particularly the children were actually killed as part of the Hannibal Directive. I guess it’s unlikely we will ever know. How would it change the moral calculus if some quantity of the Israeli children killed were actually shelled by the IDF in an attempt to prevent them becoming hostages and kill the hostage-takers?
That's quite fucked up and I don't see how such policies would not deeply undermine the morale of IDF conscripts. Big difference in mindset between "no man left behind" versus having to worry about your own allies deliberately killing you if you get cut off and stranded, incapacitated by wounds or otherwise put at high risk of capture.
Wasn't some Israeli soldiers literally lynched and mutilated by a palestinian mob couple of years ago?
No man left behind means also coup de grace. With reports about mass rape, breasts cut off (thankfully the case I read about was post mortem) and people set on fire - if a hamas vehicle is taking hostages to gaza and you can lob a rocket into it - probably would be better for your people inside.
I'd take my chances as a POW over getting straight up merked by your own men. Color me skeptical that it is about sparing troops the risk of some mob violence versus a political consideration seeking to deny enemy forces POWs that could be used in negotiations and prisoner exchanges. Hamas, Hezbollah, etc aren't Chaos cultists from Warhammer 40k or Aztec raiders gathering human sacrifices and so on, however much the Israeli gov tries to portray them as such.
By the numbers, what IS the median experience of an Israeli taken hostage? What's the % on being released? The % on being tortured before being released? The % on just never being seen again? Honest question.
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 -
Max Blumenthal’s TheGrayZone has an interesting article compiling accounts of Israel shelling / shooting its own citizens during the October 7 attack. Lots of citations to mainstream newspapers; of course, that shouldn’t preclude being skeptical of his overall point. Some excerpts:
Hitting low-probability potential targets in order to prevent hostages leaving Israel — regardless of whether it kills the hostages — would be in line with Israel’s Hannibal Directive. Examples of this in the past include —
I wonder how many of the civilians and particularly the children were actually killed as part of the Hannibal Directive. I guess it’s unlikely we will ever know. How would it change the moral calculus if some quantity of the Israeli children killed were actually shelled by the IDF in an attempt to prevent them becoming hostages and kill the hostage-takers?
That's quite fucked up and I don't see how such policies would not deeply undermine the morale of IDF conscripts. Big difference in mindset between "no man left behind" versus having to worry about your own allies deliberately killing you if you get cut off and stranded, incapacitated by wounds or otherwise put at high risk of capture.
Wasn't some Israeli soldiers literally lynched and mutilated by a palestinian mob couple of years ago?
No man left behind means also coup de grace. With reports about mass rape, breasts cut off (thankfully the case I read about was post mortem) and people set on fire - if a hamas vehicle is taking hostages to gaza and you can lob a rocket into it - probably would be better for your people inside.
This incident in 2000? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Ramallah_lynching
I'd take my chances as a POW over getting straight up merked by your own men. Color me skeptical that it is about sparing troops the risk of some mob violence versus a political consideration seeking to deny enemy forces POWs that could be used in negotiations and prisoner exchanges. Hamas, Hezbollah, etc aren't Chaos cultists from Warhammer 40k or Aztec raiders gathering human sacrifices and so on, however much the Israeli gov tries to portray them as such.
By the numbers, what IS the median experience of an Israeli taken hostage? What's the % on being released? The % on being tortured before being released? The % on just never being seen again? Honest question.
Definitely a higher survival rate than being the recipient of intentional friendly fire.
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