Israel-Hamas War 2023

[Admiral Yi]

Calling people names is a good thing, embrace it.

It's retarded.

So I have these adorable twin nephews who are literally one on a million kids - they are identical twins, and they both have Down Syndrome.

So on the one hand I think it's stupid.  "Retarded" was intended as a replacement for older terms like "mongoloid".  And watching my nephews, they are absolutely developmentally delayed, or retarded.  They're 8 but have the language ability of a 2 year old.  So "retarded" is intellectually a perfectly acceptable word.

But on the other hand - come on.  It's used as an insult, as a slur.  I'm sure you used it that way on the schoolyard - I know I did.

My sister-in-law (the twins mother) has posted on social media about it being the "R" word, trying to encourage people not to use it.  Personally, while I don't treat it like the n-word (you'll notice I did spell it out), it's not a word I'd otherwise use.

[Admiral Yi]

oops

[Sheilbh]

And yet objections were raised during the Vietnam War of bombing villages who's inhabitants were not even communist supporters. 

Yeah my view is the problem is with bombing villages.

And you yourself have pointed out the civilians killed by Hamas were from traditionally Labor voting, Old Israel, presumably peace favoring communities. I could be hashing up this recollection so please correct me if I'm wrong.

I did but I'm sorry - that wasn't what I meant. I'm absolutely not saying that makes any difference to the Hamas attack or that one group of civilians are fair(er) game but another aren't.

What I meant about that the psychological shock was increased by an attack on core Israeli territory since 1948 - not rockets, not settlements but old school Zionist kibbutz that have been around as long as there's been an Israel. For Israelis I think that attack and shock lands differently.

In addition it directly hits the fault-line in Israeli society over the last few years. The IDF were deployed in the West Bank, defending the supporeters of a far-right annexationist coalition; the people who were killed (and who waited hours for the IDF to get there) were opposition voters and people living in the Israel that's been protesting in their hundreds of thousands against that government. That's partly why cabinet ministers are being chased out of hospitals and Netanyahu - I believe still - hasn't really spoken to the families of victims.

Edit: And again - latest poll has over 75% of Israelis wanting Netanyahu gone because of this.

Certainly many here have said that part of their objection to the deaths of Gaza civilians is they are living under coercion.  If these objections have standing then surely so do their obverses: that killing civilians who positively desire death and destruction are less objectionable victims of collateral damage.

I don't think that's right in either of those cases and I think it's the wrong reason to have an objection. More generally I think the issue is less around whether victims of collateral damage are objectionable - I think they all are. Rather I think it's more about what is the military aim of whatever action, have you taken whatever steps you can to avoid harming civilians (obviously still needing to meet the military aim) and is that proportionate. I don't think that changes based on the moral character of the civilians - they're civilians. Obviously it also depends on what tech you've got.

A Hamas communication post in a refugee camp that is a guy with a radio and will unavoidably kill many civilians seems to me to be not proportionate; if it is instead actually a really important comms hub for an entire part of Gaza with key figures then it might be. You'll still face the criticism (rightly) but you should be able to point to the military goal.

It might make you sympathise more with people in Gaza but I don't think it's the right basis for objecting because civilians are civilians whatever regime they live under.

[Jacob]

I concur, Sheilbh, especially when they're children. The children of Hamas supporters are no less deserving of protection than the children of those who abhor Hamas.

[Admiral Yi]

I concur, Sheilbh, especially when they're children. The children of Hamas supporters are no less deserving of protection than the children of those who abhor Hamas.

Then how about when they reach the age of maturity, or when they reach the age to bear arms?  If children are special then everyone else is less special.

Shelf: I think your position sounds like a lawyer's brief.  The law and justice are not always the same thing.

[Josquius]

Well Hamas WANTS there to be lots of civilian casualties. That complicates things.

That isn't a normal thing armies trying to minimize civilian casualties have to face.

Yes?
I don't see anyone disagreeing Hamas are bad here.
The issue is more Israel jumping in the mud with them.

For every example where they prove Hamas was hiding something there's a bunch more where silence remains.

What conclusion would you like us to draw from this?

Pretty clear no?
There's some occasions where Israel bombed a civilian area and they have the excuse to (arguably, mostly, sort of) legitimise it that Hamas was hiding there. And boy do they push these occasions.

On the other hand there's lots of occasions where they bombed a civilian area and have no legitimate excuse. Best stay quiet on those ones.

[Admiral Yi]

Pretty clear no?
There's some occasions where Israel bombed a civilian area and they have the excuse to (arguably, mostly, sort of) legitimise it that Hamas was hiding there. And boy do they push these occasions.

On the other hand there's lots of occasions where they bombed a civilian area and have no legitimate excuse. Best stay quiet on those ones.

I see.  So you think they have perfect intelligence on where military asset are located.  And they should be willing to divulge the sources and methods of that intelligence to the world.

[Admiral Yi]

FYI, based on what I've read about targeting drones in Afghanistan, I assume they have imperfect intelligence.  That they're using a probabilistic system.  Get the probability high enough and you fire for effect.

[Josquius]

Pretty clear no?
There's some occasions where Israel bombed a civilian area and they have the excuse to (arguably, mostly, sort of) legitimise it that Hamas was hiding there. And boy do they push these occasions.

On the other hand there's lots of occasions where they bombed a civilian area and have no legitimate excuse. Best stay quiet on those ones.

I see.  So you think they have perfect intelligence on where military asset are located.  And they should be willing to divulge the sources and methods of that intelligence to the world.

Quoi?
I have no idea how you got to this.

[Sheilbh]

Then how about when they reach the age of maturity, or when they reach the age to bear arms?  If children are special then everyone else is less special.

Shelf: I think your position sounds like a lawyer's brief.  The law and justice are not always the same thing.

Maybe - it's always a risk. Although I'm not really a big believer in law or justice

I don't think justice is the right frame. For a start I think following your argument, civilians could be legitimate targets. I mean what would be the objetion to Russian barrel bombing in Syria, for example. It's an argument you could even use to defend Hamas' attack - Israel is a conscript society after all.

I don't think it's about justice or morality but just trying to place some restraint or some pause into executing a war.

[Iormlund]

Can restraint be in doubt?

Last time I checked there had been more bombing sorties than civilian deaths were claimed (by Hamas no less).
So either the pilots are terrible at finding and hitting targets or they are indeed trying to minimize civilian casualties.

[Tamas]

Can restraint be in doubt?

Last time I checked there had been more bombing sorties than civilian deaths were claimed (by Hamas no less).
So either the pilots are terrible are finding and hitting targets or they are indeed trying to minimize civilian casualties.

More bombs dropped than victims killed?! TERRO BOMBING!

[Sheilbh]

Can restraint be in doubt?

Last time I checked there had been more bombing sorties than civilian deaths were claimed (by Hamas no less).
So either the pilots are terrible at finding and hitting targets or they are indeed trying to minimize civilian casualties.

Sorry I'm mixing things up.

I think when you're looking at - or planning - a military action you should have a goal, take what steps you can to avoid civilian casualties and then judge of that together whether that is proportionate to your military objective. In my view that's not necessarily about justice or morality, but about a restraint or fetter when the power of weapons is always increasing and (arguably) the basis for targeting civilians has also increased (less so now in the West) with conscription, with industrial production, with logistics etc.

I'm not saying that you necessarily need to be "restrained" in conducting a war. I think it can be right to have very aggressive objectives or goals, but that you still take those steps of minimising civilian casualties and making sure they are proportionate to those objectives. I don't think it's about judging whether those civilians are somehow culpable enough to not care.

[Jacob]

Then how about when they reach the age of maturity, or when they reach the age to bear arms?  If children are special then everyone else is less special.

I don't understand the point you're making?

[Josquius]

Can restraint be in doubt?

Last time I checked there had been more bombing sorties than civilian deaths were claimed (by Hamas no less).
So either the pilots are terrible are finding and hitting targets or they are indeed trying to minimize civilian casualties.

More bombs dropped than victims killed?! TERRO BOMBING!

No consideration this might not be true?
Even the most conservative estimates have 7000+ Palestinian dead.

And don't forget how bombs tend to work. I believe even in ww2 it was typical for fewer deaths than bombs.