Ed General Israel/Palestine discussion thread - Part 3

[Nessie]

You are literally and explicitly making excuses for terrorism and the use of human shields.

It is explaining, not excusing, to point out that a cornered rat will attack.

This is an article of faith, not a reasoned conclusion.



You want to know what the most effective recruitment strategy is for any organization? Success. You want to know what makes recruitment harder for any organization? Failure.

Killing Jews is a success for Hamas. Getting killed is a failure.



The circle continues as long as Hamas isn't destroyed.

Even if you are right and Hamas can be destroyed, the Israelis and Palestinians were fighting each other before and will continue to do so after, whilst their present grievances exist.

 

[JoeMorgue]

No. I'm absolutely for killing them. I'm against killing civilians on vague intelligence Hamas might be near. And that's IMHO happening.

That's just "Terrorism is a valid strategy you aren't allowed to counter" with extra steps.

 

[Nessie]

People really are forming this weird, counter-productive "morality" were you get to win by being impossible to reason with and it is so bizarre.

"Hamas can't be reasoned with but Israel can so Hamas gets to keep killing civilians" is stupid and yes that IS what people are functionally saying.

This thread is full of claims like that, without any evidence of people actually saying what is claimed to have been said.

 

[trustbutverify]

I respect looking out for dogwhistles but you can also fall over into tone policing BS. If I've got two dogs exhibiting aggression and one is rabid, I won't spend any time analyzing the rabid dog's behaviour.

Assuming your rabid dog is Hamas-n-friends, what makes you think they're rabid?

 

[theprestige]

It is explaining, not excusing, to point out that a cornered rat will attack.

Anti-Semites attack even when not cornered. Islamofascists attack even when not cornered. Hamas isn't attacking because they're cornered. They're attacking because they're anti-Semitic islamofascist scumbags who like to attack.

Letting Hamas get free of its corner won't make the world a better place.

 

[JoeMorgue]

This thread is full of claims like that, without any evidence of people actually saying what is claimed to have been said.

I figure the "sHOw Me wHEre aNyonE saId thAT!" would come up.

So here's my question. If that's not what people are saying... what do people keep bringing it up?

What does "Hamas can't be reasoned with" and "Hamas is the weaker party" add to the discourse that ISN'T excusing them?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

"If I could tell the rabid dog to calm down and stop biting people, I would. But it's a rabid dog. Trying to reason with it, trying to appeal to its humanity would be madness. That's why I focus my efforts on trying to dissuade the man with the rifle who intends to put it down. Because he's a rational human being that might actually stop and listen to what I'm saying."

"Just shoot the dog. Stop shooting everyone the dog gets near on the basis that you don't know they're not rabid."

"Why do you defend rabies?!"

 

[theprestige]

Assuming your rabid dog is Hamas-n-friends, what makes you think they're rabid?

Islamofascism is clearly an irrational and violent ideology. "Rabid" is an apt metaphor.

It's weird how many atheists think a militant theocracy would be the worst thing ever, right up until some people Jews are actually fighting against one. Then suddenly it's "give militant theocracy a chance" and "can't we all just get along with militant theocracy".

 

[JoeMorgue]

"Just shoot the dog. Stop shooting everyone the dog gets near on the basis that you don't know they're not rabid."

Yes. The argument breaks down because even rabid dogs don't intentionally hide in a civilian population in order to protect themselves and blame the other side when innocent people get hurt trying to stop THEM.

 

[Ziggurat]

Even if you are right and Hamas can be destroyed, the Israelis and Palestinians were fighting each other before and will continue to do so after, whilst their present grievances exist.

Did Japan' defeat in WW2 eliminate its grievances? No, it did not. Did Germany's? Likewise, no.

Peace rarely comes as a result of eliminating grievances. It usually comes as a result of victory for one side and defeat for the other. After that, you can work on improving conditions for everyone involved, but not before.

 

[theprestige]

"Just shoot the dog. Stop shooting everyone the dog gets near on the basis that you don't know they're not rabid."

"Why do you defend rabies?!"

The moral philosophy of collateral damage in warfare is well-developed. Much has been written on the subject, much has been codified in international convention and national laws.

While the rabid dog metaphor has its simple virtues, the more complete and complex answer is this: Hamas are moral agents making a choice to wage war from behind human shields. This military strategy is a solved problem, in applied moral philosophy.

I wouldn't object to you trying to re-solve this problem from first principles, if that's what you were actually trying to do.

 

[Ziggurat]

No. I'm absolutely for killing them. I'm against killing civilians on vague intelligence Hamas might be near. And that's IMHO happening.

Your opinion about the state of Israeli intelligence is worthless, and the idea that it's vague is simply an assumption on your part.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Did Japan' defeat in WW2 eliminate its grievances? No, it did not. Did Germany's? Likewise, no.

Peace rarely comes as a result of eliminating grievances. It usually comes as a result of victory for one side and defeat for the other. After that, you can work on improving conditions for everyone involved, but not before.

But both Japan and Germany were given immense amounts of help, both financial and material to help rebuild. And the safety of their citizens was guaranteed by the victors.

At no point after their victory in 1949 in taking the lands they wanted has Israel done anything of the sort.
On the contrary, the actions of Israel have helped ensure constant poverty for the Palestinians.
Evict the settlers form the West Bank, trade Gaza for an (near) equal amount of land attached to the West Bank and set up a Marshall-plan like system could ensure peace.
Continuing down the path traveled for the past 70 years will lead to more attacks in the future.

 

[TragicMonkey]

So here's my question. If that's not what people are saying... what do people keep bringing it up?

What does "Hamas can't be reasoned with" and "Hamas is the weaker party" add to the discourse that ISN'T excusing them?

I would say "Hamas can't be reasoned with" and "Hamas is the weaker party" are points in favor of an argument to wipe them out entirely.

 

[steenkh]

Yeah so we're back at "Having standards but not living up to them is somehow worse then being abjectly and openly evil because at least that doesn't make you a hypocrite" thing which... is a really bad moral framework in my opinion.

The idea that Hamas is "better" because it doesn't pretend to or aspire to be better just sit well with me.

Nobody is claiming that Hamas is better. In fact, all have claimed that Hamas’ actions were criminal.

The problem for Israel is that they want to be seen as the good guys, but good guys should be held to a higher moral standard than bad guys. Otherwise they are also bad guys. They may not be as bad as Hamas, but are located in that grey area where morals are fluid.

This is not a black and white world, and the good guys are rarely really good. I am inclined to believe that Hamas is really bad, but I don’t think that the Palestinians who are supporting Hamas are all as bad as Hamas themselves, and I don’t think that collectively punishing all Palestinians is justice.

How many Palestinians, including women and babies can Israel kill, and you will still think that Israel is justified in doing so? 5,000? 10,000? 50,000? As many as it takes?

At what point will people here who are 100% behind Israel think that Israel is overdoing it? Especially in the light that Israel will probably not be any safer when it is over?

 

[Brainster]

At this point, one wonders if the Allies should have invaded Germany. I mean, going after the Nazis was only going to create more Nazis, amiright?

 

[Paul2]

"If I could tell the rabid dog to calm down and stop biting people, I would. But it's a rabid dog. Trying to reason with it, trying to appeal to its humanity would be madness. That's why I focus my efforts on trying to dissuade the man with the rifle who intends to put it down. Because he's a rational human being that might actually stop and listen to what I'm saying."

What do you do, then, with the rabid dog, such that we could analogize it back to the topic of this thread?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

At this point, one wonders if the Allies should have invaded Germany. I mean, going after the Nazis was only going to create more Nazis, amiright?

False equivalency for convenience.

 

[Ziggurat]

But both Japan and Germany were given immense amounts of help, both financial and material to help rebuild.

But only AFTER they surrendered. AFTER they made peace. Not as a precondition for peace. Peace must come before rebuilding, and victory must come before peace.

Evict the settlers form the West Bank, trade Gaza for an (near) equal amount of land attached to the West Bank and set up a Marshall-plan like system could ensure peace.

Not before Hamas is defeated, it cannot.

 

[Ziggurat]

Nobody is claiming that Hamas is better. In fact, all have claimed that Hamas’ actions were criminal.

The problem for Israel is that they want to be seen as the good guys

Israel wants to stop getting attacked. That's far more important than how they're seen.