Oct 11, 2023·edited Oct 15, 2023Liked by Bentham's Bulldog
To my mind, a few things stand out- my analysis is broadly similar to yours I think:
1. It looks like both Hamas and Israel have committed war crimes and this should be condemned.
2. It is quite likely that some of the more lurid stories are falsified. This is a common in war. Likely some of the stories will be true, some will be false. One should be careful about speaking about particular allegations of crimes until the dust has settled.
3. It is crucial to be clear about the overall context of this. Gaza is an open air prison, in which people struggle for food and freshwater and cannot leave a fairly small strip of land. It is also crucial to be clear that the media simply does not care as much about these broader and longer term crimes as they do about recent events. A portion of this is the human bias towards the spectacular and unusual, but a lot represents the geopolitical embedding of our news media, and the alliances the western world is embedded in. We should consider these biases carefully.
4. Our moral positions on the conflict as a whole should reflect a sober assessment of the total situation from the point of view of human welfare, and the structures of domination of power, and should not change too much on the basis of day to day events. The correct position is that Gaza must be free, the blockade is wrong, apartheid is wrong and the intentional killing of civilians is always wrong.
Responding with unbridled anger has never worked for me; I doubt it will work for Israel either. It's too late now, but I'd have thought there would be ways to isolate Hamas after such atrocities, especially if they withheld themselves from indiscriminately attacking Gaza, thought about it a bit, gathered some intelligence...
I very much agree with you. I do think it would have been productive to include that the Palestine supporters here view the terrorist attack by Hamas as a direct response to the years of oppression and violence they've endured by Israel without a worldwide anger or response. The attack was an explosion of anger, and some people see it as the beginning of the end to their oppression. It's in this contact that they're saying "resistance is violence." However, an obvious problem with this interpretation is I don't see how an attack that was trying to start a revolution against social oppression could purposefully target innocent civilians and revel in cruelty.
I don't know how people can so confidently defend either country at this point.
I sort of feel the same way, but the most puzzling thing is what I’d do if I were to command Israeli forces. Like, idk what’s the just way to begin with. For Israeli people it seems like your direct neighbour is a real dickhead with terroristic government that hates you for who you are and wishes to shove you into the sea, so doing nothing probably kills some your people but doing some violence either kills more people that would otherwise not be killed or essentially does nothing again
(1) Israel is not simply depriving over two million Gazans of food, water, and medicine; they're also dropping thousands of tons of bombs on major population centers, killing hundreds of people (so far).
(2) Hamas' actions will undoubtedly increase US support for Israel, including the illegal settlements in the West Bank. (Even if the Biden administration criticizes the settlements, in practice the US aid will mean more of them get built.) This will make a negotiated peace even harder to achieve. Hamas' actions are thus not only evil, but deeply contrary to the interests of ordinary Palestinians.
“Their siege which involves cutting off food, water, and electricity to literally millions of people, is both flagrantly illegal under international law and ethically appalling.”
Under what circumstances, if any, would you consider the siege ethical? A lot of responses to Israel’s counterattack basically reduce to “Israel can treat this like a police action but not war.” I’m not sure how Israel is supposed to actually be victorious with the conditions others want to impose on how it fights.
Why is it Israel's duty to provide food and electricity to a country that's openly genocidal towards them? This isn't a true siege, Gaza still has a border with Egypt. Egypt or one of the other 21 Arab countries can provide aid.
Israel only controls their own border and immigration policy. Why haven't any of the 22 Arab countries allowed in Gazans who want to escape their hellhole? Why does this duty fall to Israel, even though many of these Gazans would surely commit terrorists attacks if they were in Israel?
Why do so many people criticize Israel without criticizing these 22 countries first? If Israel defends itself and Gazans used as human shields die, who is principally at fault?
The reason why its so difficult for many to condemn hamas is demonstrated by some of the comments on your post saying “i totally agree, and i think israel should invade gaza and end hamas”. Support for palestine is a minority position and they are overwhelmingly the net victims of this conflict. There is a really forceful push in media and culture to legitimise whatever disproportionate response israel takes, and by coming out and condemning hamas or “both sides” we risk lending legitimacy to a genocide. Its not that supporters of palestine en mass love hamas (though there are a small but vocal contingent of psychopaths as you say)
I haven't seen leftists praising Hamas' violence of innocent victims as you claim here. Under international law, Palestine does have a right to armed resistance. Obviously, there are atrocities and human rights violations on both sides and we need stronger enforcement of international laws.
So that’s quite easy to sit back and say something along the lines of “well both sides are probably gonna do horribly bad things blah-blah shame on them”, but what’s the plausible solution here?
To my mind, a few things stand out- my analysis is broadly similar to yours I think:
1. It looks like both Hamas and Israel have committed war crimes and this should be condemned.
2. It is quite likely that some of the more lurid stories are falsified. This is a common in war. Likely some of the stories will be true, some will be false. One should be careful about speaking about particular allegations of crimes until the dust has settled.
3. It is crucial to be clear about the overall context of this. Gaza is an open air prison, in which people struggle for food and freshwater and cannot leave a fairly small strip of land. It is also crucial to be clear that the media simply does not care as much about these broader and longer term crimes as they do about recent events. A portion of this is the human bias towards the spectacular and unusual, but a lot represents the geopolitical embedding of our news media, and the alliances the western world is embedded in. We should consider these biases carefully.
4. Our moral positions on the conflict as a whole should reflect a sober assessment of the total situation from the point of view of human welfare, and the structures of domination of power, and should not change too much on the basis of day to day events. The correct position is that Gaza must be free, the blockade is wrong, apartheid is wrong and the intentional killing of civilians is always wrong.
Responding with unbridled anger has never worked for me; I doubt it will work for Israel either. It's too late now, but I'd have thought there would be ways to isolate Hamas after such atrocities, especially if they withheld themselves from indiscriminately attacking Gaza, thought about it a bit, gathered some intelligence...
I very much agree with you. I do think it would have been productive to include that the Palestine supporters here view the terrorist attack by Hamas as a direct response to the years of oppression and violence they've endured by Israel without a worldwide anger or response. The attack was an explosion of anger, and some people see it as the beginning of the end to their oppression. It's in this contact that they're saying "resistance is violence." However, an obvious problem with this interpretation is I don't see how an attack that was trying to start a revolution against social oppression could purposefully target innocent civilians and revel in cruelty.
I don't know how people can so confidently defend either country at this point.
I sort of feel the same way, but the most puzzling thing is what I’d do if I were to command Israeli forces. Like, idk what’s the just way to begin with. For Israeli people it seems like your direct neighbour is a real dickhead with terroristic government that hates you for who you are and wishes to shove you into the sea, so doing nothing probably kills some your people but doing some violence either kills more people that would otherwise not be killed or essentially does nothing again
I agree with all of this. Two further points:
(1) Israel is not simply depriving over two million Gazans of food, water, and medicine; they're also dropping thousands of tons of bombs on major population centers, killing hundreds of people (so far).
(2) Hamas' actions will undoubtedly increase US support for Israel, including the illegal settlements in the West Bank. (Even if the Biden administration criticizes the settlements, in practice the US aid will mean more of them get built.) This will make a negotiated peace even harder to achieve. Hamas' actions are thus not only evil, but deeply contrary to the interests of ordinary Palestinians.
“Their siege which involves cutting off food, water, and electricity to literally millions of people, is both flagrantly illegal under international law and ethically appalling.”
Under what circumstances, if any, would you consider the siege ethical? A lot of responses to Israel’s counterattack basically reduce to “Israel can treat this like a police action but not war.” I’m not sure how Israel is supposed to actually be victorious with the conditions others want to impose on how it fights.
I agree with your premise. But Israel will do all it can to avoid killing innocent civilians. The problem is you don’t always know who is innocent.
There are 22 glaring omissions in this article.
Why is it Israel's duty to provide food and electricity to a country that's openly genocidal towards them? This isn't a true siege, Gaza still has a border with Egypt. Egypt or one of the other 21 Arab countries can provide aid.
Israel only controls their own border and immigration policy. Why haven't any of the 22 Arab countries allowed in Gazans who want to escape their hellhole? Why does this duty fall to Israel, even though many of these Gazans would surely commit terrorists attacks if they were in Israel?
Why do so many people criticize Israel without criticizing these 22 countries first? If Israel defends itself and Gazans used as human shields die, who is principally at fault?
Imagine the reaction of the politically left if this had happened at Burning Man.
The reason why its so difficult for many to condemn hamas is demonstrated by some of the comments on your post saying “i totally agree, and i think israel should invade gaza and end hamas”. Support for palestine is a minority position and they are overwhelmingly the net victims of this conflict. There is a really forceful push in media and culture to legitimise whatever disproportionate response israel takes, and by coming out and condemning hamas or “both sides” we risk lending legitimacy to a genocide. Its not that supporters of palestine en mass love hamas (though there are a small but vocal contingent of psychopaths as you say)
I haven't seen leftists praising Hamas' violence of innocent victims as you claim here. Under international law, Palestine does have a right to armed resistance. Obviously, there are atrocities and human rights violations on both sides and we need stronger enforcement of international laws.
So that’s quite easy to sit back and say something along the lines of “well both sides are probably gonna do horribly bad things blah-blah shame on them”, but what’s the plausible solution here?