The Hamas Argument

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So if that's what you're not saying, then what should be done to stop Hamas from firing rockets, using tunnels to smuggle weapons and for infiltration?

If I knew the answer to that question, I'd be busy getting it to world leaders and not hanging around on an internet discussion board.

Regardless, you're throwing a red herring in here. It seems like you're arguing that Israel's current approach is ethical. What makes it ethical?

Edit: my position is that the argument in the OP is invalid and therefore does not justify recent Israeli actions in Gaza. I'm open to the possibility that there might be other justifications, but I don't know what they would be. Do you?

 

[dantech]

No, but the fact that Israel is, apparently, very good at protecting its citizens from these rockets is a factor in the ethics of shooting back. To carry Oz's analogy a bit further, if the nursery you're in with your children is protected by a sturdy concrete wall that his bullets can't get through, then it's much less urgent to kill the gunman than if it's an open-air garden with no concealment or cover.

The thing that creates the moral necessity in that analogy is the high level of immediate risk. If that level of risk is much lower, then maybe shooting the gunman isn't the most ethical course of action. Maybe the thing to do in that case is to take the time to talk him down, for instance, and not put the child on his lap at risk.

There is no concrete wall. There is a system that intercepts ~84% of of rockets. That means that on average, a minimum of 16 missiles make it into civilian areas of Israel, daily. This also means that Israel is spending a minimum of $5,880,000 daily, assuming they only shoot one rocket per incoming missile, which is not the case. It often takes 2-3 tries to take down an incoming missile.

So your solution is for Netanyahu to take his time, spend his civilians' money, and let them run in fear to their shelters multiple times a day until he could find a reasonable solution to kill Hamas terrorists while freeing all their hostages? (which really isn't his responsibility. Every effort that he takes in that direction should be applauded, no matter how small or how big)
Is this what you would do, as prime-minister of a country?

 

[dantech]

If I knew the answer to that question, I'd be busy getting it to world leaders and not hanging around on an internet discussion board.

Regardless, you're throwing a red herring in here. It seems like you're arguing that Israel's current approach is ethical. What makes it ethical?

The fact that his responsibility, his civilians, are safe. Obviously, I'm against any civilians dying, whether it be Israelis, Palestinians, or anyone else. However, it quite frankly isn't Netanyahu's responsibility to keep the civilians of the ones shooting at him safe. Regardless, I still believe he has taken steps that no one, ever, has. (ie: phone calls, text messages, speakerphone messages, flyers, warning bombs.)

 

[metis]

So does Israel.

You avoided the point, namely why would any sovereign power take actions that would insure massive destruction of the lives of their own people and their own infrastructure? Hamas wanted this fight, especially since they've done if many times before.

 

[xkatz]

The fact that his responsibility, his civilians, are safe. Obviously, I'm against any civilians dying, whether it be Israelis, Palestinians, or anyone else. However, it quite frankly isn't Netanyahu's responsibility to keep the civilians of the ones shooting at him safe. Regardless, I still believe he has taken steps that no one, ever, has. (ie: phone calls, text messages, speakerphone messages, flyers, warning bombs.)

^This

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is no concrete wall. There is a system that intercepts ~84% of of rockets. That means that on average, a minimum of 16 missiles make it into civilian areas of Israel, daily. This also means that Israel is spending a minimum of $5,880,000 daily, assuming they only shoot one rocket per incoming missile, which is not the case. It often takes 2-3 tries to take down an incoming missile.

So your solution is for Netanyahu to take his time, spend his civilians' money, and let them run in fear to their shelters multiple times a day until he could find a reasonable solution to kill Hamas terrorists while freeing all their hostages? (which really isn't his responsibility. Every effort that he takes in that direction should be applauded, no matter how small or how big)
Is this what you would do, as prime-minister of a country?

I haven't suggested anything except having a clear understanding of what's involved.

So your justifications are fear (though that's probably a wash at best, since the Israeli air strikes cause quite a bit of fear themselves) and monetary expense.

How much is a human life worth? How much savings do we need before we can look at a death toll of a thousand people or more and say "it was worth it"?

 

[xkatz]

If I knew the answer to that question, I'd be busy getting it to world leaders and not hanging around on an internet discussion board.

Regardless, you're throwing a red herring in here. It seems like you're arguing that Israel's current approach is ethical. What makes it ethical?

I'm not saying what is happening is a perfect solution. Any civilian death is terrible- Israeli or Palestinian. But ultimately it's unrealistic for the Israeli gov't to do nothing against a terrorist group that calls for genocide and/or dhimmitude of Jews.

 

[Thruve]

I haven't suggested anything except having a clear understanding of what's involved.

So your justifications are fear (though that's probably a wash at best, since the Israeli air strikes cause quite a bit of fear themselves) and monetary expense.

How much is a human life worth? How much savings do we need before we can look at a death toll of a thousand people or more and say "it was worth it"?

I agree! Though, that question I'd direct at Hamas and other radicals. Oh wait...

 

[metis]

How much is a human life worth? How much savings do we need before we can look at a death toll of a thousand people or more and say "it was worth it"?

But the key is what's the alternative, especially since Hamas has done exactly the same thing many times before? And just a reminder that there were 705 missile, rocket, and mortar attacks into Israel's civilian population prior to the three students being murdered, which Hamas finally admitted they planned.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The fact that his responsibility, his civilians, are safe. Obviously, I'm against any civilians dying, whether it be Israelis, Palestinians, or anyone else. However, it quite frankly isn't Netanyahu's responsibility to keep the civilians of the ones shooting at him safe.

I think that this "am I my brother's keeper?" argument is a bit ironic considering that we're discussing the Jewish state.

It most certainly IS his responsibility. He doesn't just get to dismiss the value of human life just because those lives are Palestinian. To the extent that the IDF is carrying out his orders, he's responsible for the actions of the consequences of those orders, and Palestinian lives are one factor - a major factor - that gets weighed in the balance to determine whether those actions are ethical.

Regardless, I still believe he has taken steps that no one, ever, has. (ie: phone calls, text messages, speakerphone messages, flyers, warning bombs.)

Sure... corral the Palestinians into the Gaza Strip, wall them in, and then tell them to leave if they don't want to die. Very noble.

 

[dantech]

I haven't suggested anything except having a clear understanding of what's involved.

So your justifications are fear (though that's probably a wash at best, since the Israeli air strikes cause quite a bit of fear themselves)

Again, the fear that the airstrikes which serve only to destroy the firing sites create in palestinians, is not Netanyahu's responsibility. His civilians come first.

and monetary expense.

, and risk of his own civilians lives (no matter how little), and risk of soldier lives, and damage to the city which means increased monetary expense.

How much is a human life worth?

Depend's whose life, and to who. My life surely isn't worth as much to you as your son's or wife's is. In fact, the lives of everyone on this board, all together, don't amount to the value of your kid's life, for you... right?

Likewise, to Netanyahu, and I agree with him 100%, a risk to his civilians' lives is worth more than that of Palestinians.

How much savings do we need before we can look at a death toll of a thousand people or more and say "it was worth it"?

Well, had all this not happened, Israel wouldn't have figured the tunnels out. If that hadn't happened, can you guess how many Israelis would have been slaughtered? Netanyahu, I believe, made the best of a horrible situation, and lost dozens of his own soldiers in the process. So far, everyone has been quick to criticize, and no one has found a more reasonable solution than te one that has actually been applied.

 

[dantech]

I think that this "am I my brother's keeper?" argument is a bit ironic considering that we're discussing the Jewish state.

It most certainly IS his responsibility. He doesn't just get to dismiss the value of human life just because those lives are Palestinian. To the extent that the IDF is carrying out his orders, he's responsible for the actions of the consequences of those orders, and Palestinian lives are one factor - a major factor - that gets weighed in the balance to determine whether those actions are ethical.


Sure... corral the Palestinians into the Gaza Strip, wall them in, and then tell them to leave if they don't want to die. Very noble.

You skipped a few steps here...

Kicked out Jews from Gaza in order to give it to the Palestinians.
Walled them in after suicide bombers have been terrorizing Israeli civilians on a daily basis. And doesn't tell them leave... Tells them to protect themselves, by getting to a different area.

The fact that they decided to spend billions to create tunnels rather than to create bomb shelters, hospitals, schools, mosques and anything else that the civilians actually need shows you that Hamas is the enemy, not Israel whose primary purpose and reason of existence is to:
a)protect the Jewish people, in the Jewish state.
b)prevent the repeat of a holocaust.

 

[xkatz]

It most certainly IS his responsibility. He doesn't just get to dismiss the value of human life just because those lives are Palestinian. To the extent that the IDF is carrying out his orders, he's responsible for the actions of the consequences of those orders, and Palestinian lives are one factor - a major factor - that gets weighed in the balance to determine whether those actions are ethical.

So Hamas, the entity which governs Gaza, should bear no responsibility whatsoever for its citizens? It should only be the Israeli gov't/IDF?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The disproportionate number of Palestinian casualties relative to Israeli casualties suggests that this analogy is seriously flawed.

Rubbish.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So Hamas, the entity which governs Gaza, should bear no responsibility whatsoever for its citizens? It should only be the Israeli gov't/IDF?

What on Earth did I say that you think I insinuated this?

Hamas certainly has a large share of blame here, but each of us is still responsible for the consequences of his own actions. The fact that someone else had a hand in creating the current situation doesn't mean that you can ignore the facts at hand when trying to figure out whether a course of action is ethical.

 

[xkatz]

The fact that someone else had a hand in creating the current situation doesn't mean that you can ignore the facts at hand when trying to figure out whether a course of action is ethical.

No one is ignoring facts (including myself) AFAIK. But it is unrealistic to expect a 100% perfect and 100% ethical course of action in this type of situation, when you are obligated to defend your civilians against a terrorist entity. What do you purpose be done differently?

 

[Thruve]

What on Earth did I say that you think I insinuated this?

Hamas certainly has a large share of blame here, but each of us is still responsible for the consequences of his own actions. The fact that someone else had a hand in creating the current situation doesn't mean that you can ignore the facts at hand when trying to figure out whether a course of action is ethical.

Can you.. provide for us a more ethical solution that hasn't been tried.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No one is ignoring facts (including myself) AFAIK. But it is unrealistic to expect a 100% perfect and 100% ethical course of action in this type of situation, when you are obligated to defend your civilians against a terrorist entity. What do you purpose be done differently?

Again: I'm not proposing anything. I'm just asking that someone would explain, using valid reasoning, what makes the current Israeli actions ethical.

You talk about obligation; is the only relevant moral obligation to defend Israeli civilians? Are there no other moral obligations here?

Bonus question: is it even clear that Israel's actions will even help the goal of "defending your civilians"? War destabilizes; this instability will have long-term risks for the whole region, including Israel. Even if we completely ignore Gaza and focus completely on Israel, what reason do you have to think that the overall long-term consequences here wil be a net positive for Israel?

 

[Flankerl]

Sure... corral the Palestinians into the Gaza Strip, wall them in, and then tell them to leave if they don't want to die. Very noble.

Yes because there are only urban areas in the entire Gaza strip.

I love this myth.


So when is the "Israel isnt allowed to kill so many Palestinians as long as not as many Israelis are killed"-argument coming?
Its like there has never been war before.

 

[dantech]

Yes because there are only urban areas in the entire Gaza strip.

I love this myth.


So when is the "Israel isnt allowed to kill so many Palestinians as long as not as many Israelis are killed"-argument coming?
Its like there has never been war before.

Nowadays, the one with most victims wins the war.