IDF begins evacuating civilians from eastern Rafah northward

[Foxfyre]

Of course they would, but the U.N. Is full of antisemitic Arabs. I’m sure you aware that at least a dozen employees were among the terrorists who tortured Jews to death that day.

Now, would HAMAS accept that deal? Never. Their objective remains to eradicate Israel and kill all the Jews, and will NEVER agree to let Israel exist in peace.

In fact, the Palestinians were offered a land deal granting them 95% of what they wanted, but HAMAS turned it down. Why? It was conditioned on accepting Israel’s right to exist. The Palestinians should have kicked HAMAS to the curb then, but they agreed with them.

When Iran chairs the U.N. Human Rights Council, we know that U.N. is pretty much useless when it comes to ethics or human rights.

If the U.N. was honorable it would demand a cease fire on condition that Hamas release all its hostages and pledge never to harm an Israeli or Israel again unless Israel attack Palestinians, and if they did not agree to that then the U.N. would help Israel take out Hamas,

 

[Lisa558]

When Iran chairs the U.N. Human Rights Council, we know that U.N. is pretty much useless when it comes to ethics or human rights.

If the U.N. was honorable it would demand a cease fire on condition that Hamas release all its hostages and pledge never to harm an Israeli or Israel again unless Israel attack Palestinians, and if they did not agree to that then the U.N. would help Israel take out Hamas,

And along with that, the protests on the college campuses would also be calling for HAMAS to release the hostages and surrender.

And BIDEN would be doing the same. (It’s what Trump would have done from Day 1, and continuing daily for as long as it took.) Instead, we are stuck with someone who is selling out our ally, and emboldening antisemitism, to garner the anti-American and anti-semitic votes of Muslims in Michigan.

 

[Shusha]

Genocide. I am not accusing Israel genocide. Are we clear? This is what I HAVE said and why.

HAS Israel or IS Israel committing genocide? In my opinion, no. It has been investigated by an international body that determined it was not genocide, though it also found significant concerns about Israel’s conduct in the war.

Yes. You have been exceedingly clear that you are not accusing Israel of genocide. I believe I did mention that. (And thank you).

We seem to agree that on the scale of evil intent plus outcome = most evil**. Genocide would be in this category.

But then you introduce language such as "on par with genocide", which suggests a moral equivalence to genocide. Why introduce the language of "genocide" into the conversation, if you acknowledge both that Israel is not committing a genocide and that outcome alone is less evil than intent plus outcome?

It feels as though you are adding the term "genocide" to the conversation in order to impart the quality of "most evil" to Israel, while concurrently denying that you are doing so. Its a sleight of hand that you then claim innocence to.

If you truly believe Israel is not committing genocide, why not leave that language out of your posts?


**I would order them this way (most to least): intent + outcome; intent alone; outcome alone. I strongly suspect you would have the last two in the reverse order, which suggests the source of our disagreement about this particular topic.

 

[Shusha]

1. Country A is in a border dispute with country B and a large number of combatants are killed on both sides.
2. Country A is striking military targets in Country B and some civilians are killed in the process.
3. Country D is targeting military targets in Country A killing large numbers of civilians.
4. Country C deliberately targets civilian infrastructure and populations in country B as part of its campaign to win a defensive war.
5. Country A deliberately targets civilian infrastructure and populations in country B as part of it’s campaign to win an offensive war.
6. Country B invades Country A for territorial gain after spreading dehumanizing propaganda defining those of country A as uniquely evil. In the process of conquering they round up and kill massive numbers of Country A civilians and destroy/ban their culture/language were conquered.
7. Country A defines Country B’s ethnic population as uniquely evil and as a result is careless in targeting resulting in large numbers of civilian casualties.
8. Country C decides the ethnic population of Country A needs to be exterminated because their ethnic identity is uniquely evil, and invades and attempts to do so for that purpose.

1-3 are neutral in intent, but 3 could be viewed more critically in ethical terms (why such high casualty rates, should be examined as to intent).

Noting that war is always horrific and I'm not suggesting there is an equivalence between permissible and welcomed or celebrated.

Also noting, of course, these are just my opinions.

1, 2, 3 are generally morally permissible. 1 would be the most moral, especially if the combatants were volunteers. I would suggest with 3 that the first line of inquiry should be circumstances, rather than intent. I do think this is where you are imposing an intent on Israel, rather than reaching logical conclusions regarding difficult or unusual circumstances.

4-5 differ only in terms of whether it is a “righteous” combat. In both cases, civilians are deliberate targets. Evil or not?

4, 5 are morally corrupt, with respect to civilians, but not necessarily to infrastructure. Self-defense is always a just war, but doesn't make morally corrupt actions permissible.

6-8 include far more intent regarding civilians and views about the target population. Are 4-5 in the same realm of evil as 6-8? If intent was irrelevant, all would be classified as the same degree of evil.

In these examples, only 8 would fit the definition of genocide, the others either neutral or possible war crimes. Yet, in terms of evil, what makes 8 more evil than 6? Where does 7 fit in the scale? Is deliberate carelessness because of feelings about the particular ethnic/national group evil? (it is a bit like the drunk driver example.).

6, 7, 8 are morally abhorrent and fit the definition of genocide. (Though I would need clarification on "careless" in this context. Indiscriminate is not equivalent to inept decision-making.)

Then there is outcome, which I presume is what you are accusing me of, when claiming I am making it only about numbers.

I am not trying to claim that you are making it only about the numbers. (MANY, many posters on this board do make it only about the numbers, ugh.) This is not what I am accusing you of.

 

[Coyote]

…

Yes. You have been exceedingly clear that you are not accusing Israel of genocide. I believe I did mention that. (And thank you).

We seem to agree that on the scale of evil intent plus outcome = most evil**. Genocide would be in this category.

But then you introduce language such as "on par with genocide", which suggests a moral equivalence to genocide. Why introduce the language of "genocide" into the conversation, if you acknowledge both that Israel is not committing a genocide and that outcome alone is less evil than intent plus outcome?

Yes. Because in some of those examples I DO feel there is moral equivalency. These are all war crimes are they not? Genocide is not the only war crime that can be called evil and by focusing only on genocide as evil, with the rest lying some point below, you are downplaying those other war crimes as if to say if isn’t genocide it doesn’t matter as much. I disagree with that.

Israel doesn’t have to commit genocide to engage in conduct that is morally wrong or even evil. I think it is (arguably) possible that Israel has engaged in at least some war crimes and that it should be independently investigated. I would accept the results either way.

It feels as though you are adding the term "genocide" to the conversation in order to impart the quality of "most evil" to Israel, while concurrently denying that you are doing so. Its a sleight of hand that you then claim innocence to.

If you say so.

If you truly believe Israel is not committing genocide, why not leave that language out of your posts?

? Genocide keeps getting brought up, and not just by me. Other war crimes get excused or minimized because they aren’t seen as even close to the same level of moral wrong as genocide. I disagree with that moral compass.

**I would order them this way (most to least): intent + outcome; intent alone; outcome alone. I strongly suspect you would have the last two in the reverse order, which suggests the source of our disagreement about this particular topic.

We agree on the first as most evil.

But intent alone could look like my “I hate red heads” example, intent is there, but no outcome.

Outcome alone could look like Hiroshima. No intent beyond ending a war…it wasn’t done out of any personal antipathy to the Japanese people, but the outcome was horrific.


These are wildly exaggerated examples to illustrate the point. In reality most examples of things we would call evil consist of some degree of both. So how would you rate them on a moral scale?

 

[Shusha]

Yes. Because in some of those examples I DO feel there is moral equivalency. These are all war crimes are they not? Genocide is not the only war crime that can be called evil and by focusing only on genocide as evil, with the rest lying some point below, you are downplaying those other war crimes as if to say if isn’t genocide it doesn’t matter as much. I disagree with that.

This is not at ALL what I am arguing. Not even close.

Israel doesn’t have to commit genocide to engage in conduct that is morally wrong or even evil.

Yes, obviously. Again, this is not what I am arguing.

Other war crimes get excused or minimized because they aren’t seen as even close to the same level of moral wrong as genocide. I disagree with that moral compass.

I disagree that war crimes are excused or minimized, at least not by me. I just don't think genocide belongs in the same conversation as "lesser" evils, and the fact that it keeps being introduced to the conversation vis a vis Israel implies that Israel is committing a "greater" evil, when you admit strongly that Israel is not committing this "greater" evil. This seems duplicitous. Let's just discuss these other evils, and leave genocide out of it entirely, since we both strongly agree that Israel is not committing genocide.

 

[Coyote]

Noting that war is always horrific and I'm not suggesting there is an equivalence between permissible and welcomed or celebrated.

Also noting, of course, these are just my opinions.

1, 2, 3 are generally morally permissible. 1 would be the most moral, especially if the combatants were volunteers. I would suggest with 3 that the first line of inquiry should be circumstances, rather than intent. I do think this is where you are imposing an intent on Israel, rather than reaching logical conclusions regarding difficult or unusual circumstances.

1 and 2, I agree.

3 requires a more critical look, as you say.

That critical look should consider things like:

Is the gain from the target worth the loss of innocent life in achieving it?
How many targets actually included militants, how were those targets were derived at?
Is there fault to be found in the algorithm or tools being used to determine targets?
If so, is there any attempt made to remedy it?
What types of weapons are being used by each side and in what surroundings
what is being done to protect civilians and has any consideration been given to alternative means of attack to reduce what could be an unacceptable (and who defines that term) rate of civilian casualties
Where is the enemy choosing to place their militants
Where is the enemy storing weaponry and from where are they firing it.
Are there hostages involved and where.


Yes, I probably am imposing some intent on Israel here but how is that any different than the intent you place on the Palestinian people as a whole? We are both assuming some intent based on our feelings about the conflict.

4, 5 are morally corrupt, with respect to civilians, but not necessarily to infrastructure. Self-defense is always a just war, but doesn't make morally corrupt actions permissible.

I can agree with that mostly but I’m not so sure about infrastructure. If the intent is to inflict so much damage that it rendered it uninhabitable for generations, would that not be morally corrupt?

6, 7, 8 are morally abhorrent and fit the definition of genocide. (Though I would need clarification on "careless" in this context. Indiscriminate is not equivalent to inept decision-making.)

The problem is though I don’t think they all do.

#7 Careless targeting lacks sufficient intent to wipe out a population, you don’t like them, you don’t particularly care.

#6 should, but doesn’t…if it did I would think Russia’s invasion of Ukraine would qualify.

I am not trying to claim that you are making it only about the numbers. (MANY, many posters on this board do make it only about the numbers, ugh.) This is not what I am accusing you of.

Thank you.

 

[Coyote]

This is not at ALL what I am arguing. Not even close.

Yes, obviously. Again, this is not what I am arguing.

I disagree that war crimes are excused or minimized, at least not by me. I just don't think genocide belongs in the same conversation as "lesser" evils, and the fact that it keeps being introduced to the conversation vis a vis Israel implies that Israel is committing a "greater" evil, when you admit strongly that Israel is not committing this "greater" evil. This seems duplicitous. Let's just discuss these other evils, and leave genocide out of it entirely, since we both strongly agree that Israel is not committing genocide.

I’m fine with that.

 

[Shusha]

3 requires a more critical look, as you say. That critical look should consider things like:

Is the gain from the target worth the loss of innocent life in achieving it?

I'd argue this is too vague and undefined to measure and thus too vague and undefined to be of use.

How many targets actually included militants, how were those targets were derived at?

All targets must be military objectives. Any that aren't of military value are, by definition, excluded from morally permissible.

Is there fault to be found in the algorithm or tools being used to determine targets?
If so, is there any attempt made to remedy it?

Again, too vague to be of use. How can we determine fault (error), if we have not determined the standard?

What types of weapons are being used by each side and in what surroundings

Agree. Does the weapon align with the necessity of the military objective and conform to moral standards? This suggests a number of possible measurements: precision of targeting, size of munition, blast radius, presence of civilians, type of objective.

what is being done to protect civilians and has any consideration been given to alternative means of attack to reduce what could be an unacceptable (and who defines that term) rate of civilian casualties

Agree. Have civilians been given warning and safe passage away from the conflict entirely? Have civilians been given warning and safe passage away from specific areas of active combat? Have civilians been provided with humanitarian aide as realistic under the conditions? Alternate means for achieving the SAME objective should be considered, but alternate means for achieving LESSER objectives require a different formula.

Where is the enemy choosing to place their militants
Where is the enemy storing weaponry and from where are they firing it.

Agreed. Is distinction between civilians and combatants possible? Are civilians and combatants embedded in the same structures? Are weapons stored within infrastructure that would normally be considered protected, rendering the protection invalid. Are civilians and minors active in hostilities, or being used in such a way to place them in combat? Do apparent civilians pose a risk? Is there a history of perfidy? Is infrastructure, including civilian infrastructure, subject to traps, ambushes, and IEDs? Are civilian artifacts used to lure and commit attacks?

Are there hostages involved and where.

Agree. Can hostage locations be reliably identified? Does the high-value of hostages mitigate civilian incidental harm? Does rescue and retrieval of hostages demand urgency which limits the decision-making process? Are civilians in proximity to hostages or in the same location complicit, and therefore not protected person? Does the formula for proportionality change in hostage rescue as opposed to other military objectives?

Yes, I probably am imposing some intent on Israel here but how is that any different than the intent you place on the Palestinian people as a whole?

Well, I believe I have polls to back me up on this one. Is there any evidence that the people of Gaza are trying to oust Hamas and develop more peaceful relations with Israel? If there is, you would have to show me.

Israel, on the other hand, has been very clear on intent from day one. (Well, day four, maybe.) Return the hostages. Eliminate Hamas. Prevent Gaza from every doing this again.

#7 Careless targeting lacks sufficient intent to wipe out a population, you don’t like them, you don’t particularly care.

This one really depends on how we define "careless".

#6 should, but doesn’t…if it did I would think Russia’s invasion of Ukraine would qualify.

I think 6 does. But I'd have to know more specifics about the Ukraine/Russia conflict to be able to go there.

 

[Coyote]

Of course they would, but the U.N. Is full of antisemitic Arabs. I’m sure you are aware that at least a dozen employees were among the terrorists who tortured Jews to death that day.

Actually, that is not entirely true..

A US intelligence assessment of Israel’s claims that UN aid agency staff members participated in the Hamas attack on 7 October said some of the accusations were credible, though could not be independently verified, while also casting doubt on claims of wider links to militant groups.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the intelligence report, released last week, assessed with “low confidence” that a handful of staff had participated in the attack, indicating that it considered the accusations to be credible though it could not independently confirm their veracity.

It cast doubt, however, on accusations that the UN agency was collaborating with Hamas in a wider way. The Journal said the report mentioned that although the UNRWA does coordinate with Hamas in order to deliver aid and operate in the region, there was a lack of evidence to suggest it partnered with the group.

It added that Israel has not “shared the raw intelligence behind its assessments with the US”.

In addition, the report notes Israel’s dislike towards the UNRWA, two sources familiar with it told the Journal. “There is a specific section that mentions how Israeli bias serves to mischaracterize much of their assessments on UNRWA and says this has resulted in distortions,” one source reportedly said.


It is also worth while to note that UNWRA has over 30,000 employs of which you are accusing a dozen and for which Israel refused to share any evidence.

 

[Lisa558]

Actually, that is not entirely true..

A US intelligence assessment of Israel’s claims that UN aid agency staff members participated in the Hamas attack on 7 October said some of the accusations were credible, though could not be independently verified, while also casting doubt on claims of wider links to militant groups.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the intelligence report, released last week, assessed with “low confidence” that a handful of staff had participated in the attack, indicating that it considered the accusations to be credible though it could not independently confirm their veracity.

It cast doubt, however, on accusations that the UN agency was collaborating with Hamas in a wider way. The Journal said the report mentioned that although the UNRWA does coordinate with Hamas in order to deliver aid and operate in the region, there was a lack of evidence to suggest it partnered with the group.

It added that Israel has not “shared the raw intelligence behind its assessments with the US”.

In addition, the report notes Israel’s dislike towards the UNRWA, two sources familiar with it told the Journal. “There is a specific section that mentions how Israeli bias serves to mischaracterize much of their assessments on UNRWA and says this has resulted in distortions,” one source reportedly said.


It is also worth while to note that UNWRA has over 30,000 employs of which you are accusing a dozen and for which Israel refused to share any evidence.

Oh please. The U.N. is a horrifically anti-Israel, antisemitic body with HUNDREDS of their employees linked to the Islamic terrorist group of HAMAS, sworn to the genocide of Jews.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-over-450-un-aid-agency-employees-gaza-are-military-operatives-2024-03-04/

 

[Coyote]

Oh please. The U.N. is a horrifically anti-Israel, antisemitic body with HUNDREDS of their employees linked to the Islamic terrorist group of HAMAS, sworn to the genocide of Jews.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-over-450-un-aid-agency-employees-gaza-are-military-operatives-2024-03-04/

“Israel says”

Inside Israel's allegations against U.N. workers in Gaza

The fate of the U.N.’s aid agency for Palestinians is hanging in the balance after Israel’s allegations that U.N. workers participated in the Oct. 7 Hamas terror attacks.

www.nbcnews.com