IDF begins evacuating civilians from eastern Rafah northward

[Shusha]

I feel it is important to be accurate when throwing certain terms out - or at least state why you feel something is xyz.

Agree.

Genocide, Nazi, Hitler, racist, antisemite, pogrom, concentration camps. These are words with very powerful historic events behind them and real people who suffered.

I'd argue that two of those things do not belong in this category.

To misuse them diminishes the meaning and devalues their suffering.

Could not agree more, which is why it needs to be called out when people misuse them.

...Genocide is huge, so are war crimes because they can and have led to a slaughter of people on par with genocide.

Oops. And here is where I have to call you out (see above). This statement attempts to create an equivalency between "genocide" and "things that are on par with genocide". It is a misuse. War crimes, while horrific, are not equivalent to genocide and it is a misuse of the term "genocide" to lace them together for exactly the reasons you stated (see above) - it diminishes and devalues the meaning. And that diminishing and devaluing of the language becomes demonizing a collective people for the terrible thing, when it is not the terrible thing.

But the term “war crimes” doesn’t conote the horror that the term genocide does, it is more distant and can convey <snip> So I understand why people us “genocide” in some cases, there isn’t an adequate term to cover it.

Yes. Exactly. That is the problem. People use "genocide" in order to close that distance. It is not because they don't have a word, or can't come up with a word, for what they "really" mean. It is not that they lack the capacity for precision in speech. It is because they are seeking a way to close that distance and bring horror into conversation. They are actively seeking to adopt language which evokes the specific most terrible horror, when no such horror exists.

And this squishy, shifting of language seems to be applied to Israel in unique ways.

 

[CowboyTed]

You can't kill Hamas because it isn't a person but a political movement..

Sunni we don't agree on much but we agree here...

Hamas is a Guerilla force built upon a Political movement...

Hamas support in Sept was around 35%, they were forced by Egypt to call an election after almost 20 years.
Fatah were going to win that election comfortably. Fatah are more moderate and want a two state solution.

Oct 7th was a poke the bear moment.. A War Crime to get a response... Iran wanted it because they wanted kill the deal going ahead with Saudis...

IDF response was predicable and it was stupid. Isreal overreaction (which was expected) increased support for the more hardline Hamas from both Gaza (they are the only ones defending them) and all over Arab Countries (who fund them)... And yes, Hamas get the support and they statrted it...

Hamas is now polling in Gaza at 59%...

Well Done Isreal... Idiotic...

 

[Lisa558]

Agree.

I'd argue that two of those things do not belong in this category.

Could not agree more, which is why it needs to be called out when people misuse them.

Oops. And here is where I have to call you out (see above). This statement attempts to create an equivalency between "genocide" and "things that are on par with genocide". It is a misuse. War crimes, while horrific, are not equivalent to genocide and it is a misuse of the term "genocide" to lace them together for exactly the reasons you stated (see above) - it diminishes and devalues the meaning. And that diminishing and devaluing of the language becomes demonizing a collective people for the terrible thing, when it is not the terrible thing.

Yes. Exactly. That is the problem. People use "genocide" in order to close that distance. It is not because they don't have a word, or can't come up with a word, for what they "really" mean. It is not that they lack the capacity for precision in speech. It is because they are seeking a way to close that distance and bring horror into conversation. They are actively seeking to adopt language which evokes the specific most terrible horror, when no such horror exists.

And this squishy, shifting of language seems to be applied to Israel in unique ways.

I am jumping in here about the discussion of genocide v war crimes. The implication I got from Coyote is that while Israel is not guilty of genocide, it IS guilty of war crimes. What war crime has Israel committed?

Of course, the Gazans have committed war crimes, as carried out by their elected leadership and supported by most of them, on October 7.

 

[Lisa558]

Agree.

I'd argue that two of those things do not belong in this category.

Could not agree more, which is why it needs to be called out when people misuse them.

Oops. And here is where I have to call you out (see above). This statement attempts to create an equivalency between "genocide" and "things that are on par with genocide". It is a misuse. War crimes, while horrific, are not equivalent to genocide and it is a misuse of the term "genocide" to lace them together for exactly the reasons you stated (see above) - it diminishes and devalues the meaning. And that diminishing and devaluing of the language becomes demonizing a collective people for the terrible thing, when it is not the terrible thing.

Yes. Exactly. That is the problem. People use "genocide" in order to close that distance. It is not because they don't have a word, or can't come up with a word, for what they "really" mean. It is not that they lack the capacity for precision in speech. It is because they are seeking a way to close that distance and bring horror into conversation. They are actively seeking to adopt language which evokes the specific most terrible horror, when no such horror exists.

And this squishy, shifting of language seems to be applied to Israel in unique ways.

And P.S. That shifting of language that is applied to Israel in unique ways is, of course, a double standard driven by antisemitism.

 

[Sunni Man]

That shifting of language that is applied to Israel in unique ways is, of course, a double standard driven by antisemitism.

That's comical because most Jews like you are all about having double standards.

 

[Shusha]

I am jumping in here about the discussion of genocide v war crimes. The implication I got from Coyote is that while Israel is not guilty of genocide, it IS guilty of war crimes. What war crime has Israel committed?

Coyote has said outright that she does not believe Israel is committing genocide, and agreed that we need to be careful with our language as misuse of language diminishes and devalues. She then turns around and claims that Israel is committing war crimes on par with genocide, thus tainting Israel with the genocide ugliness even as she insists she doesn't . It is an insidious misuse of language meant to contain Israel in the "evil" category.

With respect to war crimes, I haven't seen any evidence that Israel is committing war crimes in a systematic way. Which is not to say that it is not possible, just that I don't have evidence. What most people offer as "evidence" is rhetoric of the same type as noted above: misuse of language intended to herd Israel into the "evil" category. Examples include: equating evacuation with ethnic cleansing; dismissing use of civilian locations for military advantage; claims of bombing refugee camps; labelling convicted criminals as hostages; and every bit of nonsense about concentration camps and open air prisons.

More reasonable arguments (and Coyote often makes reasonable arguments) would include: lack of distinction and lack of proportionality.

The lack of distinction argument fails because this requirement must be met by both parties to the conflict. Israel has an obligation to target combatants, but Hamas has an equal obligation to ensure that combatants are recognizable and separate from the civilian population. Since Hamas fails to meet its obligations, this war crime is committed by Hamas, not Israel.

The proportionality argument is an impossible one to answer by those of us sitting halfway around the world at our laptops for the simple reason that we don't have accurate knowledge of how Israel makes proportionality formulas and decisions, and most of us don't have a good comparison of similar conflicts and similar evaluations. We certainly have evidence of Israel showing remarkable restraint.

There is a very real, visceral, and understandable discomfort with deciding how many innocent civilians are acceptable incidental harm when targeting a military objective. It is a cold calculation. Twenty family members for one Hamas leader? Five? Fifty? A hundred? How many innocent civilian lives is a tunnel worth? Empathetic and caring people will always want it to be zero. If you don't want it to be zero, you've lost part of your humanity. But as ugly as it is, that's not how proportionality works in law.

 

[José]

Originally posted by Sunni Man
That's comical because most Jews like you are all about having double standards.

No shit, Sherlock...

Democracy in America and jewish supremacism in Palestine.

 

[Lisa558]

Coyote has said outright that she does not believe Israel is committing genocide, and agreed that we need to be careful with our language as misuse of language diminishes and devalues. She then turns around and claims that Israel is committing war crimes on par with genocide, thus tainting Israel with the genocide ugliness even as she insists she doesn't . It is an insidious misuse of language meant to contain Israel in the "evil" category.

With respect to war crimes, I haven't seen any evidence that Israel is committing war crimes in a systematic way. Which is not to say that it is not possible, just that I don't have evidence. What most people offer as "evidence" is rhetoric of the same type as noted above: misuse of language intended to herd Israel into the "evil" category. Examples include: equating evacuation with ethnic cleansing; dismissing use of civilian locations for military advantage; claims of bombing refugee camps; labelling convicted criminals as hostages; and every bit of nonsense about concentration camps and open air prisons.

More reasonable arguments (and Coyote often makes reasonable arguments) would include: lack of distinction and lack of proportionality.

The lack of distinction argument fails because this requirement must be met by both parties to the conflict. Israel has an obligation to target combatants, but Hamas has an equal obligation to ensure that combatants are recognizable and separate from the civilian population. Since Hamas fails to meet its obligations, this war crime is committed by Hamas, not Israel.

The proportionality argument is an impossible one to answer by those of us sitting halfway around the world at our laptops for the simple reason that we don't have accurate knowledge of how Israel makes proportionality formulas and decisions, and most of us don't have a good comparison of similar conflicts and similar evaluations. We certainly have evidence of Israel showing remarkable restraint.

There is a very real, visceral, and understandable discomfort with deciding how many innocent civilians are acceptable incidental harm when targeting a military objective. It is a cold calculation. Twenty family members for one Hamas leader? Five? Fifty? A hundred? How many innocent civilian lives is a tunnel worth? Empathetic and caring people will always want it to be zero. If you don't want it to be zero, you've lost part of your humanity. But as ugly as it is, that's not how proportionality works in law.

I agree with your observations about “squishy language.” There is no doubt in my mind that those hollering about genocide are 1) driven by an anti-Jew bias, or perhaps outright ignorance, or 2) intentionally riling up hate for Israel and Jews. To be willing to admit that Israel is not guilty of genocide - a horrific evil - but then state that what they are doing is “on par” with genocide is accusing them of the same degree of horrific evil.

I also see this “squishy” language being used repeatedly as a way to demonize Jews without admitting that the target of the hostility is indeed Jews by using the substitute word “Zionists.” The vast, vast majority of Jews support the idea of a Jewish state, save perhaps some radical Jews on the left and some ultra-religious sects within Israel. Thus, an antisemite speaking contemptuously of “Zionists” is smearing almost all Jews, and he knows it.

 

[Coyote]

I rather think it is, but not in the way you are imagining.

The people of Gaza are actually capable. The resources, and co-ordination, and scale required to build the infrastructure of "resistance" as demonstrated in this war: the smuggling tunnels, the escape tunnels, the protection tunnels, the hostage network, the intelligence, the number of weapons, the military tactics, the invasion details, the funding are not a shoddy or half-assed effort. This is serious intent and execution.

Yes. And what makes that any different the Russians for example, when they invaded Ukraine? Serious intent was there. Yet we are not holding the Russian people collectively responsible for the actions of their government are we? Just the Palestinians. A double standard?

The people of Gaza are believed not to be capable. Ask yourself why that is.

Why aren’t the North Koreans?
Why aren’t the people of Afghanistan?
Why isn’t Haiti?
Why isn’t Sudan?
DNC?

Why are so many unable to rid themselves of harsh, repressive violent regimes? There are many reasons, multiple reasons, but Gaza seems to be uniquely singled for not ridding itself of Hamas.

Well, no one can truly know what they would do faced with this sort of situation. But I have moral clarity about where I stand vis a vis the "lack of privilege" which would force one to participate in atrocities and war crimes. And I can't imagine a situation where that moral clarity would sway.

I can. I hope I never have to. What happens you have a form of Sophie’s choice?

You know your government is using resources to construct military infrastructure and stockpiling weapons in schools.

What does your moral clarity have you do? Hamas tolerates no dissent and executes those seen as snitches or “collaborating” with Israel, even in the most benign of exchanges. Israel is your enemy as well. Your state is blockaded. I am really curious about what exactly you would do and what extent you would be willing to risk your family when keeping your head down and saying nothing is the safer option? I admire those who do, who risk their lives to stand for what they believe in or fight authoritarian regimes, but I don’t judge people who don’t, particularly when they can’t leave and they have children to be responsible for, because they are responsible for other lives, not just their own. I have moral clarity, but I can’t say what I would do in such a situation.

If my husband/father/uncle/son invaded the US and brought home a kidnapped, abused, raped, woman and her two small children and he asked me to help guard them and to cook them meals and make sure they had water and the occasional shower I would abso-fucking-lutely do whatever it took to keep them safe until I could get them home. I'd like to think I'd be smart about it and get us all out alive. I am probably over-estimating my abilities, but certainly not my moral clarity.

That is easy to say when in live in a country like the US or Canada, where you can count on your government to not kill you and you have laws that protect you and your hostages if you got them out. Added bonus, you don’t have to worry about the hostile country the hostages were taken from, shooting or arresting you.

But you are missing the "do they want to" aspect of my comment. You seem to believe that the people of Gaza really do want to overthrow their government, remove terrorist factions, abandon "resistance", collaborate with Israel, choose water over weapons. Sadly, the people of Gaza are just incapable of doing it.

I think they are fully capable of doing it. I just don't think they want to.

The “do they want to“ is a nonsensical question because it is essentially unanswerable. Why does organized crime continue to exist and be sheltered in neighborhoods in our countries and no one does anything? Usually, it is because either they get something from it or they are too scared. Both are equally valid answers and both coexist in the same area.

 

[Coyote]

Coyote has said outright that she does not believe Israel is committing genocide, and agreed that we need to be careful with our language as misuse of language diminishes and devalues. She then turns around and claims that Israel is committing war crimes on par with genocide, thus tainting Israel with the genocide ugliness even as she insists she doesn't . It is an insidious misuse of language meant to contain Israel in the "evil" category.

Bullshit. What you are saying is that when Russia invades Ukraine and slaughters thousands of civilians …. Literally shooting them down in the street (not “collateral” damage) it is not on par with genocide. I beg to differ and I find the fact that you devalue and diminish thousands of innocent lives taken in this manner is somehow less evil than thousands of innocent lives taken genocide. Your moral clarity is not so clear.

With respect to war crimes, I haven't seen any evidence that Israel is committing war crimes in a systematic way. Which is not to say that it is not possible, just that I don't have evidence. What most people offer as "evidence" is rhetoric of the same type as noted above: misuse of language intended to herd Israel into the "evil" category. Examples include: equating evacuation with ethnic cleansing; dismissing use of civilian locations for military advantage; claims of bombing refugee camps; labelling convicted criminals as hostages; and every bit of nonsense about concentration camps and open air prisons.

More reasonable arguments (and Coyote often makes reasonable arguments) would include: lack of distinction and lack of proportionality.

The lack of distinction argument fails because this requirement must be met by both parties to the conflict. Israel has an obligation to target combatants, but Hamas has an equal obligation to ensure that combatants are recognizable and separate from the civilian population. Since Hamas fails to meet its obligations, this war crime is committed by Hamas, not Israel.

The proportionality argument is an impossible one to answer by those of us sitting halfway around the world at our laptops for the simple reason that we don't have accurate knowledge of how Israel makes proportionality formulas and decisions, and most of us don't have a good comparison of similar conflicts and similar evaluations. We certainly have evidence of Israel showing remarkable restraint.

MOST of these questions are impossible to answer from our armchairs but I notice that doesn’t stop you from making claims about the Palestinians. Two standards here?

There is a very real, visceral, and understandable discomfort with deciding how many innocent civilians are acceptable incidental harm when targeting a military objective. It is a cold calculation. Twenty family members for one Hamas leader? Five? Fifty? A hundred? How many innocent civilian lives is a tunnel worth? Empathetic and caring people will always want it to be zero. If you don't want it to be zero, you've lost part of your humanity. But as ugly as it is, that's not how proportionality works in law.

No. There is not. Because with that argument you are avoiding uncomfortable discussions and you are opening the door to justifying a wholesale slaughter of people.

 

[Lisa558]

Why is Israel being compared to Russia?

Russia invaded its neighbor, unprovoked. Israel is defending itself against another Ocrober 7th massacre by Hamas savages by eradicating them before they do it again, as they said they would.

A more fitting comparison would be between Russia and Gaza, given that both invaded its neighbor. In the latter case, the intent was to brutally torture to death as many Jews - infants, children, teens, women, men - as they could find. Their stated goal is to wipe out Isrsel and all her Jews,

The only ones who have stated their goal is genocide are the Muslim Monsters.

 

[Shusha]

No. There is not. Because with that argument you are avoiding uncomfortable discussions and you are opening the door to justifying a wholesale slaughter of people.

Far from it. Let's do the uncomfortable discussion about the formula for proportionality. I'm always willing to have any discussion.

 

[Shusha]

I beg to differ and I find the fact that you devalue and diminish thousands of innocent lives taken in this manner is somehow less evil than thousands of innocent lives taken genocide. Your moral clarity is not so clear.

After considering a wide range of responses to this, some of very dark humor, I am going to ask for clarification here. Because it seems to me that you are making the argument that evil is measured by outcome, and not, at least in part, by intent. This doesn't seem to correlate to other points of discussion we have had.

Concerning the measurement of evil, is there a moral difference between a goal of exterminating every living being belonging to a collective and, well, any other goal? Is there a moral difference between a precision strike, knowing that some innocents will die and an indiscriminate strike, knowing that some innocents will die? Is there a moral difference between deliberately serving peanuts to a guest with a known, severe, life-threatening peanut allergy and serving peanuts to said guest with no knowledge of their allergy?

If these moral differences exist between intent and outcome, I would suggest that being very precise and not-squishy with our language is a moral imperative.

 

[Lisa558]

After considering a wide range of responses to this, some of very dark humor, I am going to ask for clarification here. Because it seems to me that you are making the argument that evil is measured by outcome, and not, at least in part, by intent. This doesn't seem to correlate to other points of discussion we have had.

Concerning the measurement of evil, is there a moral difference between a goal of exterminating every living being belonging to a collective and, well, any other goal? Is there a moral difference between a precision strike, knowing that some innocents will die and an indiscriminate strike, knowing that some innocents will die? Is there a moral difference between deliberately serving peanuts to a guest with a known, severe, life-threatening peanut allergy and serving peanuts to said guest with no knowledge of their allergy?

If these moral differences exist between intent and outcome, I would suggest that being very precise and not-squishy with our language is a moral imperative.

You are terrific.

 

[Lisa558]

Another element to this discussion, if I may: if the Democrats are condemning Israel for killing too many Palestinians, then why is Biden withholding the XO precision weapons, thus forcing Israel to take a broader swipe and kill ever more?

We already know HAMAS wants as many Palestinians dead as possible, since they are blocking their escape and hiding behind them - with the goal to cast Israel as the demon. Has Biden, with Obama obviously directing him, joined up with the HAMAS objective to see as many Palestinians killed, as well, and thus help the terrorist group villify Israel?

 

[Coyote]

Another element to this discussion, if I may: if the Democrats are condemning Israel for killing too many Palestinians, then why is Biden withholding the XO precision weapons, thus forcing Israel to take a broader swipe and kill ever more?

We already know HAMAS wants as many Palestinians dead as possible, since they are blocking their escape and hiding behind them - with the goal to cast Israel as the demon. Has Biden, with Obama obviously directing him, joined up with the HAMAS objective to see as many Palestinians killed, as well, and thus help the terrorist group villify Israel?

Biden is withholding a very narrow range of the weapons he is sending to Israel, in particular ones that are specifically contradicted in dense urban fighting. This actually won’t make a huge difference in weaponry available to Israel to conduct it’s war, it is more symbolic than anything.

These ones: https://www.cnn.com/gaza-israel-big-bombs/index.html

 

[Lisa558]

Biden is withholding a very narrow range of the weapons he is sending to Israel, in particular ones that are specifically contradicted in dense urban fighting. This actually won’t make a huge difference in weaponry available to Israel to conduct it’s war, it is more symbolic than anything.

These ones: https://www.cnn.com/gaza-israel-big-bombs/index.html

1) They are precision weapons. Link below.

2) And let’s say it’s mostly symbolic. Whay tyoe of awful message is it sending to the world as Israel tries to destroy HAMAS and free remaining hostages (including Americans)? It shows that, to paraphrase a remark Obama made, that when the winds of war are ugly between Muslim terrorists and Israel who just suffered a barbaric massacre, he will make sure Israel eases up on the terrorists.

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/u-s-delays-sending-precision-weapons-to-israel-253f12f0

 

[Coyote]

After considering a wide range of responses to this, some of very dark humor, I am going to ask for clarification here. Because it seems to me that you are making the argument that evil is measured by outcome, and not, at least in part, by intent. This doesn't seem to correlate to other points of discussion we have had.

I think you assume a lot, so don’t claim I say things I didn’t because we are once again treading into the “untouchable Israel” realm. I try to say things as specifically as I can because I mean it specifically. I have also been referencing non-IP conflicts (particularly Ukraine) or general principles so as to avoid the “everyone is attacking Israel unfairly” refrain.

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

After October 7, the elements existed within Israel that could have led to genocide: a horrific attack on civilians with deliberate atrocities committed on them; a long standing conflict; a righteous anger; historic cultural attitudes towards Arabs; and the means and ability to do so.

I posted a thoughtful article that went into that.

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. You can’t just take this ala carte and choose what fits your personal bias (and to be clear and specific, I am using “you/your” in general sense, not you specifically.)

Now…the part about measuring evil by outcome and not intent. I do not know where you get that unless it is because I DO bring outcome into the equation.

Intent matters a lot. In law it is the difference between murder and homicide.

In regards to evil, intent has to be there.

There are different moral considerations attached depending on intent.

• A car driving at night doesn’t see a pedestrian run out between cars and strikes him.
• A drunk driver, who lost his license due to DUI’s, swerves and strikes another car, killing a family.
• a robber committing a robbery shoots a police officer.
• A person see’s someone in the street and decides to kill him for fun.
• A person kills another solely because he is an (insert ethnic/religious/racial/sexual group of choice), something our laws single

These all lead to horrible outcomes, but they aren’t all evil or the same degree of evil, because of intent.

Then you have “outcome” which you seem to imply does not matter in defining evil, but it clearly does in how we define crimes. We recognize that not only does intent matter, but so do the results. That is the difference between the above and these examples: intent AND outcome.

A kid with a gun gets pissed off in a drug deal and shoots tbe dealer.

A mass shooter enters an elementary school and guns down dozens of students and teachers.

or..in terms of war….

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.

All are examples found various conflicts, both historic and current, around the world.

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).

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

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.).

Then there is outcome, which I presume is what you are accusing me of, when claiming I am making it only about numbers. However, outcome is the difference between all the examples in the first group and the second group, or the difference between a mass shooting and a single shooting, and outcome is what is the same in 6-8.

So how can you say outcome doesn’t carry any weight in the moral calculous?

Concerning the measurement of evil, is there a moral difference between a goal of exterminating every living being belonging to a collective and, well, any other goal?

What is the difference between that and a goal of exterminating a population (through massacres, starvation, concentration camps, cultural irradication) in order to absorb territory and impose cultural supremacy over it when it comes to what is evil? (referencing Stalin/Ukraine, NOT Israel/Palestine).

Is there a moral difference between a precision strike, knowing that some innocents will die and an indiscriminate strike, knowing that some innocents will die? Is there a moral difference between deliberately serving peanuts to a guest with a known, severe, life-threatening peanut allergy and serving peanuts to said guest with no knowledge of their allergy?

Absolutely, as in the examples I gave above.

If these moral differences exist between intent and outcome, I would suggest that being very precise and not-squishy with our language is a moral imperative.

I disagree: the moral differences are tied to intent and outcome TOGETHER.

Intent: I hate redheads and want to kill them.

Intent AND Outcome: I hate readheads and killed one.

 

[Blaster]

I think you assume a lot, so don’t claim I say things I didn’t because we are once again treading into the “untouchable Israel” realm. I try to say things as specifically as I can because I mean it specifically. I have also been referencing non-IP conflicts (particularly Ukraine) or general principles so as to avoid the “everyone is attacking Israel unfairly” refrain.

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

After October 7, the elements existed within Israel that could have led to genocide: a horrific attack on civilians with deliberate atrocities committed on them; a long standing conflict; a righteous anger; historic cultural attitudes towards Arabs; and the means and ability to do so.

I posted a thoughtful article that went into that.

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. You can’t just take this ala carte and choose what fits your personal bias (and to be clear and specific, I am using “you/your” in general sense, not you specifically.)

Now…the part about measuring evil by outcome and not intent. I do not know where you get that unless it is because I DO bring outcome into the equation.

Intent matters a lot. In law it is the difference between murder and homicide.

In regards to evil, intent has to be there.

There are different moral considerations attached depending on intent.

• A car driving at night doesn’t see a pedestrian run out between cars and strikes him.
• A drunk driver, who lost his license due to DUI’s, swerves and strikes another car, killing a family.
• a robber committing a robbery shoots a police officer.
• A person see’s someone in the street and decides to kill him for fun.
• A person kills another solely because he is an (insert ethnic/religious/racial/sexual group of choice), something our laws single

These all lead to horrible outcomes, but they aren’t all evil or the same degree of evil, because of intent.

Then you have “outcome” which you seem to imply does not matter in defining evil, but it clearly does in how we define crimes. We recognize that not only does intent matter, but so do the results. That is the difference between the above and these examples: intent AND outcome.

A kid with a gun gets pissed off in a drug deal and shoots tbe dealer.

A mass shooter enters an elementary school and guns down dozens of students and teachers.

or..in terms of war….

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.

All are examples found various conflicts, both historic and current, around the world.

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).

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

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.).

Then there is outcome, which I presume is what you are accusing me of, when claiming I am making it only about numbers. However, outcome is the difference between all the examples in the first group and the second group, or the difference between a mass shooting and a single shooting, and outcome is what is the same in 6-8.

So how can you say outcome doesn’t carry any weight in the moral calculous?



What is the difference between that and a goal of exterminating a population (through massacres, starvation, concentration camps, cultural irradication) in order to absorb territory and impose cultural supremacy over it when it comes to what is evil? (referencing Stalin/Ukraine, NOT Israel/Palestine).



Absolutely, as in the examples I gave above.


I disagree: the moral differences are tied to intent and outcome TOGETHER.

Intent: I hate redheads and want to kill them.

Intent AND Outcome: I hate readheads and killed one.

A nice exclamation but too long.

 

[Coyote]

1) They are precision weapons. Link below.

When it comes to 2-ton bombs, precision becomes meaningless. They are so huge, so devasting that it is impossible to avoid civilian casualties and extensive damage to surrounding infrastructure. That is why they are typically contraindicated for urban warfare with large civilian populations

Why the US paused the delivery of 2,000-pound bombs to Israel ahead of a possible Rafah attack

The U.S. paused a shipment of 2,000-pound bombs to Israel over concerns that the country has not adequately taken civilian safety into account in its upcoming military operation in Rafah.

apnews.com

The 2,000-pound bomb has multiple variants — some are designed to penetrate deep, underground targets while others detonate above ground and cause widespread damage. Depending on the variant, and whether the munition is dropped in an open or urban area, its blast radius can be as far as a quarter mile away or a much more confined area.​

The bombs are “dumb” or unguided bombs but can be turned into more precise weapons with the addition of Joint Direct Attack Munition kits, or JDAM kits which add a tail fin and navigation.​

​

That added kit enables troops to guide the munition to a target, rather than simply dropping it from a fighter jet onto the ground. The kits make the weapons more precise, but in a densely populated urban environment, a JDAM kit is not going to make much of a difference — a precise hit will still have the reach to kill unintended bystanders.​

Why would you want to use them in a place as densely packed now as Rafah is, especially when there appears to be no safe place for most of the civilian population to go?

2) And let’s say it’s mostly symbolic. Whay tyoe of awful message is it sending to the world as Israel tries to destroy HAMAS and free remaining hostages (including Americans)? It shows that, to paraphrase a remark Obama made, that when the winds of war are ugly between Muslim terrorists and Israel who just suffered a barbaric massacre, he will make sure Israel eases up on the terrorists.

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/u-s-delays-sending-precision-weapons-to-israel-253f12f0

The message being sent is very measured and clear. We support Israel, we support her right to defend herself, but we do not support the weapons we provide being used in what could be unlawful ways. It isn’t as though there are not other ways for Israel to fight Hamas.

By the way, Obama did not say that. In fact, these arms flowing to Israel are the result of a 38 billion dollar military aid package Obama gave Israel…the largest in our history. You should be saying thankyou Mr. Obama.