I have to wonder if those who meekly lament the "tragic but unavoidable" deaths in Gaza would agree to simply lay down their lives for the greater good if they and their families were the ones seeking shelter amid the rubble.
The commander who was killed is committed to the murder of every person in Israel. He has recently succeeded in completing a small part of this plan, and would continue to do so without being stopped. I find it nothing short of incredible that this is posed as an abstract philosophical question without the relevant context. It is as if the Western audience are all children who cannot somehow fathom the reality of Hamas.
That wasn't the question though. The question was whether Israel's indiscriminate bombing of Gaza can be justified as proportionate militarily considering the large amount of civilian deaths. It doesn't really matter if there were one or 5 or 50 Hamas commanders in there. The question is: is it justified to bomb 5000 civilians to death knowingly in order to kill 5 or 50 legitimate enemy combatants (be they high or low ranking).
No one has argued that Hamas shouldn't be stopped that I've seen. It's the means of stopping them that is (I would say legitimately) up for debate.
I haven’t been following the Israel-Gaza news closely enough lately to have a firm view on how much this should/shouldn’t apply to the current situation, but generally shouldn’t one second-order consideration be to not be too sensitive to opponent actions that endanger civilians, due to the “don’t negotiate with hostage-takers” principle?
For example, if you will refrain from airstriking enemy combatants if they are mixed in with enemy civilians, that incentivizes those combatants to mix in with civilians, thus putting the civilians in more danger. It seems like the best strategy would be some level of combination of the first-order principle of minimizing civilian casualties and the second-order principle of not shaping your decision-making in such a way as to incentivize your opponent to endanger civilians. What are your thoughts on this?
A bit like the fallacy of special pleading: dropping bombs on a population is a good way of dealing with a situation, but it wouldn't be so in case I was the target of the bombs because +... add your special status here.
According to Jewish law, you're not allowed to redeem Jewish captives for an exorbitant price. (The base price is roughly equivalent to the price of that person in the slave market.)
“One does not ransom captives for more than their value because of Tikkun Olam (literally: “fixing the world”; for the good order of the world; as a precaution for the general good) and one does not help captives escape because of Tikkun Olam.”
This Mishnah was codified by the standard codes of Jewish law. The Babylonian Talmud (ibid.) gives two different explanations for this takkanah (rabbinic enactment):
A) “because of the [financial] burden on the community”;
B) “so that they [=the robbers] should not seize more captives”–i.e., paying a high ransom for captives will encourage kidnappers to kidnap more Jews and demand still higher ransoms.
The Talmud does not decide which explanation is correct, so halakhic authorities throughout the ages stressed one or the other, leading to different conclusions. Rashi, for example, says that if you accept the first explanation, a relative could pay an excessive ransom, because that does not place a financial burden on the community; whereas according to the second explanation, a relative may not pay the high ransom because that will still encourage the kidnappers to kidnap more Jews.
This will be a very unpopular opinion, but there aren't 10s of millions of Israelis or Americans (or any other country except Afghanistan, South Asian and African countries) illegally residing in other countries with the overwhelming majority not having highly regarded skills or professions. If a couple of million Gazans die today, for example Turkey can give the same amount of Levantine Arabs instead (they have around 10 million of them and nobody including themselves are happy about this) and nobody will know the difference. There are just too many unwanted populations of them everywhere which devalues them by simple supply and demand. If 1 deplorable American with no skills living in Oxy country somewhere died every time a Gazan died, I think nobody would oppose that as well. Once the dogma of giving the same value to every human being is lifted, all is very clear.
Yeah; I favor assassination, myself; aiming at the top of the pyramid. Killing foot soldiers is barely better than killing civilians. Killing generals is excellent...
The top of the pyramid - politicians particularly, and big shots more generally - of course dislike this line of thinking. Assassination markets could solve a lot of problems and flatten the pyramid considerably.
Those of us who can see the future or alternative worlds might be able to answer the question 'do you think Israel would have done this'. If you press me for 'my' answer, I'd provide it... but I prefer to "answer a question with another question": under the circumstances you describe (where the civilians in question are Israeli, or American), SHOULD Israel (nevertheless) strike (foreseeing the deaths of these "hostages" by Hamas, albeit through Israel)? (ie not WOULD they, by SHOULD they - Morally speaking.)
Personally I concur with 'doctrines have developed whereby the foreseen, but unintended killing of civilians as a byproduct of trying to hit military targets is permissible', and hence it would be JUST as OBLIGATORY (and not merely 'permissible') to eradicate such toxic Evil - regardless of the ethnicity of the poor victims, or even who they vote for (including such Vile lowlifes). I will talk to my struggle with 'proportionality' in a moment - because, I confess, I do have a problem with this view if/when the figures become inordinate -, but by way of analogy, the basis for my view goes along these lines: you have an aggressive Cancer, killing a body. While one must OF COURSE aim to minimise the amount of "healthy tissue" removed in the extraction of that Cancer, there is no amount of "surgery" that is unacceptable when parts of the Cancer will be left to destroy the poor body; the body is being KILLED BY the Cancer - the absolute priority MUST be to remove it - UTTERLY! - for the SAKE of the body with all of it's (remaining) organs! - even knowing some healthy tissue will be lost (hopefully, a minimum). And so I HOPE Israel sees the Morality of that and hence WOULD act accordingly regardless of the hostages' ethnicities, and, that this is what is reflected in your poll - NOT an indifference to specifically the Ethnicity of the civilians as might be suggested. I guess it is human nature to care more about those "closer to home" and hence understandable to some extent, but my personal experience with the Jewish Community, is that in practically every case, they feel (almost as) outraged by the deaths of Gazan civilians as they do about their "own"... AT THE HANDS OF HAMAS - it is VITAL to note.
Having said that, I will admit that it is similarly my experience to suspect that 'No' - they would NOT carry out those raids if their own citizens were in peril, DESPITE understanding that it would be the moral thing to do. I wonder if this "spiritual" malady/guilt/shortfall is the hidden, mystical, conceptual root of the current conflict - ie: an actual shortfall in PRACTICAL integrity, moral courage, and real selflessness, when it is put to the test in actuality, rather that theory? Virtuous talk is cheap.
By implication, I go further than the ICJ against Hamas, but mainly against the IDF, in my mercifully short piece When Not Targeting Civilians Is Targeting Civilians > https://substack.com/@charlesfiddespayne/note/c-47788661
To answer your question...Seeing as how Israel has received billions of American taxpayer dollars to build their country up, US provided weapons stockpiles, and US government provided security training, I don't think the Israeli government would think twice about how many innocent civilians its military kills. Effectively, Israel has all of the power in this war against Palestine, because the most powerful country in the world, America, supports it.
Historically the ratio of civilian :military deaths in war was roughly equal. In the 20th century we got a lot better at bombing, though, and the ratio went up a lot. German architecture's instructive; in the 20th-century, at least, priests were usually at construction sites, and from the air you can see the pattern of new architecture where the bombers flew. Some of it is the human shield problem; kinda like the block/charge problem in basketball...
"If that camp had been filled with thousands of Israelis plus some Hamas targets, instead of Palestinians plus some Hamas targets, do you think Israel would have done this?"
"I’d suggest that a good test for proportionality is this: would you still be doing it if it were your own civilians?"
There is a subtle but important difference here. "Would it be morally - well, 'morally' to the extent war even can be moral - correct to do so if those were your own civilians" and "would it be anything short of a political suicide to do so if those were your own civilians" are different questions.
I have to wonder if those who meekly lament the "tragic but unavoidable" deaths in Gaza would agree to simply lay down their lives for the greater good if they and their families were the ones seeking shelter amid the rubble.
I honestly can't believe I've never heard this obvious point enunciated before.
This comic was apparently made years ago: https://ifunny.co/picture/there-was-a-hamas-base-in-that-press-building-there-sxFD7sFc8
The commander who was killed is committed to the murder of every person in Israel. He has recently succeeded in completing a small part of this plan, and would continue to do so without being stopped. I find it nothing short of incredible that this is posed as an abstract philosophical question without the relevant context. It is as if the Western audience are all children who cannot somehow fathom the reality of Hamas.
That wasn't the question though. The question was whether Israel's indiscriminate bombing of Gaza can be justified as proportionate militarily considering the large amount of civilian deaths. It doesn't really matter if there were one or 5 or 50 Hamas commanders in there. The question is: is it justified to bomb 5000 civilians to death knowingly in order to kill 5 or 50 legitimate enemy combatants (be they high or low ranking).
No one has argued that Hamas shouldn't be stopped that I've seen. It's the means of stopping them that is (I would say legitimately) up for debate.
Great article!
I haven’t been following the Israel-Gaza news closely enough lately to have a firm view on how much this should/shouldn’t apply to the current situation, but generally shouldn’t one second-order consideration be to not be too sensitive to opponent actions that endanger civilians, due to the “don’t negotiate with hostage-takers” principle?
For example, if you will refrain from airstriking enemy combatants if they are mixed in with enemy civilians, that incentivizes those combatants to mix in with civilians, thus putting the civilians in more danger. It seems like the best strategy would be some level of combination of the first-order principle of minimizing civilian casualties and the second-order principle of not shaping your decision-making in such a way as to incentivize your opponent to endanger civilians. What are your thoughts on this?
Note: edited to make phrasing more clear
A bit like the fallacy of special pleading: dropping bombs on a population is a good way of dealing with a situation, but it wouldn't be so in case I was the target of the bombs because +... add your special status here.
According to Jewish law, you're not allowed to redeem Jewish captives for an exorbitant price. (The base price is roughly equivalent to the price of that person in the slave market.)
See here:
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/ransoming-captive-jews/
“One does not ransom captives for more than their value because of Tikkun Olam (literally: “fixing the world”; for the good order of the world; as a precaution for the general good) and one does not help captives escape because of Tikkun Olam.”
This Mishnah was codified by the standard codes of Jewish law. The Babylonian Talmud (ibid.) gives two different explanations for this takkanah (rabbinic enactment):
A) “because of the [financial] burden on the community”;
B) “so that they [=the robbers] should not seize more captives”–i.e., paying a high ransom for captives will encourage kidnappers to kidnap more Jews and demand still higher ransoms.
The Talmud does not decide which explanation is correct, so halakhic authorities throughout the ages stressed one or the other, leading to different conclusions. Rashi, for example, says that if you accept the first explanation, a relative could pay an excessive ransom, because that does not place a financial burden on the community; whereas according to the second explanation, a relative may not pay the high ransom because that will still encourage the kidnappers to kidnap more Jews.
This will be a very unpopular opinion, but there aren't 10s of millions of Israelis or Americans (or any other country except Afghanistan, South Asian and African countries) illegally residing in other countries with the overwhelming majority not having highly regarded skills or professions. If a couple of million Gazans die today, for example Turkey can give the same amount of Levantine Arabs instead (they have around 10 million of them and nobody including themselves are happy about this) and nobody will know the difference. There are just too many unwanted populations of them everywhere which devalues them by simple supply and demand. If 1 deplorable American with no skills living in Oxy country somewhere died every time a Gazan died, I think nobody would oppose that as well. Once the dogma of giving the same value to every human being is lifted, all is very clear.
Yeah; I favor assassination, myself; aiming at the top of the pyramid. Killing foot soldiers is barely better than killing civilians. Killing generals is excellent...
The top of the pyramid - politicians particularly, and big shots more generally - of course dislike this line of thinking. Assassination markets could solve a lot of problems and flatten the pyramid considerably.
If there was ever a good use case for small weaponized assassination drone swarms, this would be it.
Thank you for your question Tim.
Those of us who can see the future or alternative worlds might be able to answer the question 'do you think Israel would have done this'. If you press me for 'my' answer, I'd provide it... but I prefer to "answer a question with another question": under the circumstances you describe (where the civilians in question are Israeli, or American), SHOULD Israel (nevertheless) strike (foreseeing the deaths of these "hostages" by Hamas, albeit through Israel)? (ie not WOULD they, by SHOULD they - Morally speaking.)
Personally I concur with 'doctrines have developed whereby the foreseen, but unintended killing of civilians as a byproduct of trying to hit military targets is permissible', and hence it would be JUST as OBLIGATORY (and not merely 'permissible') to eradicate such toxic Evil - regardless of the ethnicity of the poor victims, or even who they vote for (including such Vile lowlifes). I will talk to my struggle with 'proportionality' in a moment - because, I confess, I do have a problem with this view if/when the figures become inordinate -, but by way of analogy, the basis for my view goes along these lines: you have an aggressive Cancer, killing a body. While one must OF COURSE aim to minimise the amount of "healthy tissue" removed in the extraction of that Cancer, there is no amount of "surgery" that is unacceptable when parts of the Cancer will be left to destroy the poor body; the body is being KILLED BY the Cancer - the absolute priority MUST be to remove it - UTTERLY! - for the SAKE of the body with all of it's (remaining) organs! - even knowing some healthy tissue will be lost (hopefully, a minimum). And so I HOPE Israel sees the Morality of that and hence WOULD act accordingly regardless of the hostages' ethnicities, and, that this is what is reflected in your poll - NOT an indifference to specifically the Ethnicity of the civilians as might be suggested. I guess it is human nature to care more about those "closer to home" and hence understandable to some extent, but my personal experience with the Jewish Community, is that in practically every case, they feel (almost as) outraged by the deaths of Gazan civilians as they do about their "own"... AT THE HANDS OF HAMAS - it is VITAL to note.
Having said that, I will admit that it is similarly my experience to suspect that 'No' - they would NOT carry out those raids if their own citizens were in peril, DESPITE understanding that it would be the moral thing to do. I wonder if this "spiritual" malady/guilt/shortfall is the hidden, mystical, conceptual root of the current conflict - ie: an actual shortfall in PRACTICAL integrity, moral courage, and real selflessness, when it is put to the test in actuality, rather that theory? Virtuous talk is cheap.
Since you wrote this piece, the situation in Gaza has got alot worse, and the ICJ has made its first (of many) rulings > https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf
The Atlantic Council has put together a good spread of expert opinion on the ICJ's pronouncement, ranging from Israel's supporters being put on notice to implications for prosecuting PRC > https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/experts-react/experts-react-what-the-international-court-of-justice-said-and-didnt-say-in-the-genocide-case-against-israel/
By implication, I go further than the ICJ against Hamas, but mainly against the IDF, in my mercifully short piece When Not Targeting Civilians Is Targeting Civilians > https://substack.com/@charlesfiddespayne/note/c-47788661
To answer your question...Seeing as how Israel has received billions of American taxpayer dollars to build their country up, US provided weapons stockpiles, and US government provided security training, I don't think the Israeli government would think twice about how many innocent civilians its military kills. Effectively, Israel has all of the power in this war against Palestine, because the most powerful country in the world, America, supports it.
Update, there's confusion on the ground about IDF supposedly bombing an ambulance convoy because of Hamas terrorists. I can't even.
Historically the ratio of civilian :military deaths in war was roughly equal. In the 20th century we got a lot better at bombing, though, and the ratio went up a lot. German architecture's instructive; in the 20th-century, at least, priests were usually at construction sites, and from the air you can see the pattern of new architecture where the bombers flew. Some of it is the human shield problem; kinda like the block/charge problem in basketball...
"If that camp had been filled with thousands of Israelis plus some Hamas targets, instead of Palestinians plus some Hamas targets, do you think Israel would have done this?"
"I’d suggest that a good test for proportionality is this: would you still be doing it if it were your own civilians?"
There is a subtle but important difference here. "Would it be morally - well, 'morally' to the extent war even can be moral - correct to do so if those were your own civilians" and "would it be anything short of a political suicide to do so if those were your own civilians" are different questions.