• Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Because it is extremely disingenuous to frame it like this.

    The hell it is, that’s just an excuse for not wanting to answer the question.

    My question gets down to the crux of the point, where the arguing from all of us comes from, and what should be done next comes from. And it needs answering.

    Even in this hypothetical scenario

    It’s not hypothetical, it’s happening right now, in real time, in front of us.

    you absolutely have the responsibility to try to save that innocent person’s life as well as your own.

    So does that mean you attack or not attack the person trying to kill you? Who’s life is more important, your own, or the person being used as a shield?

    While we could imagine hypothetical scenario where killing civilians is justified, it is pretty clear that is not the scenario Israel is facing right now.

    Well, Israel has to go into Gaza to destroy Hamas, and Hamas is using Palestinian citizens for shields, so that’s exactly the scenario Israel is facing right now.

    You can’t hand-wave that away, because it’s uncomfortable to deal with.

    • Sparking@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes, the carpet bombing campaign has been Israeli troops going into Gaza. Oh wait, no it hasn’t they have been amassing reservists at the border.

      This includes multiple of my relatives who are Israeli reservists. Obviously I do not want them to be put into harms way, but I fail to see how carpet bombing a place where 2 million people live does that. Perhaps you have some magical insight that my Jewish reservist relatives don’t.

      Starving them out, cutting off water, power to hospitals… this isn’t pre-emptively attacking terrorists using human shields, its cruel and unusual collective punishment, and even the govt. leaders of Israel don’t bother to try to justify it when they are actually asked. Their response to these questions from journalists haven’t been “these are human shields.” The response has been “you didn’t talk about dresden in WWII.” Just disgusting.

      • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Perhaps you have some magical insight that my Jewish reservist relatives don’t.

        All I was trying to do was get a conversation going on the ethics of attacking someone who’s using third-party innocence as shields, and not literally pass judgment on what’s going on on the ground today, just using it as an example for the overall ethical discussion.

        There was a scifi book I read some decades ago they had the exact same scenario, and I was just trying to get input from today’s Humanity to see if it jives with the solution that the author of the novel had come up with.

        People are being too emotional and defensive to have these kind of conversations though it seems.

        I was just trying to create content on Lemmy for us to read.

        • Sparking@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you want to talk about ethics on Lemmy, go create an ethics discussion community or host your own server. Discussing “ethics” in the context of Israel’s actions and policies is something that I have done over and over and over, unproductively. In less tense times, it is usually stuff like “should driving on highways be illegal on saturdays around the orthodox community?” and stuff like that.

          If you come onto a thread that is specifically about what is going on Israel right now, and say “I’m just trying to have an ethical discussion,” it comes off as extremely disingenuous. I’m sorry.

          • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            If you come onto a thread that is specifically about what is going on Israel right now, and say “I’m just trying to have an ethical discussion,” it comes off as extremely disingenuous. I’m sorry.

            You’re taking my words out of context of the whole conversation that’s happening, and being intellectually dishonest.

            I was speaking about that question, as a “jumping off point” to the larger discussion on what’s happening in Gaza right now.

            Again, no it’s not disingenuous because it covers what’s being discussed in the very same topic. It’s real time and it’s happening.

            You cannot hand wave that away as much as you want to. Both can be true, and allowed.

            You’re just being emotional and defensive when you don’t need to be, to protect your team.

            I’m not attacking your team, I’m just trying to have a conversation.

            • Sparking@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              De-railing a conversation is a very well recognized form of logical fallacy. De-railing a thread is considered very poor etiquette on internet forums. I’m sorry for assuming we were having a conversation about the topic of the thread.

              • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                De-railing

                One person’s derailing is another person’s continuing and/or expanding.

                I’m sorry for assuming we were having a conversation about the topic of the thread.

                I accept your apology.

      • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, the carpet bombing campaign has been Israeli troops going into Gaza. Oh wait, no it hasn’t they have been amassing reservists at the border.

        You don’t see the carpet bombing as a step one and step two, which is coming very soon, is Israel actually going into Gaza with force, with all those reservists they called up?

        • Sparking@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, but I don’t understand how carpet bombing protects them or helps them rescue hostages. They will still be in grave danger if they enter gaza, perhaps even more danger in this environment. It’s hard to pick out any military doctrine that suggests otherwise. This has been a repeated criticism of this type of military activity, across campaigns all over the world and recent history. I supposed you could compare it to allied bombing of axis forces, but I would argue that those campaigns were carried out as part of a much more stringently determined military strategy, rather than as a per reactionary action.

          • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            They will still be in grave danger if they enter gaza, perhaps even more danger in this environment.

            The opposite, actually. There would be less places for Hamas to attack/sniper from, and easier to see the battlefield and all the participants in it.

            • Sparking@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes, I can acknowledge the tactical logic of it. But this strategy hasn’t played out very well in just about every modern conflict ever.