Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Arctish]

3) it is tolerable for an attack to kill an innocent regardless of whose civilian he or she is.

4) it is not tolerable for an attack to kill an innocent regardless of whose civilian he or she is.

5) it is tolerable to fail to consider whether an attack might kill innocents.

6) it is not tolerable to fail to consider whether an attack might kill innocents.

7) it is tolerable for an attack to kill an innocent if the objective can be achieved without endangering innocents.

8) it is not tolerable for an attack to kill an innocent if the objective can be achieved without endangering innocents.

 

[Swammerdami]

It is sometimes said that Aristotle's Law of the Excluded Middle set Western civilization back by at least a thousand years.

It's a binary situation, there's no middle to exclude.

In your comic book view of the world, that is a valid conclusion. But we are in the real world, so there is almost a thick middle.

Where's the middle?

1) It is tolerable for an attack to kill an innocent.

2) It is not tolerable for an attack to kill an innocent.

I'm lost. Loren has shown a textbook example of why there IS often a thick middle that cannot be excluded. Loren, do you adhere to #1 ? Or to #2 ? Or to some "middle" position, and if so why can you include a middle others are required to exclude?

I'm not sure what Loren is arguing here. Should I cite Jeanne Gouffroi, the innocent and beautiful lass killed by a stray bullet on D-Day? Or just mention that in Genesis 18, I-Am-That-I-Am Himself, Moon God of the Habiru, announces that he will spare the City of Sodom if he finds fifty righteous people therein. Perhaps a massacre is permitted if no more than 49 innocents perish. But this threshold is fuzzy: Abraham the Habiru bargains I-Am-That-I-Am down to a threshold of ten. Sodom perishes anyway; apparently there were nine or fewer righteous.

(I've always thought it weird how Abraham bargains his God down in chapter 18. Why didn't Yahweh just strike Abraham down for such impudence?)

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Sorry, I haven't been following the conversation from its root, but only the recent posts over Loren's sentence.

We can look at quite a few logical scenarios as has been done.

To add- most things have degrees along some continuum or are spectra. So, look at each word:

• tolerable
• attack
• innocent

There is a degree of innocence. A comic book view is that everyone in Gaza is guilty, though, so it would be difficult to have a rational discussion with someone espousing such weird views. There is a degree to "attack" in terms of severity, frequency, duration and other measurable features. Remember the Israeli cabinet member who said they might as well use nuclear missiles? Tolerability is a term that is sometimes used in clinical studies, but even more generally beyond that is a thing in degrees. What does it mean for a thing to be tolerable? You get annoyed with it, you vomit because of it, you have a panic attack or heart attack, you simply get a little nervous, it makes you uncomfortable, or you simply blink your eyes like Homer Simpson, so there's a bit of a grey area that can be measured... meanwhile, in polling, we often see measures of opinions such as strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree.

Finally, the answer to the question may change over time as applied to Gaza. So, in the immediacy of a need to get hostages, collateral damage of civilians' lives may be viewed as okay, I "strongly agree" it is necessitated, but then collectively as more and more dead Palestinians start piling up and it becomes 34,000+, a person may then have a "strongly disagree" opinion on the necessity of killing more Palestinians.

 

[Shadowy Man]

If there’s no middle then wouldn’t the two options be either:

1) Israel does nothing to defend itself
2) Israel carpet bombs the entire Gaza Strip to ensure full elimination of Hamas

Clearly there is a middle. But the arguments lie in how many civilian casualties are “acceptable” given the situation and the military goals.

 

[Copernicus]

Secretary Blinken has urged Hamas to accept the proposed ceasefire agreement, which he characterizes as Israel's "extraordinarily generous" offer.

See: U.S. pushes for Gaza cease-fire, seeing narrow window for a deal before Israel launches Rafah assault

What he left unsaid was that Israel has not endorsed the agreement, which it helped to draft. I would not be surprised if Israel objected to an agreement by Hamas to take the deal, because I don't think that Netanyahu really wants to end the attacks on Palestinians. Blinken is hoping that an agreement by Hamas would force Israel to accept it anyway.

 

[TomC]

I would not be surprised if Israel objected to an agreement by Hamas to take the deal, because I don't think that Netanyahu really wants to end the attacks on Palestinians.

I honestly think that Netanyahu and his supporters have pretty much given up on peace with their neighbors and are not concerned about much but Israeli security.

It would be completely understandable and would match the situation.
Tom

 

[Harry Bosch]

I would not be surprised if Israel objected to an agreement by Hamas to take the deal, because I don't think that Netanyahu really wants to end the attacks on Palestinians.

I honestly think that Netanyahu and his supporters have pretty much given up on peace with their neighbors and are not concerned about much but Israeli security.

It would be completely understandable and would match the situation.
Tom

From what I hear: a great majority of Israelis have given up hope for peace since the disgusting acts of 10.7.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I would not be surprised if Israel objected to an agreement by Hamas to take the deal, because I don't think that Netanyahu really wants to end the attacks on Palestinians.

I honestly think that Netanyahu and his supporters have pretty much given up on peace with their neighbors and are not concerned about much but Israeli security.

It would be completely understandable and would match the situation.
Tom

From what I hear: a great majority of Israelis have given up hope for peace since the disgusting acts of 10.7.

Maybe that’s why they let it happen, since apparently the Israelis had good intelligence that an attack like that was imminent.

 

[Copernicus]

I would not be surprised if Israel objected to an agreement by Hamas to take the deal, because I don't think that Netanyahu really wants to end the attacks on Palestinians.

I honestly think that Netanyahu and his supporters have pretty much given up on peace with their neighbors and are not concerned about much but Israeli security.

It would be completely understandable and would match the situation.
Tom

From what I hear: a great majority of Israelis have given up hope for peace since the disgusting acts of 10.7.

Well, if that is what you have heard, then it must be true. Anyway, Tom was not talking about the majority of Israelis, who have pretty much given up support of Netanyahu and his supporters. Netanyahu and his supporters appear to be trying to bring about their version of "From the sea to the river"--incorporation of Gaza and the West Bank into the expanded state of Israel.

 

[TomC]

Maybe that’s why they let it happen, since apparently the Israelis had good intelligence that an attack like that was imminent.

It was not just Israel.
UN had a bunch of staff on the ground. Iran funded a bunch of the military installations. Lots of people knew about it.
Nobody did anything to prevent it, that I know about.
Tom

 

[TomC]

I would not be surprised if Israel objected to an agreement by Hamas to take the deal, because I don't think that Netanyahu really wants to end the attacks on Palestinians.

I honestly think that Netanyahu and his supporters have pretty much given up on peace with their neighbors and are not concerned about much but Israeli security.

It would be completely understandable and would match the situation.
Tom

From what I hear: a great majority of Israelis have given up hope for peace since the disgusting acts of 10.7.

Well, if that is what you have heard, then it must be true. Anyway, Tom was not talking about the majority of Israelis, who have pretty much given up support of Netanyahu and his supporters. Netanyahu and his supporters appear to be trying to bring about their version of "From the sea to the river"--incorporation of Gaza and the West Bank into the expanded state of Israel.

How do you suppose loss of support will affect Likud behavior. Step back or ramp up the destruction while they can?
Tom

 

[Copernicus]

I would not be surprised if Israel objected to an agreement by Hamas to take the deal, because I don't think that Netanyahu really wants to end the attacks on Palestinians.

I honestly think that Netanyahu and his supporters have pretty much given up on peace with their neighbors and are not concerned about much but Israeli security.

It would be completely understandable and would match the situation.
Tom

From what I hear: a great majority of Israelis have given up hope for peace since the disgusting acts of 10.7.

Well, if that is what you have heard, then it must be true. Anyway, Tom was not talking about the majority of Israelis, who have pretty much given up support of Netanyahu and his supporters. Netanyahu and his supporters appear to be trying to bring about their version of "From the sea to the river"--incorporation of Gaza and the West Bank into the expanded state of Israel.

How do you suppose loss of support will affect Likud behavior. Step back or ramp up the destruction while they can?
Tom

I don't believe that Likud has any room to step back. They are on a precipice. I couldn't begin to predict what they will do, but I don't think they feel a step backward would allow them to remain in power.

 

[TomC]

I don't believe that Likud has any room to step back. They are on a precipice. I couldn't begin to predict what they will do, but I don't think they feel a step backward would allow them to remain in power.

By "step back", I meant cease fire or something. Step back from using violence to protect Israel from Palestine violence.
Tom

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Gaza: Israeli PM Netanyahu says Rafah attack will happen regardless of deal - BBC News

The Israeli prime minister says the invasion will proceed "with or without" a truce with Hamas.

www.bbc.com

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Isn't that too much?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

@LaughingDog

I can't find your post where you asked for the link but I did find your post:

Merged - Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

And Netanyahu has other reasons for not wanting the resolution to work. However, the resolution doesn't hurt, and its real value is the dash of cold water it splashes in Netanyahu's face. He is racing to pull off his Rafah attack, and everyone is warning him that it will just make the...

iidb.org

Now, is this an admission that any civilian deaths are unacceptable, or is it an attempt to derail?

Neither to yet another of your ironic excluded middle fallacies.

It's a binary situation, there's no middle to exclude.

In your comic book view of the world, that is a valid conclusion. But we are in the real world, so there is almost a thick middle.

Where's the middle?

1) It is tolerable for an attack to kill an innocent.

2) It is not tolerable for an attack to kill an innocent.

You took position #2.

No, I did not. Perhaps if you’d produce my statements that apparently misled you, this confusion of yours can be cleared up.

Do you not understand hyperlinks? Because I was linking to your post.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

3) it is tolerable for an attack to kill an innocent regardless of whose civilian he or she is.

4) it is not tolerable for an attack to kill an innocent regardless of whose civilian he or she is.

5) it is tolerable to fail to consider whether an attack might kill innocents.

6) it is not tolerable to fail to consider whether an attack might kill innocents.

7) it is tolerable for an attack to kill an innocent if the objective can be achieved without endangering innocents.

8) it is not tolerable for an attack to kill an innocent if the objective can be achieved without endangering innocents.

None of these are other options to the distinction that was made. 4 of yours are subcases of the already presented options and the other two are about planning, not action.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is sometimes said that Aristotle's Law of the Excluded Middle set Western civilization back by at least a thousand years.

It's a binary situation, there's no middle to exclude.

In your comic book view of the world, that is a valid conclusion. But we are in the real world, so there is almost a thick middle.

Where's the middle?

1) It is tolerable for an attack to kill an innocent.

2) It is not tolerable for an attack to kill an innocent.

I'm lost. Loren has shown a textbook example of why there IS often a thick middle that cannot be excluded. Loren, do you adhere to #1 ? Or to #2 ? Or to some "middle" position, and if so why can you include a middle others are required to exclude?

I'm not sure what Loren is arguing here. Should I cite Jeanne Gouffroi, the innocent and beautiful lass killed by a stray bullet on D-Day? Or just mention that in Genesis 18, I-Am-That-I-Am Himself, Moon God of the Habiru, announces that he will spare the City of Sodom if he finds fifty righteous people therein. Perhaps a massacre is permitted if no more than 49 innocents perish. But this threshold is fuzzy: Abraham the Habiru bargains I-Am-That-I-Am down to a threshold of ten. Sodom perishes anyway; apparently there were nine or fewer righteous.

(I've always thought it weird how Abraham bargains his God down in chapter 18. Why didn't Yahweh just strike Abraham down for such impudence?)

All of your "middle" is measuring the degree of option #1.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If there’s no middle then wouldn’t the two options be either:

1) Israel does nothing to defend itself
2) Israel carpet bombs the entire Gaza Strip to ensure full elimination of Hamas

Clearly there is a middle. But the arguments lie in how many civilian casualties are “acceptable” given the situation and the military goals.

No. That's an issue of how many casualties are tolerable. Laughing dog chose the option of zero being acceptable.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't believe that Likud has any room to step back. They are on a precipice. I couldn't begin to predict what they will do, but I don't think they feel a step backward would allow them to remain in power.

By "step back", I meant cease fire or something. Step back from using violence to protect Israel from Palestine violence.
Tom

And that's what he's talking about. The Israeli electorate isn't going to accept peace at present with Hamas still having the hostages.